1. LPDAAC/USGS_EROS CMR Metadata Reconciliation Meeting March 4-5, 2015

2. Reconciliation Agenda Day 1: – Ground Rules Review – Introduction and Overview – Expectations for this meeting – Process Review and Clarification – Metadata Holdings Review and Clarification Day 2: – Review and Brainstorm Options for Reconciliation – Identify Milestones for Decisions and Execution

3. Some Ground Rules/Requests Participate! All input is valued Ask Questions Share all relevant information Signal if we are going off-track Request a break if you need one Let me know how you think it is going

4. Introduction CMR Overview – https://wiki.earthdata.nasa.gov/display/CMR/Common+M etadata+Repository+Home https://wiki.earthdata.nasa.gov/display/CMR/Common+M etadata+Repository+Home LPDAAC’s Role as a Pathfinder DAAC Goals of this Effort – My Role – Link to Notes for Session: ADD ME Round the Room – Name and Role

5. Unified Metadata Model ECHO 10GCMD DIFEMS ISO 19115 Atom JSON … Ingest Adapter UMM-C … … UMM-G ECHO 10 UMM-S GCMD SERF UMM-V Visualization (GIBS) UMM-P Parameters/Variables (Giovanni AESIR) UMM-? Future Concepts

6. One submission per product/collection – ECHO or GCMD DIF record CMR as the authoritative source Short Name + Version/Entry ID Unification UMM Compliant (Collections and Granules) – Provisional/ESO Reviewed UMM-C May include products not in EMS/ECHO/GCMD BEDI/CDI Datasets are High Priority CMR Metadata Reconciliation End Goals PlanMergeClean

7. Expectations for this Meeting Metadata Format Selection CMR Submission Process Selection Implementation Overview and Milestones Timeline for Completion

8. Process Review and Clarification LPDAAC ECS – GCMD – ECHO USGS EROS – GCMD – ECHO Additional Details in Reconciliation Package

9. ECHO/GCMD Submission Process Questions Are these processes correct/current? Discrepancies or errors in these processes should be raised/clarified prior to reconciliation meeting. Assuming both providers will continue to submit separately? FTP Ingest needs to be deprecated

10. Metadata Holdings Review and Clarification Quick Identifiers Overview Approach to Developing the report LPDAAC ECS – GCMD – ECHO USGS EROS – GCMD – ECHO Questions from the CMR Team

11. Quick Identifiers Overview ECHO Dataset ID is roughly equivalent to the GCMD Entry Title. ECHO Short Name is roughly equivalent to the GCMD Entry ID. ECHO has an internal id (the catalog item id or echo_collection_id for collections) which is going to be equivalent to the CMR concept Id. This is not the same as any Entry ID, Entry Title, Short Name, Long Name or Dataset ID. The concept id is internal and mostly opaque (you can tell what the concept is and who the provider is, but otherwise, there is no meaning to the number). Finally a link, that should clear some stuff up: https://wiki.earthdata.nasa.gov/display/echo/ECHO+REST+Search+Guide#ECHORESTS earchGuide-AppendixB– NamethatData:SortingOutShortName,LongNameandEveryIdentifierinBetween

12. LPDAAC ECS 438 total collection records 249 collections with no associated entry ID Conventions naming collections – Entry ID = short name + version ID … mostly 48 collections with entry IDs that don’t resolve  From GCMD perspective – 203 missing, but we can guess using short name, entry title, short name + version … 88 “really missing”

13. USGS EROS 11 Collections in ECHO, 284 in GCMD Landsat 8 as a collection of collections – Landsat_8_OLI_TIRS_Pre-WRS-21 – Landsat_8_OLI_TIRS1 GCMD has some “USGS” collections that LPDAAC provides

14. Metadata Holdings Questions Do these collection counts seem correct based on your knowledge? Is there an easy way to account for the missing metadata reported? Does any collection metadata not currently part of the USGS EROS, LPDAAC belong in the CMR? ECHO only provides Archive and Processing Center, are these sufficient for data needs? Should additional roles, such as Distributor, be included?

15. More Metadata Holdings Questions As part of reconciliation, a decision needs to be made on what metadata format to be used for CMR ingest. Both USGS EROS and LPDAAC could choose all DIF format, all ECHO format, all ISO 19115-1/-2 or potentially a mixture of both, depending on circumstances and suitability. Long term, ISO 19115 would provide most flexibility and extensibility If DIF were extended to enable more complex geometries, would that change your recommendation for metadata format reconciliation? If DIF were extended to facilitate granules, would that change your recommendation for metadata format reconciliation?

16. Made with wurdle.com Questions?