Open-form discussion notes:

- Lack of focus on Quality Assurance at QARTOD? QA is essential aspect.

- Need QC and QA… How to approach QA?

To data providers: Share algorithms, workflows, etc…

On metadata:
- Julie Bosch - Coming along nicely on info that needs to be captures. Focus on defining critical information, not how to fit it in a metadata format.

- On FGDC metadata - specifications manual is cumbersome.

More Metadata Discussion
Spear-headed by Steve Diggs…

Not here to “bash” metadata, but…

Why do we need metadata? We’ve always had it, but why do we need it?
With very few datasets, no need to worry about QC… didn’t need that info in the dataset. Smaller hard drives
mean less storage capacity, etc.

At present, more data being taken. Data volume is continually increasing. Advanced technology and instruments. But still stuck in a rut in metadata paradigms…. do we really need to integrate our data?

What is the data/metadata dividing line? A lot of “metadata” is more important… shouldn’t be defined as “metadata”.

Analogy of dog chasing car… we are chasing metadata objectives.

What would we do if we had PERFECT metadata for all datasets? What could or would we do?

Ontologies (top-down) vs. Folksonomies (bottom-up)
…oy.. too much to hype here right now… we are all taking stabs at this one.

iPod: bottom-up demand top-down design

Folksonomy for data discovery, ontology for data delivery

Ideal: Google search “waves data”. Returns lots of data in any format…