Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

ChangeType.update stac_dist/ERA5_global_climate_data/ERA5_global_climate_data.json #272

Open
wants to merge 11 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

fairicube-data
Copy link
Collaborator

{"filename": "ERA5_global_climate_data/ERA5_global_climate_data.json", "item_type": "stac_dist", "change_type": "Update", "user": "FAiRICUBE", "data_owner": true}

@mari-s4e
Copy link
Contributor

This data request aims at unifying multiple entries about the ERA5 data. It should replace #234, #235, #236, in that this PR refers to the full ERA5 data cube, while the previous ones referred to single dimensions.
All dimensions (e.g. temperature, precipitation...) are listed as keywords. @eox-cs1 is is enough or should single Band information be filled out?
The data source field points to the source actually used in the process (Google Cloud), while the Provenance fields refer to the data producer (ECMWF). @eox-cs1 is this correct, or should it be the other way around?
@Susannaioni does this data request fulfill your use case, too? That is, can it replace also #270 and #271?

@Susannaioni
Copy link

Hi @mari-s4e, yes this is good for us. Thank you!

@KathiSchleidt
Copy link
Member

@mari-s4e @Susannaioni I just checked against the metadata requirements, here my feedback:

  • License: this is mandatory, currently we have "other". I tried to see if I can find the Copernicus license in the list for this field, but finally gave up when I noticed how the alphabet loops around, so no chance to find. Created an issue
  • Owner/Organisation: while you mention ECMWF... in the provenance, I do think they should be mentioned under Organizations (Google Cloud as the provider makes sense under data source). Mussab has suggested adding organization roles, once we have this, we could add ECMWF as originator.
  • Formally bands are required, but to my view, this API record is an edge case, adding would be overkill, keywords are enough

@baloola is there any way we can manually edit License and Owner/Organisation so we can close this issue while you sort through the other issues listed above?

@Susannaioni
Copy link

Hi @KathiSchleidt, when I looked for the license I found that it's the 'creative commons attribution international' license. I don't have the link of the source where I read it now, but I'll have a look tomorrow.

@mari-s4e mari-s4e requested review from mari-s4e and removed request for eox-cs1 July 1, 2024 07:49
@mari-s4e
Copy link
Contributor

mari-s4e commented Jul 1, 2024

updated md record. @KathiSchleidt is it okay? I added only one band with 2m temperature, because the field is mandatory; other bands are listed as keywords

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants