Meetings notes: first meeting, 9/27/2012

WG VTC Thursday, September 27, 2012
Participants: Philip, Duane, Adam, Linda, Suzanne

There are two aspects to the prospective data package reports:

  1. Unit/attributes – what the report supplies
  2. What is the intended audience

The group agreed that there are several distinct groups who might wish to receive reports: Information Managers, LTER members such as the Executive Board and Site PIs, and select NSF employees such as program officers.

The purpose of these reports should be to gauge our progress in improving quality and volume of submitted datasets and NOT to compare sites with each other.

Things to be decided:

How often should reports be produced? It was noted that the timing and frequency may be dependent on the PASTA development timetable.
The presentation of reports for different audiences will need to be different e.g. graphs vs. tables; site detail vs. network summaries; etc.

An additional option might be to send out quarterly emails to LTER communities to report on progress and/or recent data sets published. This could also be a post on the LNO website.

It was agreed that the reports should be issued with respect to PASTA with the legacy metacat providing a baseline.

Current or future EML quality checks may result in some persistent errors across sites; this group can set the bar or change the bar (if we’re seeing a check that is a problem across the site, it may be a PASTA problem and not a site problem). This raises the question do we have a moving bar? (i.e. with changing standards, quality checks, PASTA features, etc.)


  1. Create a strawman diagram of the potential attributes for each report as a Google Doc – Philip.
  2. Create a new project (WG) on the IM website - Philip.
  3. Review the documents in the EML metrics working group project page on IM website – All.

Next Meeting (VTC): W/B 10/15/2012.