June 20, 2018 at 12:27 pm #4936
Quality assurance checklist (QUACK)
GERICS has released QUACK version 2.0 in June 2018 that is based on the feedback you provided us with at the GA in April 2018. Check out the new version here: http://climateservice-global.eu/quality-assurance/
QUACK version 2.0 follows the same structure as QUACK version 1.0 with slight changes that facilitate the reporting. Check out the whole list changes here: http://climateservice-global.eu/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2018/06/List-of-changes-in-QUACK-template-version-2.0.pdf.
How to proceed:
The documentation of the quality assurance of the showcases is an ongoing process. While updating the progress report of your showcase, please also update the QUACK reporting. Your QUACK report will be published on your showcase website.
Maida and Juliane are happy to support you in applying QUACK and to discuss with you further steps. Drop a question here in the forum. If you have any further questions let us know. We could also offer to arrange individual phone calls / online meetings with you. We are also keen to receive your feedback!July 11, 2018 at 9:21 am #4965
We have transformed the QUACK template version 1.0 to QUACK template version 2.0 for the five showcases (METEODAT, MPI, NAWAPI, NCWQR, and TMU) and provided suggestions for improving their reporting templates.
As you know that the deadline for the progress report and QUACK report is approaching (10th August), and your QUACK reports will be published on your showcase website. So, if you need any assistance in filling in the QUACK reporting template version 2.0, please let us know. We will be happy to answer all your questions.
Moreover, if you want your QUACK reporting templates to be reviewed by us at GERICS, kindly send us your final QUACK report until 20th July.
Looking forward to hear from you.
July 16, 2018 at 2:54 pm #4973
- This reply was modified 7 months, 2 weeks ago by maida.
A few questions:
– One question under Completeness (Input) is “Do you have all available data sets considered?” but I don’t fully understand “all available data sets considered”, can you please explain the purpose of this item?
– About Metadata, do we have to provide for data used in C3S_422_Lot1_SMHI and if so is there any standard format?
– One question under Transparency (Output) is “Are the limits of provided information disclosed?” but I don’t fully understand this question. “limits” in what sense? “disclosed” in what sense? Please clarify.July 17, 2018 at 12:30 pm #4974
The answers to your questions are as follows;
– The purpose of the question is to show the suitability and credibility of the dataset you have used in the case study. This question assures that the selection of datasets has not been done randomly in the case study. According to my understanding you are supposed to consider only those models that are available in CDS. So, you could state here that five GCMs were downloaded from CDS. Later you could mention that did you consider all simulations that were available at that point of time? Or opted for a smaller ensemble for computational purposes since the emphasis was on the GCM.
– Metadata are very important. Metadata summarise basic information about data, making finding and working with data easier. Without it, data pretty much means nothing, which is why having a robust metadata management outfit is essential. That’s why as far as possible all produced data in the showcases should be provided with metadata. For standard format and in terms of climate impact indices, please see the Metadata standards for climate impact indicators: Ruth Petrie et al. 2016: http://www.clipc.eu/media/clipc/org/documents/other/metadata_standards_for_climate_impact_indicators_v1.4.pdf”
– Limits here refer to the limitation of the results. Disclosed means stated or mentioned. For this question, you just need to mention if there are any limitations of your results or not? If yes, so are they stated clearly?
MaidaJuly 24, 2018 at 8:43 am #4978
The metadata point is a good question – comprehensive metadata is included with the data provided on the web presence, and so I would assume that it should be enough to copy this into the QUACK where you have used this data ‘as is’. Any new data could refer back to this metadata, and perhaps include some further lineage so it is clear and transparent what has been done to the original dataset. Does that sound reasonable?July 24, 2018 at 2:20 pm #4979
Yes, this is correct. Any processing steps or changes to the original data set – in our case: the data provided on the web presence – should be reflected in the metadata.
QUACK also aims to cover additional data sets (e.g. local non-climate data sets) that are used for combining it with the original data provided by the project. Here it is important to pay special attention that also this newly created data is provided with the appropriate metadata information.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.