One of the things we discovered is that the gmd:ProcessingLevel section is required in the gmd:MD_DataIdentification section.  This hasn't caused a problem for our ECS datasets, but some of our non-ECS datasets don't have this in our database.  Since the field is required, though, and we can't just use "missing", based on what we are doing elsewhere (such as in the unitsOfMeasure for the Tail Number property on a platform) is to use the term "Not Applicable", such as shown here:

<gmd:processingLevel gco:nilReason="missing">
<gmd:MD_Identifier>
<gmd:code>
<gco:CharacterString>Not Applicable</gco:CharacterString>
</gmd:code>
<gmd:codeSpace gco:nilReason="missing"/>
<gmd:description gco:nilReason="missing"/>
</gmd:MD_Identifier>
</gmd:processingLevel>

Is this the proper way to do this, or would there be another term that would be more appropriate in this situation?

Thanks!

  • No labels

1 Comment

  1. Erich Reiter

    Not Applicable is good for now.  I have also added the codeSpace for consistency with other identifiers that we use.  The ARC curation team and the CMR team are looking at enumerating this element. Currently in the UMM, it is a string.  I think "Not Applicable" will be a valid value.

                <gmd:processingLevel>
                <gmd:MD_Identifier>
                    <gmd:code>
                        <gco:CharacterString>Not Applicable</gco:CharacterString>
                    </gmd:code>
                    <gmd:codeSpace>
                        <gco:CharacterString>gov.nasa.esdis.umm.proessinglevelid</gco:CharacterString>
                    </gmd:codeSpace>
                    <gmd:description gco:nilReason="missing"/>
                </gmd:MD_Identifier>
            </gmd:processingLevel>