The Analysis and Review of CMR (ARC) Team is responsible for conducting metadata quality evaluations for NASA's metadata records in the Common Metadata Repository (CMR). This process involves both automated and manual reviews of metadata records. In order to prioritize ARC's findings, each metadata element evaluated during the review process is flagged with a color code (red, yellow, blue, or green) to indicate the urgency of each finding. The ARC Priority Matrix, outlined in more detail in the table below, describes the color code, the priority categorization, the justification and the expected action from the data provider. Specific ARC priority matrix details for each element are provided on the metadata curation concept wiki pages in the "Metadata Validation and QA/QC" section. ARC's metadata quality evaluations focus specifically on improving data discovery in the Earthdata Search Client, as well as promoting data accessibility and usability. With this goal in mind, the ARC priority matrix primarily focuses on metadata completeness, correctness and consistency.
It is the responsibility of the NASA data provider to resolve any issues found during ARC's metadata quality review. The color codes specify the urgency of any findings and therefore should assist the data provider in formulating a strategic plan to resolve issues. Color codes are also used by ARC to track the resolution of issues and to generate metadata quality metrics.
| Priority Categorization | Justification |
|---|---|
| Red = high priority finding | High priority findings emphasize several characteristics of metadata quality including completeness, accuracy, and accessibility. For high priority findings, completeness is measured by a metadata record's compliance with required UMM elements. Any UMM required elements that are missing or incorrect will be prioritized as red. Accuracy is assessed by comparing how well the metadata record describes the actual data. Incorrect or outdated information will be prioritized as red. Lastly, accessibility is evaluated by any barriers that may occur in accessing the described data. Therefore, broken URLs, broken services and incorrect persistent identifiers are prioritized as red. In general, high priority findings include (but are not limited to):
Findings flagged as red are required to be addressed by the data provider. |
| Yellow = medium priority finding | Medium priority findings emphasize consistency and completeness. Consistency is assessed by ensuring that similar information is presented the same way across collections. Consistency makes searching for data easier and more reliable for the user. For yellow findings, the idea of completeness is expanded to include information beyond what is required by the UMM. In summary, information that makes the metadata more complete and facilitates discovery for the user beyond UMM requirements is prioritized as yellow. In general, medium priority findings include (but are not limited to):
Data providers are highly encouraged to address yellow findings and are encouraged to provide a rationale for unaddressed items. |
| Blue = low priority finding | Low priority findings also focus on completeness, consistency, and accuracy. Any additional information that may be provided to make the metadata more robust or complete is categorized as blue. Additionally, any minor inaccuracies or inconsistencies are categorized as blue. In general, low priority findings include (but are not limited to):
Addressing blue findings are optional and up to the discretion of the data provider. Data providers are encouraged to provide a rationale for unaddressed blue items for the purposes of tracking updated quality metrics. |
| Green = no findings/issues | Metadata elements flagged green are free of issues and require no action on behalf of the data provider. |
Overview
Content Tools