[Esip-preserve] Identifiers

[Bruce Barkstrom]

If we want a falsifiable definition of "dataset", what would
Mark classify as an "illogical arrangement of data"?
Maybe we could call it an "undataset" or some such.

Bruce B.

On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Curt Tilmes <Curt.Tilmes at nasa.gov> wrote:
> On 02/16/2012 11:12 AM, Lynnes, Christopher S. (GSFC-6102) wrote:
>>
>> At the risk of muddying the waters further, would you consider
>> deprecating the term "data set", given its ambiguity w.r.t. ISO
>> 19115 "dataset" which is actually much closer to a granule?  Maybe
>> use data collection instead?
>>
>> On Feb 16, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Curt Tilmes wrote:
>>>
>>> On 02/16/2012 10:54 AM, Mark A. Parsons wrote:
>>>>
>>>> To me a data set is simply a logical arrangement of data that has
>>>> meaning to a designated community.
>>>
>>>
>>> I like that definition -- it is broad enough to encompass my
>>> definition, which I can still use within my community.
>
>
> Well Mark's definition still fits a single granule -- it is a logical
> arrangement of data.
>
> Would my definition (ESDT+Collection) for the EOSDIS 'designated
> community' not be accommodated as an ISO 19115 "dataset"?
>
>
> --
> Curt Tilmes
> U.S. Global Change Research Program
> 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 250
> Washington, D.C. 20006, USA
>
> +1 202-419-3479 (office)
> +1 443-987-6228 (cell)
> _______________________________________________
> Esip-preserve mailing list
> Esip-preserve at lists.esipfed.org
> http://www.lists.esipfed.org/mailman/listinfo/esip-preserve