ࡱ> JLI -bjbjΚΚ 8Hf%> 87T!p"999}       ,"%  99 99} } 1} w^Ii  0!Q,&&}}8 !& :   Second IODE Workshop on Quality Control of Chemical and Biological Oceanographic Data Collections; sponsored by IOC/IODE. 22-25 October 2012, UNESCO/IOC Project Office for IODE, Oostende, Belgium  HYPERLINK "http://www.iode.org/index.php?option=com_oe&task=viewEventRecord&eventID=1022" http://www.iode.org/index.php?option=com_oe&task=viewEventRecord&eventID=1022 QC WORKSHOP INTRODUCTORY INFORMATION BACKGROUND Managing access, discovery, and exchange of multi-disciplinary oceanographic data on marine ecosystems requires scanning across multiple observing systems and temporal and spatial scales. Quality checks and quality flagging have been recognized to be of primary importance for oceanographic and marine meteorological data management. All major programmes and data centres have been developing and applying various systems of data quality verification and flagging. These systems are well developed and established for individual national and international programmes for marine meteorological and physical oceanographic data using a relatively homogenous data structure. Yet, when it comes to inter-disciplinary data exchange between national and international scientific programs, data centres, and other data management projects and organizations, established quality flagging systems often result in conflicts or quality information loss. This is specifically true when exchanging geochemical and biological data as discussed in the First IODE Workshop on Quality Control of Chemical and Biological Oceanographic Data Collections ( HYPERLINK "http://www.iode.org/index.php?option=com_oe&task=viewDocumentRecord&docID=5109" http://www.iode.org/index.php?option=com_oe&task=viewDocumentRecord&docID=5109). While a proposal on the quality flag (QF) scheme standard for oceanographic and marine meteorological data exchangewas developed after that workshop ( HYPERLINK "http://www.oceandatastandards.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46&Itemid=0" http://www.oceandatastandards.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46&Itemid=0), the goal of this upcoming workshop is to develop a data management framework to improve sharing and integrating research-quality biological and chemical quality information in ways useful for data exchange and decision making. RATIONAL Following requests on policies and best practices of and develop techniques and mechanisms for data exchange, IODE experts have summarized existing experience in data quality management in order to develop additional mechanisms and facilitate flows of data of different type and origin. Aqualityflag(QF)schemestandardforoceanographicandmarinemeteorologicaldata exchange( HYPERLINK "http://www.oceandatastandards.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46&Itemid=0" http://www.oceandatastandards.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46&Itemid=0)hasbeensubmittedfollowing theFirst IODE Workshop on Quality Control of Chemical and Biological Oceanographic Data Collections. The subject of the proposed quality flag scheme standard is to support and facilitate the EXCHANGE of oceanographic and marine meteorological data of different structure and generation of multi-disciplinary databases originating from different programs and sources. It is specifically aimed to support exchange of multi-disciplinary data, including meteorological, physical, chemical, and biological data. The proposed standard does not mandate individual established programmes and projects to change their quality flag systems for the proposed standard. The proposed quality flag scheme serves as a standard for current and future programs. When data of different origin and nature are exchanged or combined in a joint database, the proposed standard becomes essential, making it possible to combine various quality flags into one scheme, preserve original information on quality flags, add the results of additional quality checks, and effectively serve users of different levels and experience. A formal standard QF scheme for data exchange has never existed, but several quality flag schemes for specific programmes and types of data have been developed and discussed in IOC/IODE manuals and guides and elsewhere. However, when data of different types and origins are exchanged and combined or integrated, mapping one flagged dataset to another quality flag scheme often results in information loss because the existing quality flag schemes have been developed for specific projects and tasks, rather than multi-disciplinary oceanographic data exchange that preserves data quality information. The commonly used simple one-layer quality flag scheme with a limited number of quality codes makes it practically impossible to preserve information on the applied tests and changes. In practice, the existing quality flags of individual datasets are often removed and a new set of quality flags is generated for a joint database or for a specific project. This is especially true when chemical and biological data are combined with physical and meteorological data. The major foreseen advantage of the proposed QF scheme standard for oceanographic and marine meteorological data exchange is that it is a multi-level system. This makes it possible to separate information of data quality from data processing history, to preserve all quality flags on initial data sets and add information on newly applied quality tests. The primary level must be simple (similar to what has been previously proposed in IOC and WMO manuals and guides for data exchange and quality assessment) and strictly limited to data quality with unambiguous flag definitions. It offers quick access to quality information to assess the fitness for purpose of the data. The second level provides information on the applied quality tests, thus identifying and justifying the quality flag applied at the primary level as well as providing information on data processing history. The first level (FL) quality flag scheme is simple and only contains five entries ("good", "not evaluated", "questionable", "bad", "missing data"). The definition of the flags is generic in the sense that the flagging scheme can be applied to all types of data. The reason for a specific quality flag for a data point at the first level is justified by the list and results of applied quality tests, with details proclaimed in the second level (SL). While different tests can be applied and qualified as required, the critical and non-critical tests for data sets of different nature and origin and information on the tests and their results is completely preserved at the second level. OBJECTIVES TheproposedQFschemestandardhaspassedseveralroundsofreviewing( HYPERLINK "http://www.oceandatastandards.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46&Itemid=0" http://www.oceandatastandards.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46&Itemid=0). Reviews have generally supported the concept of using a multi-level quality flag scheme. At the same time, many questions have been raised about the list and technical implementation of tests for data quality evaluation and procedures for data processing. These questions are the major issues and topics for this workshop. The second-level quality flags are variable in their quantity and quality, summarizing information on the applied quality tests (e.g., excessive spike check, regional data range check) and data processing history (e.g., interpolated values, corrected value). This makes it possible to take into account experience and information from established programmes and projects (e.g., Argo, GTSPP, OceanSites, Qartod, SeaDataNet, IMOS, MMI, WOD) and provides a possibility for an additional, currently unforeseen second-level quality tests and procedures. What we propose addresses the recommendations of the IOC Manual on International Oceanographic Data Exchange (1965, 1967, 1973, 1976, 1991), the IOC Manual of Quality Control Procedures for Validation of Oceanographic Data (1993), and other documents of major oceanographic and WMO programmes that address data quality issues. Technical implementation of these recommendations and standardization of the recommended minimum list of quality checks, relationship between the first and second level flags, preservation of all quality flags from initial data sets in the exchange process remains open for discussion as the core issue of this workshop. Thus, the key expected outcomes for the planned Workshop are as follows: Minimum list of the second level (SL) tests and flags; Relationship between the first level (FL) and second level (SL) flags (critical and non-critical tests); Relationship between quality flag (QF) and actual data; Identify the SL flag codes; Relationship between existing QF and results of additional quality tests (closed vs. open SL flag list); Implementation of the proposed QF scheme. Recommendation to establish a quality control (QC) working group All these questions and issues are planned for discussion at the scheduled IODE workshop in 22-25 October 2012. We will highly appreciate your registration for this workshop at  HYPERLINK "http://www.iode.org/index.php?option=com_oe&task=viewEventRecord&eventID=1022" http://www.iode.org/index.php?option=com_oe&task=viewEventRecord&eventID=1022 and active participation. In view of the difficult financial situation of IOC and IODE only very limited support will be available for participants and it will be earmarked for participants from developing countries or invited experts.     PAGE  Page |  PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 4 bdz{! " o p q r ɿ۶wk_SG<4hmmH sH hh_mH sH hh(>*mH sH hh>U.>*mH sH hh&S5mH sH hh>U.5mH sH hh5mH sH jhQ0J5UmH sH h6h60J5mH sH hQjhQUh65mH sH h5mH sH h`h`5\"h`h`5KH$PJ\mH sH "h`hL5KH$PJ\mH sH $h5CJKH$PJ\aJmH sH {r  O!! "W$')M))) & Fgdgd>U.gdcgd[gdmgd%$a$gd>U.gd d@&gdL   ^ _      & 6 ? \ ] w x  % P T U o { ̶̶̶טטט׶׶}}}hZsWmH sH hPmH sH hh!mH sH hhmmH sH hmH sH hhmmH sH hh(mH sH hhmH sH hhT@mH sH hmmH sH hhR!mH sH hhxmH sH hh_mH sH 1{ op&)7;MXZ[꽹}u}u}u}u}u}u}u}m}e}hM$wmH sH hZsWmH sH hx/mH sH hhR!mH sH hhx_mH sH hhmmH sH jhQ0JUmH sH hhL0JmH sH hQjhQUhKH$PJ\mH sH hhLKH$PJ\mH sH hmH sH hhLmH sH hh(mH sH &*-?B (|}EFHKڿ~vrveWjhQ0JUmH sH hmhx/0JmH sH hQjhQUhh!mH sH hhcmmH sH hx/mH sH hhmmH sH hh(>*mH sH hh>U.>*mH sH hmmH sH hh_mH sH hZsWmH sH hhR!mH sH jhQ0JUmH sH hmhl:0JmH sH "K[eit!%-^u_ab|2>ǿǰǥǚNjǿǿtthh[mH sH hx`,hx`,>*mH sH hhm5>*\mH sH hhmH sH hh!mH sH hhJ5>*\mH sH hmH sH hhmmH sH hhbKH$PJ\mH sH hhbmH sH h|mmH sH hhcmmH sH ))+?dhTnxX[f{|Ԯ砒ynnhhRmH sH hh PmH sH hh P5>*mH sH hhR5>*mH sH hh5>*mH sH hhmH sH hh!mH sH h|mmH sH hv'mH sH hmH sH hhmH sH hh[mH sH hh[5>*mH sH *@NOS_cdU !!!! " "R"S"""###ɻ⥗vkc_cRDkjhQ0JUmH sH hmhl:0JmH sH hQjhQUhh>U.mH sH hh(>*mH sH hh>U.>*mH sH h|m>*mH sH hhc5>*mH sH hhcmH sH hhmH sH hh5>*mH sH hh P5>*mH sH hhxfmH sH hh PmH sH hhRmH sH hl:mH sH #$$$t%%%%F&P&&&&'''''(((()))))$)*)3)4)5)A)L)M)N)a)o)q)r)))))))))絭ӏӵӵyӄӄӄӄhhcmH sH hhmH sH hh3.mH sH h[Nh>U.mH sH h^"mH sH h[NmH sH hhmH sH hmH sH hh`mH sH h`mH sH hx`,hx`,5mH sH hh>U.mH sH hh>U.5>*mH sH /))))))))****$*&*0****++++r++++++#,$,q,r,,,,_-`-f-g-i-j-l-m-o-p-r-ĹĂzh/omH sH hmH sH jhQ0JUmH sH hh^iv0JmH sH hQjhQUh6mH sH hh^ivmH sH hmH sH hh3.mH sH hhimH sH hh/omH sH h`mH sH hhmH sH -)&*B***+`-a-b-c-d-e-f-h-i-k-l-n-o-q-r-{-|-}--$a$h]h &`#$gd dgd ]gd/o & Fgdr-s-y-z-{-|-}----------h6mH sH jhQUmHnHuh`mHnHujhQUhQh6 h60Jjh60JU-----gd/oh]h6&P1h:p6/ =!"#$% 666666666vvvvvvvvv662626>66662626666666666666666666666266666666666666666666hH6666666666666666626666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666266666666662 0@P`p28 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~ OJPJQJ_HmH nH sH tH R`R %Normal d CJOJQJ_HaJmHsHtH d@d L Heading 1ddd@&[$\$5CJ0KH$PJ\aJ0mH sH DA`D Default Paragraph FontRiR 0 Table Normal4 l4a (k ( 0No List B'`B %0Comment ReferenceCJaJ<@< %0 Comment TextCJaJNoN %0Comment Text CharCJOJQJ^JaJR@"R %0 Balloon Text dCJOJQJ^JaJNo1N %0Balloon Text CharCJOJQJ^JaJ@@B@ #l0List Paragraph ^m$@j@@ y=0Comment Subject5\foaf 0Comment Subject Char&5CJOJQJ\^JaJmHsHtH 4 @r4 E60Footer !NoN 0 Footer Char CJOJQJ^JaJmHsHtH .)@. E60 Page Number6U`6 m0 Hyperlink >*B*ph^o^ LHeading 1 Char*5CJ0KH$OJPJQJ\aJ0mH sH tH FV`F 0FollowedHyperlink >*B*ph>> 60HeaderdH$JoJ 60 Header CharCJOJQJaJmHsHtH PK!pO[Content_Types].xmlj0Eжr(΢]yl#!MB;.n̨̽\A1&ҫ QWKvUbOX#&1`RT9<l#$>r `С-;c=1g$ !)O^rC$y@/yH*񄴽)޵߻UDb`}"qۋJחX^)I`nEp)liV[]1M<OP6r=zgbIguSebORD۫qu gZo~ٺlAplxpT0+[}`jzAV2Fi@qv֬5\|ʜ̭NleXdsjcs7f W+Ն7`g ȘJj|h(KD- dXiJ؇(x$( :;˹! I_TS 1?E??ZBΪmU/?~xY'y5g&΋/ɋ>GMGeD3Vq%'#q$8K)fw9:ĵ x}rxwr:\TZaG*y8IjbRc|XŻǿI u3KGnD1NIBs RuK>V.EL+M2#'fi ~V vl{u8zH *:(W☕ ~JTe\O*tHGHY}KNP*ݾ˦TѼ9/#A7qZ$*c?qUnwN%Oi4 =3ڗP 1Pm \\9Mؓ2aD];Yt\[x]}Wr|]g- eW )6-rCSj id DЇAΜIqbJ#x꺃 6k#ASh&ʌt(Q%p%m&]caSl=X\P1Mh9MVdDAaVB[݈fJíP|8 քAV^f Hn- "d>znNJ ة>b&2vKyϼD:,AGm\nziÙ.uχYC6OMf3or$5NHT[XF64T,ќM0E)`#5XY`פ;%1U٥m;R>QD DcpU'&LE/pm%]8firS4d 7y\`JnίI R3U~7+׸#m qBiDi*L69mY&iHE=(K&N!V.KeLDĕ{D vEꦚdeNƟe(MN9ߜR6&3(a/DUz<{ˊYȳV)9Z[4^n5!J?Q3eBoCM m<.vpIYfZY_p[=al-Y}Nc͙ŋ4vfavl'SA8|*u{-ߟ0%M07%<ҍPK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-!pO[Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 -_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK] % H ===@ { K#)r-- ")--!#!ooZ E R##$q$%XXXXXX 68@!!8@0( 0tz0 B S  ?f%h%i%k%l%n%o%q%r%}%}%%%%%f%h%i%k%l%n%o%q%r%}%}%%%%%.bz ^`OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o p^p`OJQJo( @ ^@ `OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o P^P`OJQJo(.bu\5FplSm"8^"[5,m ]x*y Xf bn Y G;Ruwv'c9 !R!"`e"#^$(8(S(C)=E)K*+x`,tA-lo-3.>U.8/x/R4S4U_6z9 ;(<;y=kkAPNCLE]H?@BCDEFGHKRoot Entry F[ wM1Table%&WordDocument8HSummaryInformation(9DocumentSummaryInformation8ACompObj` F Microsoft Word 97-2004 DocumentNB6WWord.Document.8