Observations About This Content Standard

This file documents the results of the team working with this content standard.

Comments may address the technical standard itself, or the context in which it is provided (availability, documentation, working examples, etc.).

Team Experience

Please indicate the levels of experience of each of the team members with this standard (no names required), according to the following scale: 1=no experience, 2=slight knowledge, 3=moderate understanding/slight use, 4=significant use, 5=strong knowledge.

• Melanie Meaux - 5
• Luis Bermudez - 2
• Anthony Isenor - 1
• Scott McLean - 2
• Ingo Simonis - 2
• Cheryl Solomon - 2

Strengths

• mature user interface and access methods
• short list of inputs results in easy AD-I/DIF form completion
• intuitive search methods in DIF
• generalized nature of content makes searching feasible
• AD-I top level (Instrument Category) intuitive
• the “class” conceptual model is suitable, but class field name introduces confusion. Some sensors fit in multiple classes.
• Class field name at top level cross domains (e.g., instruments, deployment method, some are phenomenon specific; CTD falls under Profiler, conductivity sensors, gauges).

Recommendations, Weaknesses, Issues, and Unresolved Questions

The Group recommended that for the AD-I standard to evolve, those involved should consider forming a working group for insitu instruments. This group could focus on class keywords and how instance instruments fit within the AD-I.

Lessons learned about the standard and its usage

• users need to be careful about the vocabulary used
• the developers of AD-I need clear definition of new keywords (in progress)
• AD-I is not suitable for describing specific instances of instruments/sensors (but that is not its purpose)

Controlled Vocabularies Needed

• science controlled keywords - intuitive
• instrument controlled keywords - needs work

- - - - -

Resulting Specifications