Subject: [Fwd: NESDIS Info Quality Meeting From: "Fran Holt" Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 15:20:20 -0400 To: mdemaria , "hank.drahos" , "Arnie.Gruber" , jkey , "Gary.Ellrod" , pmenzel , mitch Goldberg , Eric Bayler > FYI. The attached is a proposed law on data quality that is nearing its final review. This may impact some of the products we put into operations and archive. Fran ========================================= > Subject: NESDIS Info Quality Meeting > Resent-From: NESDIS.OD@noaa.gov > Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 11:05:41 -0400 > From: "Kurt J Schnebele" > Reply-To: kschnebele@nodc.noaa.gov > To: NESDIS.OD@noaa.gov, "Crowe Michael" , > "Hittelman Allen" > CC: "Glackin Mary" , > "Wooldridge Charles" > > I've scheduled a VTC for Wednesday 15 May 3:00-4:30 pm to discuss > the attached 'draft' information quality standards. All offices > should have a representative at this meeting. > > These standards are written to apply across NOAA. Present > wording is rough in spots. They are being reviewed by Commerce, > the lawyers, and people like you. Comments needed at this point > are whether you see any 'showstopper' problems in your office's > ability to comply with these standards. > > This is a difficult and potentially confusing issue. The NOAA > group drafting these standards has had many hours of discussion > trying to understand the meaning of the both the legislation > behind this requirement and the OMB Guidelines to implement it. > Hence, this meeting will be crucial to controlling the confusion > and apprehension about this among NESDIS offices. > > The standards as they would apply to NESDIS are based on some > simple concepts. Apart from reading the attached draft, ask > yourself whether you could answer yes to the following statements > about the information/products that your office makes available > to the public. > > 1) We use 'good' science in the methods/procedures to produce our > products. > > 2) Documentation explaining our current methods/procedures are > readily available and could be given to someone asking for them > (or they are distributed with the product when it's issued) > > 3) The source data behind any product can be given out to any > requestor or it is fully described in product documentation, and > there is a discussion of expected errors and/or characteristics > of that source data that somehow limit what it can be used for. > > 4) Products/Services (or the methods/procedures behind them) are > 'peer reviewed' at an appropriate level ... and we can prove that > these reviews have been done. [Determining what is the > 'appropriate level' and documenting the results of 'reviews' is a > challenge we need to resolve before October 1st] > > ******* Structure of the Standards ********* > The OMB Guidelines require us to address three aspects of > Information quality -- Utiltiy, Integrity, and Objectivity. The > attachment adopts the Commerce wording for Utility and Integrity > standards. The Objectivity portion is what we've tailored for > NOAA > > The 'Objectivity' standard varies between the NOAA-defined > information categories described in the attachment: -- Original > Data, Synthesized Products, Interpreted Products, Experimental > Products, Weather Warnings*, Natural Resource Plans*, and > Corporate Information. (I contend that the 2 asterisked > categories don't apply to NESDIS unless you can think of > examples). > > Note also the section on 'Administrative Correction Mechanism' > begining on page 11. The law requires that the public be able to > request a correction to information we've given out. This > section describes how that process will operate at the NOAA > level. Within NESDIS, each office/center will need the ability > to respond to such requests. I imagine that Office/Center > directors will sign off on 'intial decisions' regarding products > they produce and that 'appeals' will be signed off at the AA/DAA > level. > > ********* What's next? *************** > These standards will be posted for public comment and must be > finalized by October 1st. During July and August I anticipate a > redrafting of these standards based on those public comments. > > During this summer, NESDIS will also have to 'spruce up' or > 'prepare' the promised 'documentation' that describes the methods > and procedures behind our products and services. > > I'll also propose some 'training' during the summer so that each > office has at least one person who is knowledgable about the > intent and administrative details of this requirement. > > By the legislation, the whole process has to be operating October > 1, 2002. > -- > Kurt J. Schnebele > Deputy Director, National Oceanographic Data Center > Phone: 301-713-3270 x198 > Fax: 301-713-3300 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Name: Data Quality Guidelines May9.pdf > Data Quality Guidelines May9.pdf Type: Portable Document Format (application/pdf) > Encoding: base64 > Download Status: Not downloaded with message Fran, Marie would like you to attend this meeting. Please confirm your availability. Thanks. Susan -- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Susan Devine Secretary to Dr. Marie Colton Office of Research and Applications Phone: (301) 763-8127 x100 Fax: (301) 763-8108 I've scheduled a VTC for Wednesday 15 May 3:00-4:30 pm to discuss the attached 'draft' information quality standards. All offices should have a representative at this meeting. These standards are written to apply across NOAA. Present wording is rough in spots. They are being reviewed by Commerce, the lawyers, and people like you. Comments needed at this point are whether you see any 'showstopper' problems in your office's ability to comply with these standards. This is a difficult and potentially confusing issue. The NOAA group drafting these standards has had many hours of discussion trying to understand the meaning of the both the legislation behind this requirement and the OMB Guidelines to implement it. Hence, this meeting will be crucial to controlling the confusion and apprehension about this among NESDIS offices. The standards as they would apply to NESDIS are based on some simple concepts. Apart from reading the attached draft, ask yourself whether you could answer yes to the following statements about the information/products that your office makes available to the public. 1) We use 'good' science in the methods/procedures to produce our products. 2) Documentation explaining our current methods/procedures are readily available and could be given to someone asking for them (or they are distributed with the product when it's issued) 3) The source data behind any product can be given out to any requestor or it is fully described in product documentation, and there is a discussion of expected errors and/or characteristics of that source data that somehow limit what it can be used for. 4) Products/Services (or the methods/procedures behind them) are 'peer reviewed' at an appropriate level ... and we can prove that these reviews have been done. [Determining what is the 'appropriate level' and documenting the results of 'reviews' is a challenge we need to resolve before October 1st] ******* Structure of the Standards ********* The OMB Guidelines require us to address three aspects of Information quality -- Utiltiy, Integrity, and Objectivity. The attachment adopts the Commerce wording for Utility and Integrity standards. The Objectivity portion is what we've tailored for NOAA The 'Objectivity' standard varies between the NOAA-defined information categories described in the attachment: -- Original Data, Synthesized Products, Interpreted Products, Experimental Products, Weather Warnings*, Natural Resource Plans*, and Corporate Information. (I contend that the 2 asterisked categories don't apply to NESDIS unless you can think of examples). Note also the section on 'Administrative Correction Mechanism' begining on page 11. The law requires that the public be able to request a correction to information we've given out. This section describes how that process will operate at the NOAA level. Within NESDIS, each office/center will need the ability to respond to such requests. I imagine that Office/Center directors will sign off on 'intial decisions' regarding products they produce and that 'appeals' will be signed off at the AA/DAA level. ********* What's next? *************** These standards will be posted for public comment and must be finalized by October 1st. During July and August I anticipate a redrafting of these standards based on those public comments. During this summer, NESDIS will also have to 'spruce up' or 'prepare' the promised 'documentation' that describes the methods and procedures behind our products and services. I'll also propose some 'training' during the summer so that each office has at least one person who is knowledgable about the intent and administrative details of this requirement. By the legislation, the whole process has to be operating October 1, 2002. -- Kurt J. Schnebele Deputy Director, National Oceanographic Data Center Phone: 301-713-3270 x198 Fax: 301-713-3300 Frances C. Holt Acting Deputy Director, Office of Research & Applications NOAA/NESDIS Frances C. Holt Acting Deputy Director, Office of Research & Applications NOAA/NESDIS Additional Information: Last Name Holt First Name Frances Version 2.1