Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Inconsistent omi field names compared to oemetadata spec #84

Open
steull opened this issue Nov 30, 2022 · 0 comments
Open

Inconsistent omi field names compared to oemetadata spec #84

steull opened this issue Nov 30, 2022 · 0 comments
Assignees

Comments

@steull
Copy link

steull commented Nov 30, 2022

I used omi and when I output each field, the order is not the same as in the schema and there is a difference between the namings. Furthermore, there are also more fields displayed in omi than in the schema.

Here is a list of what I found:
General Keys:

  • ID = identifier
  • language = languages
  • publicationDate = publication_date
  • context
    • sourceCode = source_code
    • grantNo = grant_number
    • fundingAgency = funding_agency
      Spatial and Temporal Keys
  • referenceDate = reference_date
  • timeseries = timeseries_collection
    • start = ts_start
    • end = ts_end
    • resolution = ts_resolution
    • alignment = ts_orientation
    • aggregationType = aggregation
      Source Keys
  • sources, licenses (In omi.licenses but not in schema)
    • identifier = title
    • other_references
    • text
    • comment
      Contributor Keys
  • title = name
    Resource Keys
  • All resources are shown with all keys and values at the end which shouldn't happen

There is also a problem that omi only outputs fields with values, if values = null --> these are not shown

@jh-RLI jh-RLI changed the title Inconsistent omi fields compared to schema Inconsistent omi fields names compared to oemetadata spec Jan 4, 2023
@jh-RLI jh-RLI changed the title Inconsistent omi fields names compared to oemetadata spec Inconsistent omi field names compared to oemetadata spec Jan 4, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants