2006 URS Corporation Bare Earth Topographic Lidar: Shawsheen River, Massachusetts
OCM Partners
Data Set
(DS)
| ID: 49771
| Published / External
Created: 2017-11-15
|
Last Modified: 2022-08-09
Project (PRJ) | ID: 49401
ID: 49771
Data Set (DS)
* Discovery• First Pass
» Metadata Rubric
Item Identification
* » Title | 2006 URS Corporation Bare Earth Topographic Lidar: Shawsheen River, Massachusetts |
---|---|
Short Name | ma2006_urs_shawsheen_m2576_metadata |
* Status | Completed |
Creation Date | |
Revision Date | |
• Publication Date | 2013-10 |
* » Abstract |
URS Corporation contracted EarthData International to aquire topographic elevation data for 82 square miles in Essex and Middlesex Counties, Massachusetts during 2006. Products generated include lidar point clouds, 3D hydro breaklines, and lidar bare-earth elevation models in LAS format using lidar collected with a Leica ALS-50 Aerial Lidar Sensor. Lidar Sensor Specifications: Sensor: Leica ALS-50 Aerial Lidar Sensor (s/n ALS036) Airspeed: ~ 130 knots Laser Pulse Rate: 38,000 Hz Field of View: 35 Degrees Scan Rate: 20 Hz Average Swath Width: 1537 meters Nominal Post Spacing 3 meters |
* Purpose |
The purpose of these data is to provide elevation data capable of supporting generation of two foot contours and defining target drainage channel geometry. |
Notes |
10415 |
Other Citation Details | |
• Supplemental Information |
A footprint of this data set may be viewed in Google Earth at: https://noaa-nos-coastal-lidar-pds.s3.amazonaws.com/laz/geoid18/2576/supplemental/ma2006_urs_shawsheen_footprint.KMZ |
DOI (Digital Object Identifier) | |
DOI Registration Authority | |
DOI Issue Date |
Keywords
Theme Keywords
Thesaurus | Keyword |
---|---|
ISO 19115 Topic Category | elevation |
None | LAZ |
Temporal Keywords
Thesaurus | Keyword |
---|---|
* Spatial Keywords
Thesaurus | Keyword |
---|---|
Stratum Keywords
Thesaurus | Keyword |
---|---|
Instrument Keywords
Thesaurus | Keyword |
---|---|
Platform Keywords
Thesaurus | Keyword |
---|---|
Physical Location
• » Organization | Office for Coastal Management |
---|---|
• » City | Charleston |
• » State/Province | SC |
• Country | |
• » Location Description |
Data Set Information
* Data Set Scope Code | Data Set |
---|---|
• Data Set Type | |
• Maintenance Frequency | As Needed |
Maintenance Note | |
» Data Presentation Form | las |
• Entity Attribute Overview |
LiDAR points in LAZ format (ASPRS Class 2) |
Entity Attribute Detail Citation |
none |
Entity Attribute Detail URL | |
Distribution Liability |
Any conclusions drawn from the analysis of this information are not the responsibility of URS Corporation, EarthData International, NOAA, the Office for Coastal Management or its partners. |
Data Set Credit | Please credit URS Corporation and EarthData International for all products derived from this data. |
Support Roles
* » Support Role | Data Steward |
---|---|
* » Date Effective From | 2013-10 |
Date Effective To | |
Organization | NOAA Office for Coastal Management (NOAA/OCM) |
Address |
2234 South Hobson Ave Charleston, SC 29405-2413 |
Email Address | coastal.info@noaa.gov |
Phone | (843) 740-1202 |
Fax | |
Mobile | |
URL | https://coast.noaa.gov |
Business Hours | |
Contact Instructions |
* » Support Role | Distributor |
---|---|
* » Date Effective From | 2013-10 |
Date Effective To | |
Organization | NOAA Office for Coastal Management (NOAA/OCM) |
Address |
2234 South Hobson Ave Charleston, SC 29405-2413 |
Email Address | coastal.info@noaa.gov |
Phone | (843) 740-1202 |
Fax | |
Mobile | |
URL | https://coast.noaa.gov |
Business Hours | |
Contact Instructions |
* » Support Role | Metadata Contact |
---|---|
* » Date Effective From | 2013-10 |
Date Effective To | |
Organization | NOAA Office for Coastal Management (NOAA/OCM) |
Address |
2234 South Hobson Ave Charleston, SC 29405-2413 |
Email Address | coastal.info@noaa.gov |
Phone | (843) 740-1202 |
Fax | |
Mobile | |
URL | https://coast.noaa.gov |
Business Hours | |
Contact Instructions |
* » Support Role | Point of Contact |
---|---|
* » Date Effective From | 2013-10 |
Date Effective To | |
Organization | NOAA Office for Coastal Management (NOAA/OCM) |
Address |
2234 South Hobson Ave Charleston, SC 29405-2413 |
Email Address | coastal.info@noaa.gov |
Phone | (843) 740-1202 |
Fax | |
Mobile | |
URL | https://coast.noaa.gov |
Business Hours | |
Contact Instructions |
* » Support Role | |
---|---|
* » Date Effective From | |
Date Effective To | |
* » Contact | |
* Contact Instructions |
* » Support Role | |
---|---|
* » Date Effective From | |
Date Effective To | |
* » Contact | |
* Contact Instructions |
* » Support Role | |
---|---|
* » Date Effective From | |
Date Effective To | |
* » Contact | |
* Contact Instructions |
Extents
Currentness Reference | Ground Condition |
---|
Extent Group 1
Extent Description |
---|
Extent Group 1 / Geographic Area 1
* » W° Bound | -71.308999 |
---|---|
* » E° Bound | -71.122943 |
* » N° Bound | 42.725917 |
* » S° Bound | 42.443801 |
* » Description |
Extent Group 1 / Vertical Extent
EPSG Code | |
---|---|
Vertical Minimum | |
Vertical Maximum |
Extent Group 1 / Time Frame 1
* » Time Frame Type | Discrete |
---|---|
* » Start | 2006-12-16 |
End | |
Alternate Start As Of Info | |
Alternate End As Of Info | |
Description |
Spatial Information
Spatial Resolution
Angular Distance | |
---|---|
Angular Distance Units | |
Horizontal Distance | |
Horizontal Distance Units | |
Vertical Distance | |
Vertical Distance Units | |
Equivalent Scale Denominator | |
Level of Detail Description |
Spatial Representation
Grid Representation Used? | |
---|---|
Vector Representation Used? | Yes |
Text / Table Representation Used? | |
TIN Representation Used? | |
Stereo Model Representation Used? | |
Video Representation Used? |
Grid Representation
Dimension Count | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cell Geometry | |||||||||||||
Transformation Parameter Available? | |||||||||||||
Axis Dimension |
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
Axis Dimension |
|||||||||||||
|
Vector Representation
Topology Level | |
---|---|
Complex Object Present? | |
Complex Object Count | |
Composite Object Present? | |
Composite Object Count | |
Curve Object Present? | |
Curve Object Count | |
Point Object Present? | |
Point Object Count | |
Solid Object Present? | |
Solid Object Count | |
Surface Object Present? | |
Surface Object Count |
Reference Systems
Reference System
EPSG Code | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Horizontal Resolution |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vertical Resolution |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Access Information
* » Security Class | Unclassified |
---|---|
* Security Classification System | |
Security Handling Description | |
• Data Access Policy | |
» Data Access Procedure |
This data can be obtained on-line at the following URL: https://coast.noaa.gov/dataviewer/#/lidar/search/where:ID=2576 ; |
• » Data Access Constraints |
None |
• Data Use Constraints |
Users should be aware that temporal changes may have occurred since this data set was collected and some parts of this data may no longer represent actual surface conditions. Users should not use this data for critical applications without a full awareness of its limitations. These data depict the heights at the time of the survey and are only accurate for that time. |
Metadata Access Constraints | |
Metadata Use Constraints |
Distribution Information
Start Date | |
---|---|
» Download URL | https://coast.noaa.gov/dataviewer/#/lidar/search/where:ID=2576 |
Distributor | |
File Name | Customized Download |
Description |
Create custom data files by choosing data area, product type, map projection, file format, datum, etc. |
File Date/Time | |
File Type | |
File Size | |
Application Version | |
Compression | |
Review Status |
Start Date | |
---|---|
» Download URL | https://noaa-nos-coastal-lidar-pds.s3.amazonaws.com/laz/geoid18/2576/index.html |
Distributor | |
File Name | Bulk Download |
Description |
Simple download of data files. |
File Date/Time | |
File Type | |
File Size | |
Application Version | |
Compression | |
Review Status |
Start Date | |
---|---|
End Date | |
» Download URL | |
Distributor | |
File Name | |
Description | |
File Date/Time | |
File Type | |
FGDC Content Type | |
File Size | |
Application Version | |
Compression | |
Review Status |
Start Date | |
---|---|
End Date | |
» Download URL | |
Distributor | |
File Name | |
Description | |
File Date/Time | |
File Type | |
FGDC Content Type | |
File Size | |
Application Version | |
Compression | |
Review Status |
Start Date | |
---|---|
End Date | |
» Download URL | |
Distributor | |
File Name | |
Description | |
File Date/Time | |
File Type | |
FGDC Content Type | |
File Size | |
Application Version | |
Compression | |
Review Status |
URLs
URL | https://coast.noaa.gov/dataviewer |
---|---|
Name | |
URL Type | Online Resource |
File Resource Format | |
Description |
URL | https://coast.noaa.gov |
---|---|
Name | |
URL Type | Online Resource |
File Resource Format | |
Description |
URL | https://noaa-nos-coastal-lidar-pds.s3.amazonaws.com/laz/geoid18/2576/supplemental/ma2006_urs_shawsheen_footprint.KMZ |
---|---|
Name | Browse Graphic |
URL Type | Browse Graphic |
File Resource Format | kmz |
Description |
This graphic shows the lidar coverage for Essex and Middlesex Counties, Massachusetts. |
URL | |
---|---|
Name | |
URL Type | |
File Resource Format | |
Description |
URL | |
---|---|
Name | |
URL Type | |
File Resource Format | |
Description |
URL | |
---|---|
Name | |
URL Type | |
File Resource Format | |
Description |
Activity Log
Activity Time | 2016-05-23 |
---|---|
Activity Type | |
Responsible Party | |
Description |
Date that the source FGDC record was last modified. |
Activity Time | 2017-11-14 |
---|---|
Activity Type | |
Responsible Party | |
Description |
Converted from FGDC Content Standards for Digital Geospatial Metadata (version FGDC-STD-001-1998) using 'fgdc_to_inport_xml.pl' script. Contact Tyler Christensen (NOS) for details. |
Activity Time | 2018-02-08 |
---|---|
Activity Type | |
Responsible Party | |
Description |
Partial upload of Positional Accuracy fields only. |
Activity Time | 2018-03-13 |
---|---|
Activity Type | |
Responsible Party | |
Description |
Partial upload to move data access links to Distribution Info. |
Activity Time | |
---|---|
Activity Type | |
Responsible Party | |
Description |
Activity Time | |
---|---|
Activity Type | |
Responsible Party | |
Description |
Activity Time | |
---|---|
Activity Type | |
Responsible Party | |
Description |
Issues
Issue Date | |
---|---|
Author | |
Issue |
Issue Date | |
---|---|
Author | |
Issue |
Issue Date | |
---|---|
Author | |
Issue |
Technical Environment
Description |
|
---|
Data Quality
Representativeness | |
---|---|
Accuracy |
1. The bare-earth points have a Fundamental Vertical Accuracy of 1.2 ft. (36.3 cm) or better at the 95% confidence level in open terrain, after correction of systematic errors, computed by multiplying the RMSEz by 1.9600. This is equivalent to a vertical RMSE of 0.6 ft. (18.5 cm) or less in open terrain, equivalent to 2 foot contours that satisfy National Map Accuracy Standards. 2. In all land cover categories combined, the bare-earth dataset has a Consolidated Vertical Accuracy of 1.6 ft. (49.0 cm) or better at the 95% confidence level, computed by the 95th percentile method of endorsement by the National Digital Elevation Program. 3. The horizontal accuracy meets or exceeds 5.68 ft. (1 meter) or less. |
Analytical Accuracy | |
Horizontal Positional Accuracy |
The lidar data fully comply with FEMA guidance as published in Appendix A, April 2003. |
Vertical Positional Accuracy |
Terrasurv performed a geodetic control survey in support of LIDAR mapping. The bare-earth points have a Fundamental Vertical Accuracy of 1.2 ft. (36.3 cm) or better at the 95% confidence level in open terrain, after correction of systematic errors, computed by multiplying the RMSEz by 1.9600. This is equivalent to a vertical RMSE of 0.6 ft. (18.5 cm) or less in open terrain, equivalent to 2 foot contours that satisfy National Map Accuracy Standards. In all land cover categories combined, the bare-earth dataset has a Consolidated Vertical Accuracy of 1.6 ft. (49.0 cm) or better at the 95% confidence level, computed by the 95th percentile method of endorsement by the National Digital Elevation Program. The vertical accuracy of the lidar data fully complies with FEMA guidance as published in Appendix A, April 2003 and National Standard for Spatial Accuracy (NSSDA). ; Quantitative Value: 0.185 meters, Test that produced the value: Tested Vertical Root Mean Square Error (RMSEz) in open area. Units in meters. |
Quantitation Limits | |
Bias | |
Comparability | |
Completeness Measure | |
Precision | |
Analytical Precision | |
Field Precision | |
Sensitivity | |
Detection Limit | |
Completeness Report |
Two checks for completeness were performed: 1. EarthData's proprietary software, Checkedb, for verification agianst ground survey points. 2. Terrascan, for verification of automated and manual editing and final QC of products. |
Conceptual Consistency |
Compliance with the accuracy standard was ensured by the placement of GPS ground control prior to the acquisition of lidar data. The following checks were performed. 1. The ground control and airborne GPS data stream were validated through a fully analytical boresight adjustment. 2. The DTM (Digital Terrain Model) data were checked against the project control. 3. Lidar elevation data was validated through an inspection of edge matching and visual inspection for quality (artifact removal). |
» Quality Control Procedures Employed |
Data Management
» Have Resources for Management of these Data Been Identified? | |
---|---|
» Approximate Percentage of Budget for these Data Devoted to Data Management | |
» Do these Data Comply with the Data Access Directive? | |
» Is Access to the Data Limited Based on an Approved Waiver? | |
» If Distributor (Data Hosting Service) is Needed, Please Indicate | |
» Approximate Delay Between Data Collection and Dissemination | |
» If Delay is Longer than Latency of Automated Processing, Indicate Under What Authority Data Access is Delayed |
|
» Actual or Planned Long-Term Data Archive Location | |
» If World Data Center or Other, Specify | |
» If To Be Determined, Unable to Archive, or No Archiving Intended, Explain |
|
» Approximate Delay Between Data Collection and Archiving | |
» How Will the Data Be Protected from Accidental or Malicious Modification or Deletion Prior to Receipt by the Archive? |
|
Lineage
» Lineage Statement |
---|
Sources
Citation Title | |
---|---|
Contact Role Type | |
Contact Type | |
Contact Name | |
Publish Date | |
Extent Type | |
Extent Start Date/Time | |
Extent End Date/Time | |
Citation URL | |
Citation URL Name | |
Citation URL Description | |
Scale Denominator |
Citation Title | |
---|---|
Contact Role Type | |
Contact Type | |
Contact Name | |
Publish Date | |
Extent Type | |
Extent Start Date/Time | |
Extent End Date/Time | |
Citation URL | |
Citation URL Name | |
Citation URL Description | |
Scale Denominator |
Citation Title | |
---|---|
Contact Role Type | |
Contact Type | |
Contact Name | |
Publish Date | |
Extent Type | |
Extent Start Date/Time | |
Extent End Date/Time | |
Citation URL | |
Citation URL Name | |
Citation URL Description | |
Scale Denominator |
Process Steps
Process Step Number | 1 |
---|---|
» Description |
Terrasurv was tasked to perform a geodetic control survey in support of LIDAR mapping of the Shawsheen river area in Essex and Middlesex Counties, Massachusetts. The Global Positioning System (GPS) was used in a static differential mode to measure the interstation vectors of the network. The National Spatial Reference System (NSRS) was used to provide control for the network. Continuously Operating Reference Station WMTS was used, along with two ground stations of the NSRS. Two Trimble dual frequency receivers were used on day 361 of 2006. A base receiver was set up near on C 35, at the Lawrence Municipal Airport. This point was also used by the flight crew during the aerial data acquisition phase. The two northerly LIDAR points (SR-1 and SR-5) were surveyed using this station as a base. The other three LIDAR stations, and benchmark V 34, were surveyed using the CORS as a base. The horizontal datum was the North American Datum of 1983, 1996 adjustment (NAD 1983 1996), and the vertical datum was the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 1988) Geoid03. |
Process Date/Time | 2006-12-27 00:00:00 |
Process Contact | |
Phone (Voice) | |
Email Address | |
Source |
Process Step Number | 2 |
---|---|
» Description |
URS contracted EarthData International, Inc. (EarthData) to collect and deliver high quality topographic elevation point data derived from multiple return, light detection and ranging (Lidar) measurements for an area of interest totaling approximately 82 square miles in Essex and Middlesex Counties, Massachusetts. Data was collected at a nominal three meter (3) meter post spacing between points at an altitude of 2438 meters (8,000 feet) above mean terrain. This data was used to produce a bare-earth surface model and hydro-enforced breaklines for the project. The aerial acquisition was conducted on 16 December, 2006 using and aircraft (tail number N2636P). Lidar data was captured using an ALS-50 Lidar system, s/n ALS036, including an inertial measuring unit (IMU) and a dual frequency GPS receiver. |
Process Date/Time | 2006-12-16 00:00:00 |
Process Contact | |
Phone (Voice) | |
Email Address | |
Source |
Process Step Number | 3 |
---|---|
» Description |
EarthData has developed a unique method for processing lidar data to identify and remove elevation points falling on vegetation, buildings, and other aboveground structures. The algorithms for filtering data were utilized within EarthData's proprietary software and commercial software written by TerraSolid. This software suite of tools provides efficient processing for small to large-scale, projects and has been incorporated into ISO 9001 compliant production work flows. The following is a step-by-step breakdown of the process. 1. Using the lidar data set provided by EarthData, the technician performs calibrations on the data set. 2. Using the lidar data set provided by EarthData, the technician performed a visual inspection of the data to verify that the flight lines overlap correctly. The technician also verified that there were no voids, and that the data covered the project limits. The technician then selected a series of areas from the data set and inspected them where adjacent flight lines overlapped. These overlapping areas were merged and a process which utilizes 3-D Analyst and EarthData's proprietary software was run to detect and color code the differences in elevation values and profiles. The technician reviewed these plots and located the areas that contained systematic errors or distortions that were introduced by the lidar sensor. 3. Systematic distortions highlighted in step 2 were removed and the data was re-inspected. Corrections and adjustments can involve the application of angular deflection or compensation for curvature of the ground surface that can be introduced by crossing from one type of land cover to another. 4. The lidar data for each flight line was trimmed in batch for the removal of the overlap areas between flight lines. The data was checked against a control network to ensure that vertical requirements were maintained. Conversion to the client-specified datum and projections were then completed. The lidar flight line data sets were then segmented into adjoining tiles for batch processing and data management. 5. The initial batch-processing run removed 95% of points falling on vegetation. The algorithm also removed the points that fell on the edge of hard features such as structures, elevated roadways and bridges. 6. The operator interactively processed the data using lidar editing tools. During this final phase the operator generated a TIN based on a desired thematic layers to evaluate the automated classification performed in step 5. This allowed the operator to quickly re-classify points from one layer to another and recreate the TIN surface to see the effects of edits. Geo-referenced images were toggled on or off to aid the operator in identifying problem areas. The data was also examined with an automated profiling tool to aid the operator in the reclassification. 7. The point cloud data were delivered in LAS format. |
Process Date/Time | 2007-02-28 00:00:00 |
Process Contact | |
Phone (Voice) | |
Email Address | |
Source |
Process Step Number | 4 |
---|---|
» Description |
3-D breaklines were created for the creation of a completely new hydrology dataset specifically tailored to meets the needs of the users of terrain data. 1) Breaklines were generated for all streams draining greater than approximately 1 square mile. 2) Two-dimensional lines defining the centerline and banks of those streams were manually digitized into Microstation format from the available 2002 source digital aerial imagery using lidar hillshades as an ancillary reference. 3) Breaklines were collected, unbroken through closed water bodies and culverts, as well as under roads, railroads, and bridges, in order to maintain proper stream network connectivity. 4) The entire breakline dataset was checked to ensure integrity of the linework with respect to topologic structure, connectivity, and positive downhill stream flow. 5) Single line streams were collected with the following criteria: Any area of drainage that did not meet the criteria to be collected as a double banked stream or closed water body. 6) Double-banked streams were collected with the Any area of drainage that was at least 40 feet wide for a distance of greater than 540 feet, and excluding closed water bodies. Double banked streams were delivered as linear features. 7) Artificial path lines were collected as the center line for all double banked streams and closed water bodies. Artificial paths were also created for closed water bodies where no flow path was delineated coming into or leaving the water body, and/or where the closed water body existed as the origin source of a flow path. 8) Artificial paths that are drawn in the two instances above go through the center of the water body and stop halfway through it. Artificial paths were only drawn for water bodies that fell on a streamline. 9) Any islands found within water bodies were collected in instances where trees were visible on them (indicating that these are permanent features). These islands were delivered as separate polyline features if present. 10) Any and all closed water bodies were collected, regardless of size, excluding such features as swimming pools, for the entire project area. 11) Water bodies were delivered as polygon features. 12) Single line streams, double banked streams, artificial paths and closed water bodies have unique attribution such that one feature type can be easily distinguished from another. 13) Linework was delivered in ESRI shape file format. 14) The 3D Hydro Breaklines were developed for the sole purpose of supporting flood mapping and should not be used to generate contours |
Process Date/Time | 2007-02-28 00:00:00 |
Process Contact | |
Phone (Voice) | |
Email Address | |
Source |
Process Step Number | 5 |
---|---|
» Description |
The NOAA Office for Coastal Management (OCM) received topographic files las V1.1 format. The files contained lidar elevation measurements, Class 2 Points, return information, scan angle, intensity values and GPS Week Time. The data were received in Massachusetts State Plane Mainland Zone 2001, NAD83 coordinates and were vertically referenced to NAVD88 using the Geoid03 model. The vertical units of the data were meters. OCM performed the following processing for data storage and Digital Coast provisioning purposes: 1. The GPS Week Time was converted to Adjusted Standard GPS Time. 2. The las files were changed from V 1.1 to V 1.2. 3. The las files were converted from orthometric (NAVD88) heights to ellipsoidal heights using Geoid03. 4. The las files were converted from a Projected Coordinate System (MA SP Mainland) to a Geographic Coordinate System (NAD83). 5. The las files' horizontal units were converted from meters to decimal degrees. |
Process Date/Time | 2013-10-01 00:00:00 |
Process Contact | |
Phone (Voice) | |
Email Address | |
Source |
Process Step Number | |
---|---|
» Description | |
Process Date/Time | |
Process Contact | |
Phone (Voice) | |
Email Address | |
Source |
Process Step Number | |
---|---|
» Description | |
Process Date/Time | |
Process Contact | |
Phone (Voice) | |
Email Address | |
Source |
Process Step Number | |
---|---|
» Description | |
Process Date/Time | |
Process Contact | |
Phone (Voice) | |
Email Address | |
Source |
Acquisition Information
Instruments
Instrument Unavailable Reason |
---|
Identifier | |
---|---|
Docucomp UUID | |
Instrument / Gear | |
Instrument Type | |
Description |
Identifier | |
---|---|
Docucomp UUID | |
Instrument / Gear | |
Instrument Type | |
Description |
Identifier | |
---|---|
Docucomp UUID | |
Instrument / Gear | |
Instrument Type | |
Description |
Platforms
Platform Unavailable Reason |
---|
Identifier | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Docucomp UUID | |||||||
Description | |||||||
Mounted Instruments |
|||||||
|
Identifier | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Docucomp UUID | |||||||
Description | |||||||
Mounted Instruments |
|||||||
|
Identifier | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Docucomp UUID | |||||||
Description | |||||||
Mounted Instruments |
|||||||
|
FAQs
Date | |
---|---|
Author | |
Question | |
Answer |
Child Items
Rubric scores updated every 15m
Score | Type | Title |
---|---|---|
Related Items
Item Type | Relationship Type | Title |
---|---|---|
Catalog Details
Catalog Item ID | 49771 |
---|---|
Metadata Record Created By | Anne Ball |
Metadata Record Created | 2017-11-15 15:22+0000 |
Metadata Record Last Modified By | SysAdmin InPortAdmin |
» Metadata Record Last Modified | 2022-08-09 17:11+0000 |
Metadata Record Published | 2022-03-16 |
Owner Org | OCMP |
Metadata Publication Status | Published Externally |
Do Not Publish? | N |
Metadata Workflow State | Published / External |
Metadata Last Review Date | 2022-03-16 |
Metadata Review Frequency | 1 Year |
Metadata Next Review Date | 2023-03-16 |
Tags |
---|