<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [Geodata] Minimal metadata for modern geodata</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'>Jo,<BR>
<BR>
I think you hit that nail on the head and would encourage you to even pound on it harder.<BR>
More distance between the 2 stools is a potential approach. How much further can we push?<BR>
The ebXML group is doing fine. They target a specific audience.<BR>
The GeoRSS group targets another audience (Mass Market). The only catalog they need might be Wikipedia-like. This would be simple enough!<BR>
Pat.<BR>
<BR>
<HR ALIGN=CENTER SIZE="3" WIDTH="95%"><B>From: </B>"Stefan F. Keller" <sfkeller@gmail.com><BR>
<B>Date: </B>Fri, 16 Mar 2007 00:54:39 +0100<BR>
<B>To: </B>Jo Walsh <jo@frot.org>, <geodatacommons@lists.gsdi.org>, <geodata@lists.osgeo.org>, <ddanko@esri.com><BR>
<B>Subject: </B>Re: [Geodata] Minimal metadata for modern geodata<BR>
<BR>
Hi Jo,<BR>
<BR>
Thank you for giving feedback, especially also to INSPIRE: Delicious reading. <BR>
<BR>
These are some of my insights so far "towards a minimal metadata information model" - just to backup your "Reading the INSPIRE Metadata Draft":<BR>
* Attributes in general: cardinality? consider embedding URL.<BR>
* How to deal with data set, supersets and series?<BR>
* dc:subject: Prefer open taxonomies over hierarchical and/or fixed keyword lists.<BR>
* dc:relation: What to put into this important attribute? which relationships are allowed?<BR>
* dc:coverage and spatial specializations of it: how to encode extent and crs? <BR>
* dc:identifier: Any policies? Is it an URN? I'm tending to say it points to metadata (not data access points).<BR>
<BR>
I thought about which of these attributes are essential metadata as part of any geodata and made a comparison between ArcCatalog, GeoMedia and OGRINFO (on Shapefiles). That's what you can expect to be extracted automatically from data resources: <BR>
* dc:title........ <= File name and path <BR>
* dc:date/modified <= Modification date<BR>
* dc:description.. <= Layer names, feature count, source system (as concatenated strings)<BR>
* dc:coverage......<= Extent (bbox) and CRS <BR>
* dc:type......... <= vector/raster (from Geometry types)<BR>
<BR>
I think there is a potential to include data set language and to insist on modification date and CRS especially in databases. <BR>
<BR>
WxS/OxS getcapabilities (and FGDC inside ArcCatalog) go beyond these attribute values and include information not contained in the data resources like contact addresses. <BR>
<BR>
To me the question arises, if these attributes (contact, dc:publisher, etc.) are maintained best near the local data resource too or better in a webapplication? My current idea is to sync (one way) the metadata coming from data sets under the control of a webbased metadata editor. <BR>
<BR>
-- Stefan<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
2007/3/15, Jo Walsh <jo@frot.org>: <BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'>dear all at geodatacommons,<BR>
<BR>
I come in peace from the OSGeo Geodata Committee. Collectively there<BR>
has been some hard thinking about geospatial metadata, with a lot in<BR>
common with the position held in your MD whitepaper. We've also been<BR>
coordinating a FOSS community response to the draft profile for<BR>
metadata in Europe. It's more of a meta-profile, a very different beast <BR>
from the new North American Profile guidelines based on ISO19115.<BR>
<a href="http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/Reading_the_INSPIRE_Metadata_Draft">http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/Reading_the_INSPIRE_Metadata_Draft</a><BR>
<BR>
If you read that page, there is a mention of wanting to connect with<BR>
the geodatacommons group on a response to the NAP Profile draft.<BR>
I sat down and read it, realised there is no way of modifying or<BR>
critiquing it without critiquing the whole ISO19115 model, and wrote <BR>
this discussion draft: <a href="http://frot.org/terradue/minimal_metadata.html">http://frot.org/terradue/minimal_metadata.html</a><BR>
<BR>
On the one hand I am starting to hear real world success stories from<BR>
people working, without other options, in an ebXML framework to carry <BR>
metadata about OGC standard web services for geographic data around;<BR>
on the other, GeoRSS/FOAF/Dublin Core between them provide adequate<BR>
representation for a minimal model for 'non-expert' metadata to be <BR>
published and collected. ISO19115 is falling between two stools, and I<BR>
fear that as it is currently framed it is going to have as little<BR>
utility to data producers and users, as the current FGDC core does.<BR>
<BR>
I want to know what I am overlooking, what I am taking for granted and<BR>
how the free and open source geospatial community could help out the<BR>
geodata/metadata user community by building simpler interfaces and<BR>
real use cases into cataloguing and search platforms... <BR>
<BR>
cheers, and best of luck,<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
jo<BR>
--<BR>
_______________________________________________<BR>
Geodata mailing list<BR>
Geodata@lists.osgeo.org<BR>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geodata">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geodata</a><BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><BR>
<HR ALIGN=CENTER SIZE="3" WIDTH="95%"></SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><FONT FACE="Monaco, Courier New">_______________________________________________<BR>
Geodata mailing list<BR>
Geodata@lists.osgeo.org<BR>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geodata">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geodata</a><BR>
</FONT></SPAN>
</BODY>
</HTML>