<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">IMO:</font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Hello John,</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Its great to hear from you. Thanks for
the input.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Comments inline below...<br>
</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt><John.Weaver@ga.gov.au> wrote on 16/07/2008
05:18:55 PM:<br>
<br>
> G’day Bruce and Others....,</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>> </tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>> I felt it appropriate to provide some details
of metadata activities<br>
> in general and GeoNetwork specifically from an OSDM perspective.</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>> </tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>> OSDM has been working with Software Improvements,
a Canberra based <br>
> company who have been developing a version of the Australian Spatial<br>
> Data Directory (ASDD) using GeoNetwork. This is part of a pilot
<br>
> project we are supporting for ANZLIC. While there is a little
way <br>
> to go before GeoNetwork is at a stage where it can provide an <br>
> improved capability and be more user friendly, progress is being <br>
> made. Software Improvements have had some contact with Simon
Pigot <br>
> in relation to this development effort.</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>> </tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>> From an ANZLIC perspective, the recent Council
meeting closed the <br>
> ANZLIC metadata project and established an on-going ANZLIC discovery<br>
> and access program. OSDM has a role as lead agency in this program
<br>
> and is working with a Steering Group consisting of Queensland, <br>
> Victoria, Western Australia, New Zealand and the ANZLIC Office.</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>> </tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>> In simple terms we are approaching this program
on a number of <br>
> fronts. The first is to provide a simple ANZLIC compliant metadata
<br>
> entry tool and a metadata for dummies guide. </tt></font>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>Excellent!</tt></font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>Can you shed some more light on this please?</tt></font>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>(I'm assuming that there will be a roadmap allowing
this to be migrated to GeoNetwork in time.)</tt></font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>> An existing <br>
> application developed for a non-spatial area of Defence is being <br>
> investigated by the ANZLC Steering Committee. This wizard based
<br>
> tool is ISO19115 compliant and can provide XML outputs of the <br>
> Defence metadata profile. It is not a management or query tool.
<br>
> However, we believe that we can have an ANZLIC compliant version of
<br>
> this in 2-3 months. It will be freely available for anyone to
<br>
> download from the OSDM web site, install and use.</tt></font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>Is this the MET tool above?</tt></font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>> </tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>> The second front is GeoNetwork and development
of this capability. <br>
> OSDM is working with NCRIS and Rob Woodcock in relation to the <br>
> Spatial Information Services Stack (SISS), a component of which will<br>
> consist of GeoNetwork development to meet identified user needs. <br>
> Our initial thoughts on this relate to ease of use and ease of <br>
> modification (due to limited documentation) and also the <br>
> significance of having an effective and usable ASDD. At this
stage <br>
> GeoNetwork it is not considered suitable to provide to agencies to
<br>
> meet their enterprise metadata management needs, since the learning
<br>
> curve is too steep. I am hoping that the SISS activity will
reduce <br>
> this burden.</tt></font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>With appropriate structure and resourcing, we should
be able to turn this situation around. </tt></font>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>While Rob's team will be able to provide a great initial
capability, I'm concerned</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>that other organisations will sit on their hands and
expect others (or the mythical</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>Open Source Fairy!) to do the work. I sorry for being
blunt, but this needs to be said.</tt></font>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>We need to get a structure in place that allows us
to work with the GeoNetwork Open Source</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>Community. We don't have to do all of this work ourselves.
There is a world community out</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>there who want the same capabilities that we do. Taking
a quick snapshot of current activities:</tt></font>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>- NZ Dept of Defence is looking at integrating some
work that will allow for</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt> (limited) automtic harvesting of metadata records
from existing spatial</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt> data sets.</tt></font>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>- The European Space Agency is currently funding development
of ebRIM functionality</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt> within GeoNetwork.</tt></font>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>If we were to start a structured process to address
the issues that you have identified</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>and also that Jeroen and the GeoNetwork Developers
identified at Bolsena, I think that we'll </tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>start seeing a number of organisations from around
the world starting to help to fix the</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>underlying problems and quickly get the project on
track.</tt></font>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>For the Australian specific work, we should not just
sit back and expect CSIRO to do all </tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>of the work. We as Managers, Developers, Architects
etc should start looking at our budgets </tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>and projects (if we haven't already) to see what we
can do. This is fundamental SDI</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>capability that we all just have to have.</tt></font>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>If we all just invest a little, we'll be surprised
by how much comes back.</tt></font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>Now having said that, just how different is the Australian
Profile from ISO 19115 19139?</tt></font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>> </tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>> Further we see GeoNetwork operating at two slightly
different <br>
> levels. The first is the ASDD level and the second is at the
<br>
> enterprise or agency level – two slightly different functions.</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>> </tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>> The challenge is trying to coordinate and prioritise
these <br>
> development needs and also work with the open source community and
<br>
> other GeoNetwork developers to reduce duplication of effort. OSDM
<br>
> has held a couple of ‘GeoNetwork’ meetings with the broader <br>
> community and would like to continue to play a role in coordination
<br>
> of this activity, assuming the broader community agreed with this.</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>> </tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>> From a simplistic view point what I feel is required
is a set of <br>
> development requirements to be established to meet both short and
<br>
> longer term needs covering for ANZLIC, SISS and other users needs
<br>
> and a mechanism to effectively coordinate the implementation of <br>
> these requirements by the relevant stakeholders together with a <br>
> mechanism to link this to the FAO efforts.</tt></font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>The problem is in assessing the requirements. Putting
on my Architect's hat and</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>looking at the list of requirements from last September's
workshop, I'd cull a number</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>of the requirements from GeoNetwork development. I
don't believe they belong in</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>the product.</tt></font>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>However, from an Australian / ANZLIC / SISS perspective
we need to agree on the </tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>evaluation criteria.</tt></font>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>This is also where having a member of the GeoNetwork
Project Steering Committee helping</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>us to make the cull makes sense.</tt></font>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>We can decide to push forward with feature X, but
the GeoNetwork PSC may not want it in</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>the product.</tt></font>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>We also need to work closely with the PSC when trying
to work out strategic future </tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>directions? If we don't, we're wasting everyone's
time.</tt></font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>> </tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>> OSDM is willing to play a community liaison role
to help coordinate <br>
> these requirements and provide an interface to the developers, <br>
> especially SISS.</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>> </tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>> As a starting point OSDM would like to capture
a list of user needs <br>
> and development requirements. If you see the value in this,
perhaps<br>
> you can start to either document your needs/requirements or send us
<br>
> any requirements or specification that you already have. OSDM
can <br>
> collate these to ‘discover’ any overlap or duplication. </tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>> </tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>> The results of this ‘collation’ of requirements
can them be fed back<br>
> to the developer and user communities with a view to maximising the
<br>
> benefit for all.</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>> </tt></font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>OSDM has been doing a good job of coordinating the
various Government parties to date. </tt></font>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>The GeoNetwork workshop that I attended last September
was most useful and was a credit </tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>to Ben and Jenny for organising.</tt></font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>I'll follow up on some specific suggestions off line.</tt></font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>> If all this comes together it might be a good
starting point for the<br>
> Annual Workshop as discussed below.</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>> </tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>> </tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>> I look forward to your comments on this. </tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>> </tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>> </tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>> John Weaver</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>> Manager, Office of Spatial Data Management</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>> Geoscience Australia</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>> </tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>> Post: GPO Box 378, Canberra ACT 2601</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>> Ph 6249 9590</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>> Email: john.weaver@osdm.gov.au</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>> </tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>> Web: www.osdm.gov.au</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>> </tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: aust-nz-bounces@lists.osgeo.org [mailto:aust-nz-bounces@lists.<br>
> osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Bruce.Bannerman@dpi.vic.gov.au<br>
> Sent: Wednesday, 16 July 2008 4:58 PM<br>
> To: Aust-NZ@lists.osgeo.org<br>
> Subject: [Aust-NZ] GeoNetwork Annual Workshop </tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>> </tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>> <br>
> IMO: <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Ben, <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Perhaps, once we have an idea where we are going with GeoNetwork and<br>
> the ANZLIC Profile we could look at hosting the GeoNetwork Annual
<br>
> Workshop in Australia? <br>
> <br>
> Bruce <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> > > <fron Jeroen><br>
> > > An annual workshop has been held every year, and such an
event is the <br>
> > > place to discuss f2f the strategy for the coming years.
Simon Pigot <br>
> > > and Kate Roberts attended that last year. For this year
I am still not <br>
> > > sure how to organize it. I have to get some organization
behind the <br>
> > > project to sponsor the event. Maybe FAO will do this, maybe
there are <br>
> > > others.<br>
> > > <br>
> > > On getting your priorities well covered in the project,
I think that <br>
> > > there are no big issues. The project needs to take some
steps to allow <br>
> > > for (a) plugable application profiles (b) plugable translation
<br>
> > > packages (not to much of an issue for you :-) ) and (c)
plugable skins/ <br>
> > > themes. All of these have been discussed and are in the
process of <br>
> > > taking shape in a proposal. Some of the work is funded,
some is <br>
> > > underfunded and some is not funded at all.<br>
> > > </tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>> Notice:<br>
> This email and any attachments may contain information that is <br>
> personal, confidential,<br>
> legally privileged and/or copyright. No part of it should be <br>
> reproduced, adapted or communicated without the prior written <br>
> consent of the copyright owner. </tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>> It is the responsibility of the recipient to
check for and remove viruses.</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>> If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender <br>
> by return email, delete it from your system and destroy any copies.
<br>
> You are not authorised to use, communicate or rely on the <br>
> information contained in this email.</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>> Please consider the environment before printing
this email.</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>> </tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>> </tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>> </tt></font>