Upload
amie-howard
View
213
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Metadata Handling in the North Carolina Geospatial Data Project (NCGDAP)
NCSU Libraries
Steve Morris Head of Digital Library Initiatives
Rob Farrell Geospatial Initiatives Librarian
Digital Preservation in State Government: Best Practices Exchange 2006
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 2
Overview
Introduction to geospatial metadataProject approach to geospatial metadata handlingIntersection with digital library metadata standardsProject approach to content packaging
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 3
NC Geospatial Data Archiving Project
Partnership between university library (NCSU) and state agency (NCCGIA), with Library of Congress under the National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program (NDIIPP)One of 8 initial NDIIPP partnerships (only state project)Focus on state and local geospatial content in North Carolina (state demonstration)Tied to NC OneMap initiative, which provides for seamless access to data, metadata, and inventoriesObjective: engage existing state/federal geospatial data infrastructures in preservation
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 4
Project Metadata Overview
Geospatial StandardsFGDC Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata(upcoming) North American Profile of ISO standard for geospatial metadata
Digital Library StandardsQualified Dublin CoreMetadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS)PREMIS (PREservation Metadata: Implementation Strategies)
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 5
FGDC Metadata Overview
Standard in 1994, mandated for federal agency use in 19951998 ver. 2 to be replaced by North American Profile of the ISO standardDescriptive, technical, and administrative metadata – over 300 elementsFGDC is a content standard without an encoding standard – creates archive problemsMany software products exist for authoring or making searchable FGDC metadata
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 6
FGDC Metadata Publication & Search
FGDC Metadata Search OptionsGeo-Spatial OneStop (centralized, harvest-based catalog)Z39.50 Metasearch across NSDI clearinghouses (distributed catalogs)State/regional clearinghouses
FGDC Record DistributionHarvested by Geospatial One-StopMade available to state/regional clearinghousesPosted to agency websitesDistributed with data (hopefully)
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 7
Metadata in the NC GIS Community
FGDC CGDSM implemented by major state GIS agencies starting in 1994NC CGIA Metadata Outreach: regional workshops, phone support, training materialsAdoption
Some adoption by county agencies (21 of 92 county GIS systems as of Spring 2004)Some adoption by municipal agencies and COGS (13 of 51 municipal GIS systems by Spring 2004)Rare adoption by private, university, NGO’s
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 8
Metadata Availability by County
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 9
Local Agency Geospatial Metadata
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
FGDC-CompliantInternally DefinedData DictionaryNone/ Not Sure
Source: NC OneMap Data Inventory 2004
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 10
Refined vs. Unrefined Metadata
FGDC CSDGM complianceSeventy-eight page documentCostly to implementIncentives?Compliance as an end goal
Help or Hinder?Tools for automating metadata productionFree text options in CSDGM
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 11
Our Response
Raise metadata to minimum level
Normalize to a standard
Manage “expert” intervention
Carry forward original metadata record
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 12
Raise Metadata to Minimum Level
(see handout)
Metadata templateCreate template specific to data providerAutomate template applicationIndicate our curatorship
Check for sufficiency of critical elementsCorrect automation artifactsReview contact informationConfirm data/metadata concurrency
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 13
Normalize to a Standard(see handout)
XML formatMay involve format conversionStandard format for project metadata
Specialized profileAllows automation attributesAligns with international standards
ISO 19139 topic categories
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 14
Manage “Expert” Intervention(see handout)
Coordinate geospatial metadata management with:
Administrative metadata collectionOur own curatorship (see handout)Archive metadata production
Logical workflows
Automation where possible
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 15
FGDC Mapping to Dspace Qualified Dublin Core
Map applicable elements to QDCPart of larger element mapping scheme
AdvantagesLeverage geospatial metadata recordLeverage earlier “expert” intervention
LimitationsNot all mappings are 1 to 1
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 16
Content Packaging Requirements
Geospatial datasets are typically complex, multi-file objectsData are often accompanied by ancillary data, which must be associated with the data itemRights information and licenses must be associated with the item
Possible driver: GeoDRM Working Group activity within the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC)
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 17
Project METS Approach (in Progress)
Use as a “smart manifest” within the repository item (function as DIP intelligence)Avoid complexity
Not used for modeling tiled, or temporal data relationshipsNot used for behaviors
There is no assumption of METS record interoperability on export
Use of METS is to derive network effect benefits of community interaction and to participate in dialog about content packaging
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 18
Content Packaging: Future Plans
Participate in repository exchange activity – work towards better understanding of METS exchange and interoperabilityConsider mapping of metadata elements to PREMIS, within METSWatch geospatial community developments regarding content packaging (e.g. potential use of MPEG 21 DIDL with GeoDRM)Contribute library/archive use cases to GeoDRM developments
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 19
Summary: Metadata Issues
FGDC processing in archive complex – will be easier after ISO 191139 is widely implementedNeed to normalize and remediate existing FGDC metadataFeedback to statewide metadata outreach efforts is importantMapping to repository ingest item helps to refine definition of technical and administrative metadata elementsMETS vs. other content packaging solutions: what will be the long-term geospatial industry approach?
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 20
Questions?
Contact:
Steve MorrisHead, Digital Library InitiativesNCSU [email protected]
Rob FarrellGeospatial Initiatives LibrarianNCSU [email protected]
http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/ncgdap