New ISO 19115-1 Capabilities

ISO 19115-1 – Questions and Answers – Ted

( see handout)

·         There are a lot of changes occurring in the metadata world

·         Metadata has been revised from 19115 to 19115-1 (or back from 19115-2)

·         Think of evolution of metadata – evolution is good

·         NOAA and NASA were not involved with the process 19115-2 came out – there were a lot of things that didn’t work with datasets  - want to aim to ISO 19115-1

·         Program is a # of statements

I’m confused by all these numbers

·         ISO is changing – oriented towards word and pdf – no longer have separate XML representation of implement – XML will be part of single standard.  19115-3 is an XML representations – of 19115-1, 19115-2 and 19157(?)

Conceptual models are useful, but I need XML implementations to get going

·         Volunteers like ESIP create the schema (there is a delay) – it takes time to create the schema

·         With 19115-3 will be done in 1.9 years (which is about half of the past XML)

·         People have the ability to test and have input  - all models are publicly available and free

o   Creating xml schema from uml models

How do I become familiar with and help test the new implementations

·         http://github.com/ISO-TC211

·         using Git for standards developing – using it as a collaborator environment – super helpful

Can I migrate my existing metadata to 19115-1                                                                                                          

·         in the repository, an iso transform to 19115-1 (19115to19115-1.xsl)

·         geonetwork opensource

I use GeoNetwork to manage metadata.  How can I try 19115-1

·         will also work with GeoPortal (Chirstine) – tools will exist

I need to unambiguously identify metadata records in multiple repositories

·         back in the day would get data from individual websites

·         in 19115 –nice opaque identifier – need to know who owns the metadata

·         in 19115-1 – became an identifier

My metadata includes identifiers from different sources and namespaces

·         codespace = name space for the authority  - there are about 50 different identifies in an ISO record – can do this to quality… processing steps…

My datasets are parts of larger collections

·         made it into a citation – like an identifier but has title

I need to track when changes in my metadata happen

·         before had a dateStamp

·         now has a date and a type – anything that could apply to dataset can apply to metadata

·         13 new types of date including: distribution, next update, expiry (overlap but use the ones you want)

·         Tracking metadata lifecycle is important

·         Christine – tracking when my dataset changes – how do we update the metadata … currently for the CI citation can have any type there

o   In maintenance information for the dataset – use scope – maybe a maintenance history

I have many existing documentation resources that can help users

·         In 19115 – had a number of different external resources

·         Added more in 19115-1  - more like a hub that can help users find types of documentation

I have many existing web resources that can help users

·         Remember that 19115 came out in 2003 and was made in the last century

·         Citation model came from libraries – couldn’t use online resource and can browse graphics

·         Finally have citations that work in the web - *possibly the biggest change

I need consistent information about people and organizations

·         Originally called a responsible party – role – because it was inside the object couldn’t have a database with people because of role

·         Added responsibility – points to person or organization

·         Added an extent (spatial and temporal) – when you have a climate data set for 50 years – have many people involved – able to specify

·         As people retire, tack what they were responsible

I have people and organizations in many roles

·         In 19115 had 11 roles

·         Added 9 new ones: coauthor, funder, stakeholder, mediator

·         Q (Ken) – is there some community agreement about what these things mean – is it universal agreement.  ISO definitions are week, particularly for code lists

o   Definition a profile – defining code list in the terms – define which profile you are using

o   Steve is the editor of 19115-3 – thank you Steve

I use many shared vocabularies for consistency across collections

·         Key work types were limited – added 10 new ones (used in NASA metadata because of GCMD)

·         Q what is feature type supposed to be – type of geographic feature, ex. Road, buoy,

I use a Creative Common License for my data

·         In 19115, couldn’t use Creative Commons License for my data (from NZ) so they extended it– now able to cover all the parts they needed with 19115-1

·         Community extends standards – revisions get added to standard when agreed upon

My datasets include measured parameters, reference and quality information

·         Data from NOAA – have SST but then have quality info about what went into that

·         In 19115 – it was difficult to organize

·         Added group of things – quality information, reference,

·         Added types of content – including reference info, quality, model result, coordinate (NetCDF has coordinate variable – axis of grid – if have multidimensional grid with 1 dimension coordinate variables – this can be 1 dimensional without causes problem)

My group uses local parameter names but we need standard names to share

·         Only got 1 name – added Identifier – now have multiple names – identifiers

·         Can give which list identifier came from (ex. Gcmd or cf)

My data are higher level products that need summary statistics

·         MD_Band – is more of an instrument thing – had min and max – EM band for instrument not what is actually in the band

·         Now Sample dimension – now really numbers & simple descriptive statistics

·         Q (Alek) – if I want to a spectra response function – where would I cite where to get the instrument information – description of instruments in 19115-2 – can point to citation that need to get into 19115-2

·         Q Ken – but -1 and -2… so -2 has instrument information but not in-1 – proposed add sensor – couldn’t get into -1

o   -2 won’t change until years from now… eventually will move to -2 – it will still be an extension of -1

o   -2 is an extension of 19115.

o   (Christine) – what do you do with your instrument information when you move from -2 to -1… will be updated in the uml is -3

o   Will it be loosey – no – but lost address type

·         Q Jaci - So in essence this is "shoe horning" in the -2 stuff in the -1 as a temp fix?? – not a shoehorning because they fit nicely … it used to be there was 1 xml and one xml implementation – now have one xml implementation or multiple conceptual models

o   Did they change the definition of the MD_Band in -1? – became bound_min and bound_max – couldn’t have properties - yes

Users need to know the unit of my products so that they can use them correctly

·         Now actual units

My products need specific metadata that are not included in the general model

·         Can put model peramaters that are not normally there

There are papers and web pages that describe the quality of my data

·         Can add it as a quality  - can link to papers that reference the quality of the data – can apply to specific parts of a paper

My metadata include textual description of quality

·         This is 19157

My data quality information exists in database or web services

·         These are modular – can connect to other aspects

We use standard quality measures for all products

·         Can use in all products without description for all products – in ISO you reference things – that is all you need

·         Sometimes you have classes that need quality flags – ex. Science quality flag – need to know how to calculate scientific quality flag – then include name and description of measure

·         ECHO has these fields and know how to map into ISO

User increase our understanding of data quality.  We need to keep them in the loop

·         Put citation and users can find it.

Questions

·         Ed – coverage content type – great addition – quality is a broad term – uncertainty and error info would be useful – is there a place they can fit in the current code scope

o   As it is a code list – use your own if you like

o   There is a description and identifier for measuring parameters, reference and quality information – this is a discovery aid

o   Can add our own institutional code – then link to the code list we are using

·         Can add things, examples, and problems onto the esip wiki