Comments on: A Proposal for a GeoWeb Metadata Implementation

By: Kendall Lockerz

Kendall Lockerz — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 02:38:34 +0000

Greetings. 1st I desire to say that I actually like your webpage, just observed it last week but I’ve been following it constantly since then.

I seem to come to an agreement with most of your thinkings and beliefs and this post is no exception. entirely

Thank you for any great website and I hope you keep up the beneficial operate. If you do I will continue to read it.

Have a very excellent evening.

By: Quality Assurance for Crowdsourced GeoData: Icons and Comments? | Off the Map - Official Blog of FortiusOne

Tue, 16 Dec 2008 20:51:57 +0000

[...] this information is all available on any metadata page in Finder there is nothing that really covers if the data has been quality checked. One of the [...]

By: FortiusOne GeoCommons Finder is now Public Beta

FortiusOne GeoCommons Finder is now Public Beta — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 19:43:50 +0000

[...] saying that the great GeoCommons Finder! is now public beta. Many were very interested when it was announced so if you’ve been waiting for an invite to the private beta, you no longer have to wait. Sign [...]

By: Some notes and links for early summer

Some notes and links for early summer — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 02:45:53 +0000

[...] is an important addition to the stack on the strength of its metadata editing capabilities. As Sean Gorman pointed out a while ago, the existing specs for geospatial metadata are rather unwieldy for use on the geoweb. [...]

By: GeoCommons Metadata Implementation Screenshots | Off the Map - Official Blog of FortiusOne

Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:25:04 +0000

[...] got such useful feedback from the last metadata post I thought I would add some screen shots of how it is starting to come together. Unfortunately we [...]

By: Sean Gorman

Sean Gorman — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 08:25:34 +0000

Sorry Peter I completely missed this response. Greatly appreciate the mapping suggestions. Later this week we are going to post up some screen shots with our metadata pages and the different mappings we put together. We’ve altered what we originally put in the blog post so I’ll have to see how the suggestions map to the new stuff. It will all get posted up and would be great to get your thoughts.

thanks,
sean

By: Sean Gorman

Sean Gorman — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 07:38:50 +0000

Thanks James – appreciate the pointer. After the blog post we did add an ISO mapping to the data page. It will be good to get feedback on whether it is done correctly. Hope to get up some screen shots later this week.

By: James

James — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:16:36 +0000

you may be interested in a piece of work that my organization is currently undertaking ion behalf of the UK academic sector. We are reviewing DC and ISO and essentially creating a DC profile that will leverage the existing ISO work. Given the way the wider world is going it is important that whatever is used can play nicely with ISO and we have a draft profile available here:
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/repositories/digirep/images/e/ef/Geospatial_Application_Profile.doc

By: Peter Schweitzer

Peter Schweitzer — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:58:43 +0000

Here are a few technical notes on your mapping, on the assumption that you might see data that had FGDC metadata, and you might want to mine the metadata record for info to put into your simplified scheme.

FGDC has a Publisher field–that would map to Dublin Core’s Publisher more closely than Originator would; Originator is for the authors of the data. In most scientific data authorship is important for both good and bad reasons.

So I would say DC Publisher -> FGDC Publisher

Citation in FGDC is the bibliographic info for the item; it includes much more than the Dublin Core Creator field. The latter probably maps to the Originator fields within the Citation.

So I would say DC Creator -> FGDC Originator(s)

For User Name, your FGDC element needs to be Contact_Person within the Point_of_Contact (Contact_Information is used four different places in FGDC: Point_of_Contact, Process_Contact, Distributor, and Metadata_Contact)

So I would say User Name -> FGDC Point_of_Contact:Contact_Person

For Date like “date of these data” you probably want the Publication_Date in the Citation rather than the Time_Period_of_Content, though the complexity allowed by the latter illustrates how messy this concept can get.

So I would say Date -> Publication_Date

The best single FGDC element matching “Name of Source” would probably be Source_Citation_Abbreviation. I like to use a scientific style citation there, like “Smith (1994)”
though it’s possible to use a much more cryptic value (like number them 1, 2, 3, etc.)

So maybe Name of Source -> Source_Citation_Abbreviation

If by Features you mean “are there points, arcs, polys, multigeometries, or what”, then the answer in FGDC is stored in SDTS_Point_and_Vector_Object_Type (and there can be more than one of these) FGDC doesn’t assume that the documentation describes only one geometry type–it’s often helpful to lump things under the same metadata record (makes it easier to maintain the metadata and easier for people to read too).

So maybe Features -> SDTS_Point_and_Vector_Object_Type(s)

By: Sean Gorman

Sean Gorman — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 23:58:09 +0000

Thanks for the Entity_and_Attribute_Overview tip. The good news is that we can update the mappings fairly easily. The tougher thing is adding new information requests to the online forms if you want consistency across datasets. It will be a big task updating our existing datasets with the new elements and we’d like to only have to do it once. Are there any elements that are missing people feel are super critical or exceptionally useful?