200 likes | 316 Views
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. Overview.
E N D
Metadata Handling in the North Carolina Geospatial Data Project (NCGDAP)NCSU LibrariesSteve Morris Head of Digital Library Initiatives Rob Farrell Geospatial Initiatives Librarian Digital Preservation in State Government: Best Practices Exchange 2006
Overview • Introduction to geospatial metadata • Project approach to geospatial metadata handling • Intersection with digital library metadata standards • Project approach to content packaging Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question
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 (statedemonstration) • Tied to NC OneMap initiative, which provides for seamless access to data, metadata, and inventories • Objective: engage existing state/federal geospatial data infrastructures in preservation Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question
Project Metadata Overview • Geospatial Standards • FGDC Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata • (upcoming) North American Profile of ISO standard for geospatial metadata • Digital Library Standards • Qualified Dublin Core • Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS) • PREMIS (PREservation Metadata: Implementation Strategies) Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question
FGDC Metadata Overview • Standard in 1994, mandated for federal agency use in 1995 • 1998 ver. 2 to be replaced by North American Profile of the ISO standard • Descriptive, technical, and administrative metadata – over 300 elements • FGDC is a content standard without an encoding standard – creates archive problems • Many software products exist for authoring or making searchable FGDC metadata Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question
FGDC Metadata Publication & Search • FGDC Metadata Search Options • Geo-Spatial OneStop (centralized, harvest-based catalog) • Z39.50 Metasearch across NSDI clearinghouses (distributed catalogs) • State/regional clearinghouses • FGDC Record Distribution • Harvested by Geospatial One-Stop • Made available to state/regional clearinghouses • Posted to agency websites • Distributed with data (hopefully) Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question
Metadata in the NC GIS Community • FGDC CGDSM implemented by major state GIS agencies starting in 1994 • NC CGIA Metadata Outreach: regional workshops, phone support, training materials • Adoption • 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
Metadata Availability by County Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question
Local Agency Geospatial Metadata Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question Source: NC OneMap Data Inventory 2004
Refined vs. Unrefined Metadata • FGDC CSDGM compliance • Seventy-eight page document • Costly to implement • Incentives? • Compliance as an end goal • Help or Hinder? • Tools for automating metadata production • Free text options in CSDGM Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question
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
Raise Metadata to Minimum Level(see handout) • Metadata template • Create template specific to data provider • Automate template application • Indicate our curatorship • Check for sufficiency of critical elements • Correct automation artifacts • Review contact information • Confirm data/metadata concurrency Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question
Normalize to a Standard(see handout) • XML format • May involve format conversion • Standard format for project metadata • Specialized profile • Allows automation attributes • Aligns with international standards • ISO 19139 topic categories Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question
Manage “Expert” Intervention(see handout) • Coordinate geospatial metadata management with: • Administrative metadata collection • Our own curatorship (see handout) • Archive metadata production • Logical workflows • Automation where possible Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question
FGDC Mapping to Dspace Qualified Dublin Core • Map applicable elements to QDC • Part of larger element mapping scheme • Advantages • Leverage geospatial metadata record • Leverage earlier “expert” intervention • Limitations • Not all mappings are 1 to 1 Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question
Content Packaging Requirements • Geospatial datasets are typically complex, multi-file objects • Data are often accompanied by ancillary data, which must be associated with the data item • Rights 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
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 relationships • Not 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
Content Packaging: Future Plans • Participate in repository exchange activity – work towards better understanding of METS exchange and interoperability • Consider mapping of metadata elements to PREMIS, within METS • Watch 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
Summary: Metadata Issues • FGDC processing in archive complex – will be easier after ISO 191139 is widely implemented • Need to normalize and remediate existing FGDC metadata • Feedback to statewide metadata outreach efforts is important • Mapping to repository ingest item helps to refine definition of technical and administrative metadata elements • METS 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
Questions? Contact: Steve Morris Head, Digital Library Initiatives NCSU Libraries Steven_Morris@ncsu.edu Rob Farrell Geospatial Initiatives Librarian NCSU Libraries Rob_Farrell@ncsu.edu http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/ncgdap Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question