Response rate: 93% (14 of 15 partners send questionnaire back)

1. Response rate: • 93% (14 of 15 partners send questionnaire back) • Response rate per question varies between 70-100% • Comments of “no response“ were: • This does not concern us as data provider • Question not applicable Varity of data types (37 datasets): Answers not significantly influenced by data types! Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg

2. Are the NEFIS metadata the first contact you have had with metadata? Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg

3. Partners knowledge and experience of elaborating metadata Partners knowledge and experience using metadata for data source retrieval Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg

4. 8 of 14 partners are using tools to create metadata: • Text editor • Three Tab Metadata/ Arc Catalog • Other…? Do you use any metadata standard or schema to describe and catalogue your datasets? • Used standards or schema are: • Dublin Core • ISO/TC211, USGS • guidelines compiled by Statistics Finland • (in line with EUROSTAT instructions) • FoxPro, Oracle Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg

5. How much time did you spend to enter the metadata records? Preparation phase I Studying documentation (metadata schema, metadata guidelines, metadata template) Preparation phase II Preliminary version of metadata records Completion phase Entering final version of metadata records Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg

6. Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg

7. Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg

8. Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg

9. Workload to enter metadata records Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg

10. Workload to enter metadata records (Cluster) Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg

11. Workload to enter metadata records (Total) most partners between 5-10 hours Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg

12. Do you consider the workload to enter metadata records as: • Level of complexity to prepare and enter metadata: • 29% = complex • 71% = acceptable Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg

13. Suggestions for improving metadata elaboration: • NEFIS Terms could include more structured levels (hierarchy) • NEFIS Terms could be revised to improve the usability and standardize the terms between the different lists. • as soon as this version of metadata preparation is implemented in a real Internet environment, drop down menus would reduce the time of data entry substantially. • the different provided lists were not easy to use and data entry was neither easy, …some efficient tools…for preparing and entering metadata would be useful. Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg

14. Are the guidelines easy to understand? Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg

15. Is the current NEFIS metadata schema operational and applicable for your use as a data provider? Is the current NEFIS metadata schema functional and applicable for a data user - for the purpose of data retrieval? • It is very difficult for us to judge this from the data user's point of view. Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg

16. Would a metadata tutorial or training course be helpful and appropriate? • Yes, necessary even !! • No, but there should be a contact person that I could ask if questions arise • No, but in the case of individuals not familiar with metadata YES • a separate meeting would bee too much, but a session in a meeting that takes place anyhow would be helpful Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg

17. Metadata schema – evaluation questionnaire matrix Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg

18. Metadata records without problems Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg

19. Problem of usability and functionality in general Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg

20. Problem of understanding Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg

21. Workload: time to prepare and enter required information Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg

22. Too much information is required Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg

23. Element should be deleted Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg

24. Should be mandatory Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg

25. Standardisation for better interoperability achieved? Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg

26. Relevance - data and resource documentation Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg

27. Relevance - data retrieval Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg

28. Metadata – specific issues (elements/ refinements) • Type • Format • Coverage • Quality Report • Subject Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg

29. Type: Clear differentiation DatasetGeoreferenced/ Dataset? • It might not be completely clear to everyone what georeferenced actually means. This could be more explicitly stated in the guidelines. • The Dataset georeferenced description seems to be too much accurate for the purpose of this project Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg

30. Format: Is the "reference system encoding scheme" an appropriate addition to the NEFIS metadata schema? • It gives the user valuable additional information, in particular if the user is interested in utilising the DatasetGeoreferenced for work. • I am not sure that all georeferenced datasets can be described by the current version. …longitude and latitude (as decimal degrees or in degrees/minutes/seconds) are not provided as variables. Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg

31. Is "format" the appropriate place for "reference system"? • It could be better to have the reference system within the element “coverage” • It could actually be an own “Element” Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg

32. Is Point encoding scheme an appropriate addition? 3 times no answer Is Box encoding scheme an appropriate addition? 4 times no answer Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg

33. Should the coordinate system be predefined? 4 times no answer • Would be helpful for more harmonisation (user end), but may cause difficulties • Yes, but we do not have to use this. It would mean less work for those trying to locate information from an EFIS…but it might mean that data providers have to convert their data sets. • The purpose is mainly to provide information on where to find the data - not to harmonise the data itself, and a predefined coordinate system could require much work for some datasets. • Metadata includes map-projection definitions (RT 90) Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg

34. "Quality" addressed within DCMI elements, refinements and encoding schemes Named elements which address “quality” within the DCMI schema: Creator, Description, Publisher, Coverage, Source, Date, Audience Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg

35. Relative value of a “quality report“ “quality report“ under the element “descriptions“? Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg

36. Value of listed options to describe and structure "quality report" • The question here is: Which of these options is appropriate for which type of data? Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg

37. Value of quantitative measures of quality (e.g. standard error, sample size, sampling unit, resampling for measurement control) • the question is: Which user can use this information correctly? • maybe applicable to some types of datasets but such information could also be included in the “quality report” description • it could become very complicated (and time consuming for data providers) to collect such information in a standardised way. Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg

38. Are the definitions for the NEFIS Themes appropriate? • they are different: some are detailed, others are of more general nature. Some harmonisation is needed. • sometimes difficult to group the term under a theme • I see some need for further elaboration and specification. In particular concerning the themes: • ‘research’, ‘forestry institutions’ and ‘economics’. • It will be important to review the list of NEFIS themes and their definitions. Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg

39. Can the dataset be appropriately described by using the NEFIS terms? • sometimes difficult to group the term under a theme • very time consuming to go through the lists … more structure would be helpful. Question of balance between accuracy of description and time investment becomes apparent. • some overlap of NEFIS terms can be found. The level of detail and the accuracy of the terms relating to a resource will always be an issue which will be nearly impossible to solve to everyone’s satisfaction. Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg

40. How important is the option to add "Nominated Terms" • it could be the way to improve the term lists • it’s very important during the development phase • nominated terms are really needed; in some cases they are more relevant than NEFIS terms • …it allows the provider to demonstrate which additional terms are seen necessary to describe the particular resource more accurately • …it is important….but who will be the editorial board? Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg

41. Is the element "audience" an important addition? • This element is in particular important for the data provider. The provider should have a clear vision on the addressees of the information resource… • The data provider can not evaluate the class of entity to whom the resource is indented or useful. It is too subjective. Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg

42. Metadata Schema - Resume = without problems ? ? = with some problems ? ? = problems (hot spots) ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg

43. Perspective: establish a metadata working group? Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg

44. Discussion Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg