Metadata Standards and Adoption: Challenges and Solutions

2. Problems/Disc. • Adoption of standards • Should there be standards? • (not a big problem – responsibility lies with data centre – onus not on scientist) • (peer to peer relationships) • (there is an obligation on the scientists scientists – if we are to support interop, scientists need to play a role) • (Standards is a big word – at what level do we standardizing?) • (we assume that there will be funding to support scientists) • (need cost efficient dm – tools and process) • Many standards – set priorities – data, metadata, • Form that can be translated – ie. Profiles – customizing standards for a community – ‘recall – pdf means nothing to me’ – • Consider effort in translation – standardization • Problem def: governance in defining community profiles – paricularly in distributed environment - need to look at international standards – profiling – minimum standard where community agrees and ind. Projects go beyond • To practitioners, metadata can be overwhelming • Fitness for use is a critical element of metadata – no more, no less • Diff. Between producers vs. consumers in terms of how we create metadata • Look at ontology at multiple levels: top level, domain and application – top level critical for sharing in ip • Problem def: Shortcoming of standards upon implementation – maturity and issue • Local requirements re. Compliance with ‘profiles’, standards etc.

3. We are missing content standards – without we limit higher level interoperability – separation of syntactical, schematic and semantic interop – need to do more about schematic and semantic • Need to establish what exists: NERC, WMO • Do we need stndrds?: how do we enforce? If you allow all formats – becomes less efficent – possibly loss of information. Carrots/sticks. • Differentiate between metadata and data • Concept of codes • Objective is to facilitate not introduce obstacles – as simple as possible/practical • Establish benefits to the science community and the managers , ipy program etc. • Legacy – bridge the gap between data and users • Metadata seem quite clear - – profile is an issue – minimum level • Minimum standard for content / metadata services are a separate issue • Validation is an issue – 19139 is a current limitation • Standardized schema (from profile) a goal (?) – includes development of dictionaries – user semantics key • Re. Geo-standards – need to deal with field based conceptualizations and processes • Coordinate systems – local systems need to be considered. • Can this group take these recommendations and implement – reference standards and reference implementations – capacity in community to adhere to standards, profiles

4. Recommendations Metadata (Primary) a) What should be in the metadata? • Metadata standard – 19115 – minimum profile (DIF, DIF+) – schema (19139) • Examine next level – dictionaries • Consider DOI as a requirement? (Persistent ids) (related to legacy, archiving) b) How do we provide ‘access’ to metadata? • 1) Recommendations on implementation – i.e. support union mapproach etadata harvesting - OAI-PMH (Data Centres) • 2) Recommendations on development of higher level services i.e. OGC Catalogue Service Data interop (Secondary) • Recommendations i.e. WMS/WFS/WCS/SOS • Currently implemented in some projects may be appropriate for others or new projects • Services typically domain of data centres • Need clear architectural Diagram – Providers, Data Centres, Users (Infrastructure, Mediator, Interface) • Next stage: schemas, semantics etc., URI strategy Community Liaison • Outreach? How do we engage data managers, providers, users? “Light a candle” • Engage stakeholders (users, providers, data managers, general public etc.). User Needs Analysis? How?

5. Part II • Elaborate on outreach • How do we sell and train? • Do we need to sell it? If people want to participate then they will ‘figure it out’ • How do we make it attractive? • Related – after IPY, who owns Intellectual or Real Property? Different for North and South (ATS) • Do we research DRM and overall ownership of IPY data management – can have an impact on how we standardize, adoption etc. – how does this fit with IPY philosophy. Particularly and issue with privately funded projects. • Who are the target of outreach activities? Data Centres (not just WDCs), Providers(funders including), end users, tool developers • Possible resource (OGC) • Sciences and society aspect • Need to consider users • Keep it simple for providers of data (i.e. scientists). Minimum amount required to facilitate incorporation into standards compliant infrastructure • Look to other initiatives – Marine Metadata Initiative • Potential outreach and una activities at conferences • As a data community, consider outreach as part of ongoing activities • Workshop including those projects including data management components? Questionnaire with modest number of questions? • Phases of outreach – 1) supporting establishment 2) promoting established program