Folks
I urge you to consider describing your metadata with an ISO 19115 profile: both in terms of the elements it contains and the names you give those elements.
In Australia there is already a Federal Government ISO profile, and ANZLIC is close to a national profile. At least for the ESRI world there is a growing enthusiasm in USA for a move from FGDC to ISO.
Robyn G
Iain
ISO19115 has been a published standard for a couple of years (officially labelled 2003). You can buy a copy from ISO for ~200CHF, or from your local standards people. It is a 'generic' gescription.
ISO19139, which is a specification for the XML implementation of 19115, is in final draft. Because ESRI, for example, actually STORE metadata in XML they have used the delay in 19139 as an excuse for not moving faster on ISO implementation. I have something Clint Brown sent me that suggests even they are moving at 9.2.
But 19115 defines the sorts of things to collect, which ones are mandatory, the picklists etc. Since that's where we start in designing our metadata, I argue that using the 'language' of 19115 makes sense if you are looking forward rather than back.
RG
Sorry I have not been more involved with the advancement of this project; how do you find the time?
I had sent out a message via googlegroups but will post here as well....
Regarding the future of this project. As stated by Iain, the first step is to identify the core attributes required to define a particular dataset. I understand there are many templates in place which were produced by various agencies, industries and professionals. If we can list these fields we can then identify similarities and possibly designate them mandatory. Consider this phase one. The next step is to properly describe these attributes with definition and examples. This refined list can them be voted on by the group, industry representatives, etc.
Hi Iain, Robyn,
I spoke with Lesley Wyborn (Geoscience Australia) today about the development and adoption of the metadata standards described by Robyn here.
It seems to me that we have a great opportunity to take a role in pushing this towards an international standard. Lesley is meeting with a number of key international government stakeholders shortly and it is possible that we might see some momentum towards adopting this internationally.
Perhaps we should play a greater role in collaborating with our respective governments in North America and here to ensure we end up with a single standard? I'm sure the metadata working group could contribute something; perhaps identifying the basic elements of the schema as we see it. If we are able to present a unified industry view we could be quite pursuasive in moving things forward. No doubt we could all benefit from the interoperability derived from adopting a standard!
What do you think?
Tony
Clearly you have my total support ... if for no other reason than that all of this stuff requires a lot of work by a lot of smart people, and you might as well share the effort.
Piggy-backing on intermational/standards projects was a line I pushed at the San Diego MIGC meeting, but I didn't feel there was much support for the idea from the large companies.
Presumably Lesley will be at the GeoSciML meetings in Belgium in Sept. Although GeoSciML is another beast (an international data exchange language), it subsumes a number of other standards and its metadata is ISO19115/139.
cheers
