Title: Metadata Handling in the North Carolina Geospatial Data Project (NCGDAP) NCSU Libraries Steve Morris Head of Digital Library Initiatives Rob Farrell Geospatial Initiatives Librarian
1Metadata 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
2Overview
- Introduction to geospatial metadata
- Project approach to geospatial metadata handling
- Intersection with digital library metadata
standards - Project approach to content packaging
3NC 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 (state demonstration) - 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
4Project 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)
5FGDC 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
6FGDC 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)
7Metadata 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, NGOs
8Metadata Availability by County
9Local Agency Geospatial Metadata
Source NC OneMap Data Inventory 2004
10Refined 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
11Our Response
- Raise metadata to minimum level
- Normalize to a standard
- Manage expert intervention
- Carry forward original metadata record
12Raise 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
13Normalize 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
14Manage 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
15FGDC 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
16Content 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)
17Project 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
18Content 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
19Summary 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?
20Questions?
Contact Steve Morris Head, Digital Library
Initiatives NCSU Libraries Steven_Morris_at_ncsu.edu
Rob Farrell Geospatial Initiatives
Librarian NCSU Libraries Rob_Farrell_at_ncsu.edu
http//www.lib.ncsu.edu/ncgdap