Hello all, As a data provider I must admit that I am somewhat alarmed by the potential for having to provide multiple metadata representations for thousands (millions) of datasets. I noted in John Weatherley's seminar on OAI metadata harvesting that the original source materials were DCXML files (see http://dublincore.org/documents/2000/07/14/dcmes-xml/ for a discussion and DTD). I could easily imagine a situation where I had to create and maintain these files and a parallel set for FGDC representations. This is, of course, relatively straightforward in a world of static metadata. DC seems much more static than FGDC, so maybe this is not a huge problem. In a dynamic metadata situation where data providers, data managers, or data processing systems are interacting with the metadata on essentially random time schedules, seems like it could turn into a massive file management headache. BTW, John Caron's seminar suggested that I was going to need a bunch of other XML files hanging around to define collections. This only adds to the problem. My approach to avoiding this problem is to try to produce multiple metadata representations from a single source (in my case a relational database). The content of that database is essentially FGDC, although I expect that it will soon migrate to ISO 19115. What's important about this is that it is a "fatter" standard (it has more stuff). The desire to have more stuff is what led me to agree with Jeff's earlier e-mail suggesting that it might be difficult to recover from starting small. In that case, the problem Jeff and Stefano have discussed becomes one of revealing different subsets of information from the database in response to different requests. In any case, I was driven to explore the DC-FGDC crosswalk in the hope that I could easily create DC from FGDC (what the heck, it's the day after Christmas and I'm at work!). I was interested to see that this crosswalk was not referenced in the big list of crosswalks (http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/interoperability/). Is there an obvious reason for that? My initial efforts are in the attached file. It looks to me like this crosswalk is rather straightforward. The most serious omission is the identifier field. As far as I know, FGDC does not include this concept, unfortunately. Could be added as an extension. I also think OGC is working on an interesting approach to unique identifiers. This crosswalk may raise some interesting questions about the list of metadata elements Ben presented (http://www.smete.org/nsdl/workgroups/standards/current_element_set.html BTW, the definition of the identifier element is broken in that list). When one follows the crosswalk to FGDC land, one many times lands in the middle of a section that has a bunch of required elements that are not included in DC. This, of course, makes going from DC to FGDC impossible, but it raises the question of whether NSDL might want to beef up this list. What good are keywords from a controlled vocabulary if you don't know what controlled vocabulary it is? or identifiers from a specific context if you don't know what context it is? I am a real neophyte in this business, so I could be making some simple errors. In any case, it is also a rough draft! Happy New Year to all! Ted HabermannTitle: DC- FGDC Crosswalk
|DC Element||FGDC ???|
|Title: A name given to the resource.||126.96.36.199 Title -- the name by which the data set is known.|
|Creator: An entity primarily responsible for making the content of the resource.||188.8.131.52 Originator -- the name of an organization or individual that developed the data set. If the name of editors or compilers are provided, the name must be followed by "(ed.)" or "(comp.)" respectively.|
|Subject: Typically, a Subject will be expressed as keywords, key phrases or classification codes that describe a topic of the resource.||184.108.40.206 Theme Keywords
220.127.116.11 Stratum Keywords
|Description: An account of the content of the resource.||1.2.1 Abstract -- a brief
narrative summary of the data set.
1.2.2 Purpose -- a summary of the intentions with which the data set was developed.
1.2.3 Supplemental Information -- other descriptive information about the data set.
|Contributor: An entity responsible for making contributions to the content of the resource.||2.5.1 Source Information -- list of sources and a short discussion of the information contributed by each.|
|Publisher: An entity responsible for making the resource available||18.104.22.168.2 Publisher -- the
name of the individual or organization that published the data set.
6.1 Distributor -- the party from whom the data set may be obtained.
|Date: A date associated with an event in the life cycle of the resource.||22.214.171.124 Publication Date -- the date when the data set is published or otherwise made available for release.|
|Type: The nature or genre of the content of the resource.||8.6 Geospatial Data Presentation Form -- the mode in which the geospatial data are represented. Potential Controlled Vocabulary Problems.|
|Format: The physical or digital manifestation of the resource.||126.96.36.199.1 Format Name -- the name of the data transfer format.|
|Identifier: An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context.|
|Source: A Reference to a resource from which the present resource is derived.||188.8.131.52 Larger Work Citation -- the information identifying a larger work in which the data set is included.|
|Language: A language of the intellectual content of the resource.||1.2.3 Supplemental Information -- other descriptive information about the data set.|
|Relation: A reference to a related resource. These relations are expressed by qualifiers: IsVersionOf, HasVersion, IsReplacedBy, Replaces, Requires, IsPartOf, HasPart, IsReferencedBy, IsFormatOf, HasFormat||Many of these relations could end up being expressed as parts of a lineage chain in section 2.5. Others would be expressed as part of the Larger Work Citation (184.108.40.206).|
|Coverage: The extent or scope of the content of the resource. Coverage will typically include spatial location (a place name or geographic coordinates), temporal period (a period label, date, or date range) or jurisdiction (such as a named administrative entity).||220.127.116.11 Place Keywords
18.104.22.168 Temporal Keywords
|Rights:||1.7 Access Constraints --
restrictions and legal prerequisites for accessing the data set. These
include any access constraints applied to assure the protection of privacy or
intellectual property, and any special restrictions or limitations on
obtaining the data set.
1.8 Use Constraints -- restrictions and legal prerequisites for using the data set after access is granted. These include any use constraints applied to assure the protection of privacy or intellectual property, and any special restrictions or limitations on using the data set.
NOTE: All email exchanges with Unidata User Support are recorded in the Unidata inquiry tracking system and then made publicly available through the web. If you do not want to have your interactions made available in this way, you must let us know in each email you send to us.