Metadata Federation of PICES Member Countries

(Document pdf contains 193 pages) Executive Summary (pdf, < 0.1 Mb) 1. Introduction (pdf, 0.2 Mb) 1.1 Data sharing, international boundaries and large marine ecosystems 2. Objectives (pdf, 0.3 Mb) 3. Background (pdf, < 0.1 Mb) 3.1 North Pacific Ecosystem Metadatabase 3.2 First federation effort: NPEM and the Korea Oceanographic Data Center 3.2 Continuing effort: Adding Japan’s Marine Information Research Center 4. Metadata Standards (pdf, < 0.1 Mb) 4.1 Directory Interchange Format 4.2 Ecological Metadata Language 4.3 Dublin Core 4.3.1. Elements of DC 4.4 Federal Geographic Data Committee 4.5 The ISO 19115 Metadata Standard 4.6 Metadata stylesheets 4.7 Crosswalks 4.8 Tools for creating metadata 5. Communication Protocols (pdf, < 0.1 Mb) 5.1 Z39.50 5.1.1. What does Z39.50 do? 5.1.2. Isite 6. Clearinghouses (pdf, < 0.1 Mb) 7. Methodology (pdf, 0.2 Mb) 7.1 FGDC metadata 7.1.1. Main sections 7.1.2. Supporting sections 7.1.3. Metadata validation 7.2 Getting a copy of Isite 7.3 NSDI Clearinghouse 8. Server Configuration and Technical Issues (pdf, 0.4 Mb) 8.1 Hardware recommendations 8.2 Operating system – Red Hat Linux Fedora 8.3 Web services – Apache HTTP Server version 2.2.3 8.4 Create and validate FGDC-compliant Metadata in XML format 8.5 Obtaining, installing and configuring Isite for UNIX/Linux 8.5.1. Download the appropriate Isite software 8.5.2. Untar the file 8.5.3. Name your database 8.5.4. The zserver.ini file 8.5.5. The sapi.ini file 8.5.6. Indexing metadata 8.5.7. Start the Clearinghouse Server process 8.5.8. Testing the zserver installation 8.6 Registering with NSDI Clearinghouse 8.7 Security issues 9. Search Tutorial and Examples (pdf, 1 Mb) 9.1 Legacy NSDI Clearinghouse search interface 9.2 New GeoNetwork search interface 10. Challenges (pdf, < 0.1 Mb) 11. Emerging Standards (pdf, < 0.1 Mb) 12. Future Activity (pdf, < 0.1 Mb) 13. Acknowledgments (pdf, < 0.1 Mb) 14. References (pdf, < 0.1 Mb) 15. Acronyms (pdf, < 0.1 Mb) 16. Appendices 16.1. KODC-NPEM meeting agendas and minutes (pdf, < 0.1 Mb) 16.1.1. Seattle meeting agenda, August 22–23, 2005 16.1.2. Seattle meeting minutes, August 22–23, 2005 16.1.3. Busan meeting agenda, October 10–11, 2005 16.1.4. Busan meeting minutes, October 10–11, 2005 16.2. MIRC-NPEM meeting agendas and minutes (pdf, < 0.1 Mb) 16.2.1. Seattle Meeting agenda, August 14-15, 2006 16.2.2. Seattle meeting minutes, August 14–15, 2006 16.2.3. Tokyo meeting agenda, October 19–20, 2006 16.2.4. Tokyo, meeting minutes, October 19–20, 2006 16.3. XML stylesheet conversion crosswalks (pdf, < 0.1 Mb) 16.3.1. FGDCI to DIF stylesheet converter 16.3.2. DIF to FGDCI stylesheet converter 16.3.3. String-modified stylesheet 16.4. FGDC Metadata Standard (pdf, 0.1 Mb) 16.4.1. Overall structure 16.4.2. Section 1: Identification information 16.4.3. Section 2: Data quality information 16.4.4. Section 3: Spatial data organization information 16.4.5. Section 4: Spatial reference information 16.4.6. Section 5: Entity and attribute information 16.4.7. Section 6: Distribution information 16.4.8. Section 7: Metadata reference information 16.4.9. Sections 8, 9 and 10: Citation information, time period information, and contact information 16.5. Images of the Isite server directory structure and the files contained in each subdirectory after Isite installation (pdf, 0.2 Mb) 16.6 Listing of NPEM’s Isite configuration files (pdf, < 0.1 Mb) 16.6.1. zserver.ini 16.6.2. sapi.ini 16.7 Java program to extract records from the NPEM metadatabase and write one XML file for each record (pdf, < 0.1 Mb) 16.8 Java program to execute the metadata extraction program (pdf, < 0.1 Mb) A1 Addendum 1: Instructions for Isite for Windows (pdf, 0.6 Mb) A2 Addendum 2: Instructions for Isite for Windows ADHOST (pdf, 0.3 Mb)

Scientific Data Application Profile Scoping Study

This study was undertaken by UKOLN on behalf of the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) in the period April to September 2008. Application profiles are metadata schemata which consist of data elements drawn from one or more namespaces, optimized for a particular local application. They offer a way for particular communities to base the interoperability specifications they create and use for their digital material on established open standards. This offers the potential for digital materials to be accessed, used and curated effectively both within and beyond the communities in which they were created. The JISC recognized the need to undertake a scoping study to investigate metadata application profile requirements for scientific data in relation to digital repositories, and specifically concerning descriptive metadata to support resource discovery and other functions such as preservation. This followed on from the development of the Scholarly Works Application Profile (SWAP) undertaken within the JISC Digital Repositories Programme and led by Andy Powell (Eduserv Foundation) and Julie Allinson (RRT UKOLN) on behalf of the JISC. Aims and Objectives 1.To assess whether a single metadata AP for research data, or a small number thereof, would improve resource discovery or discovery-to-delivery in any useful or significant way. 2.If so, then to:a.assess whether the development of such AP(s) is practical and if so, how much effort it would take; b.scope a community uptake strategy that is likely to be successful, identifying the main barriers and key stakeholders. 3.Otherwise, to investigate how best to improve cross-discipline, cross-community discovery-to-delivery for research data, and make recommendations to the JISC and others as appropriate. Approach The Study used a broad conception of what constitutes scientific data, namely data gathered, collated, structured and analysed using a recognizably scientific method, with a bias towards quantitative methods. The approach taken was to map out the landscape of existing data centres, repositories and associated projects, and conduct a survey of the discovery-to-delivery metadata they use or have defined, alongside any insights they have gained from working with this metadata. This was followed up by a series of unstructured interviews, discussing use cases for a Scientific Data Application Profile, and how widely a single profile might be applied. On the latter point, matters of granularity, the experimental/measurement contrast, the quantitative/qualitative contrast, the raw/derived data contrast, and the homogeneous/heterogeneous data collection contrast were discussed. The Study report was loosely structured according to the Singapore Framework for Dublin Core Application Profiles, and in turn considered: the possible use cases for a Scientific Data Application Profile; existing domain models that could either be used or adapted for use within such a profile; and a comparison existing metadata profiles and standards to identify candidate elements for inclusion in the description set profile for scientific data. The report also considered how the application profile might be implemented, its relationship to other application profiles, the alternatives to constructing a Scientific Data Application Profile, the development effort required, and what could be done to encourage uptake in the community. The conclusions of the Study were validated through a reference group of stakeholders.