Home

Project

Partners

Related

Archives

Search

Glossary

Metadata Watch Report #1

[ contents | section 1 | section 2 ]

Section 3 - Domain reports

3.1 Industrial sector
3.2 Publishing sector
3.3 Audio-visual sector
3.4 Educational sector
3.5 Academic sector
3.6 Research sector
3.7 Geographical information sector

3.7 Geographical information sector

First, we can distinguish two main geographical zones: the United-States and Europe. These two groups do not seem to cooperate a lot together.

The American initiatives I found, were really developed and a little bit ahead of the European because they began earlier. The FGDC (Federal Geographic Data Committee) has developed an impressive number of tools, training material, awareness activities, guidelines, etc. on metadata intended to the GI community.

Nevertheless, the European projects are still rather numerous. They are regrouped under common banners such as the European Commission projects or EUROGI. Under these banners, they have more strength and impact. Besides, they share their metadata experience and exchange ideas and concepts.

The GI community did not seem to agree yet between its own members on a metadata definition.

I found many different ways of working with metadata, and therefore of seeing metadata. Metadata is still often seen, as in the old school, as a means to facilitate the search of data in a database. The concepts of: "metadata for search on a database", "metedata for catalogues and queries", "clearing house", "catalogue and metadata level information", are really present in the projects I discovered. Yet, I believe that it is important to also take these projects into consideration, otherwise the SCHEMAS project will have to put aside a quite impressive number of initiatives.

I actually found very few projects dealing purely with metadata for the Web, as we do in SCHEMAS.

The GI community does not seem to work towards a common goal regarding this subject. Even when I attended GI workshops or meetings, I felt that a long way is still to be done in order to arrive to a common understanding between people working in that field.

Actually, a lot of work has been done and is still done, yet every initiative works independently and on its own.

If the metadata definition is not clear yet, the standards to adopt are even more blur. Too many various standards are developed by people working on projects but without any joint work with other initiatives or projects. To a certain extent, each project follow its own definition and standards.

The main standards for the moment are:

• The work of ISO TC 211 is really important in the domain and should be taken into account, even if they will not be reporting out the final version of the global GI metadata standard until Sept. 2001 (according to the current chart). Yet, when it will be finally delivered, many large organisations, including national agencies such as defense mapping agencies, will be adopting it.

• The CEN TC 287 standard for metadata, which was completed and released as a voluntary standard (ENV 12657), which many organisations, such as MEGRIN's GDDD and others, have adopted in one form or another.

Finally, I do not want to appear too critical and negative.

Actually it is a domain where metadata is present, which is already very good.

The GI community realises the need for metadata and seems to work hard on finding definitions and standards, which can suit their needs.

Very good project, such as ETeMII, tries to bring the GI community together in order to reach a common agreement on metadata and the standards to adopt.

To try to work more together and in the same direction

• To establish a common metadata definition and standards
• To focus more on metadata for the Web
• To open the GI community to other working fields in order to share experience and ideas on the domain
• To develop more material: tools, training material and guidelines

It seems that the GI community really wants and tries to work towards an agreed definition and standards of metadata.

They also try to open their field to other ones dealing also with metadata in order to have a broader horizon on what is happening on that front and try to reach a common agreement, and not working together alone in its own domain.

I did not notice any important overlap regarding the subjects involved. Various sub-domains and fields in the geographic information field are treated. The project are really varied, always dealing with a precise geographic field like: geospatial data, hydrographical data, digital spatial data, geological data, etc…

Yet, we can maybe identify overlaps and gaps in the way metadata are seen. Too many projects are dealing with metadata catalogues and queries. Maybe, these projects could be regrouped in order to work on a common multidisciplinary database, instead of developing too many various databases.

Furthermore, strong gaps subsist in the development of metadata for the Web.

Finally, too many projects develop metadata for their own use and we notice gaps in developing joint metadata standards and definitions. Projects such as ETeMII are essential in trying to bring people to the same table and to discuss about the decisions to take towards metadata. Yet, few projects as this one exist.

Activities in this domain are generally carried out by not-for-profit consortia or by government agencies.

Outputs generally fall into the category of frameworks, schemas, rules and metadata sets. This contrasts sharply with the Industry domain and its outputs which fall into the following categories:

1. Applications of XML
2. Tools
3. Frameworks, schemas, rules and metadata sets
4. Registries

The subcategories in the industry domain are shown below. An asterisk indicates that a number of bona fide SCHEMAS-worthy activites were found in each respective subcategory:

• Electrical power distribution
• Environment*
• Government (including military)

• General*
• Environment*
• Military
• Health care*
• Mail and delivery
• Transportation and Logistics

Of the above, most activity falls within the Government category. The primary goals of the government projects are to facilitate metadata-enabled content creation, delivery, use and reuse:

• among government agencies within a particular country
• within a particular government agency within a particular country
• between business and government
• between scientific research and government

In one case, the primary goal was to facilitate metadata-enabled content creation, delivery, use and reuse between agencies of different governments (in this case, the US and Canada).

As is the case with many of the activities in the Industry domain, many activites in the "Other" domain consisted of proposals and descriptions of an activity, but no tangible, usable programme or output.

Also like the Industry category, the trend here seems to be vertical, i.e. activities are oriented towards one particular government agency or the link between one particular agency and its non-governmental associates. The same is true of the field of health care which is served by the HL7 (Health Level 7) initiative.

There seems to be little interaction between military and non-military initiatives in government. The gap in the government domain becomes apparent when one surmises that perhaps one method of facilitating metadata-enabled content creation, delivery, use and reuse might be extensible to an entire government or even a consortium of governments, instead of having different methods (or no method) for each government agency (and its non-government associates, if necessary).

[ contents | section 1 | section 2 ]

Maintained by: UK Office for Library and Information Networking (UKOLN)
Last updated: 07 August 2001