who,s_who

["Jim" <Mitchelj@lic.gov.au>]

Hi!

A number of addressees will know my background but, by way of
introduction and update, read on.

I was formerly responsible for the production and maintenance of
topographic data for NSW  -  and had an interest in metadata from
that perspective.  The former Land Information Centre is in the
throes of implementing a separation between what is regarded as
Public Good (CSO) and contestable (potentially commercial) assets
and functions  -  my role will be involved in the Public Good side.

Although we have a tendency to "re-invent our own version of the
wheel", I support the adoption of the ANZLIC metadata model,
with direct involvement in its on-going development as the means of
adapting it to meet our needs.

One of my observations on our (state level) progress so far - I don't
know of anybody who has implemented "in-process" collection of
metadata yet - is that organisations are still fearful of the cost of
implementing metadata and uncertain of the benefits.

It hasn't worked yet but what I have proposed internally is a set of
decision rules based on the following:


---------------------- substitute for italics -------------------------------------

There are 3 levels of metadata mooted which are described as:

 . Page 0 - The simplest level, also considered the minimum level
 for publication nationally,
 . Page 1 - The next higher level, regarded as "jurisdiction" or State
 level and assumed to contain more detail, and
. Page 2 - The highest level of detail native to the particular dataset,
 also could be described as custodian level.

The most burdensome, and impractical, aspect of implementing
metadata is in relation to the retrospective recovery and collation for
existing or mature datasets.

One way of making a start is to decide a maximum level of metadata
depending on the status of a dataset whether it is:

 . mature - primary capture/conversion largely complete with routine
 maintenance,
 . current - primary capture/conversion in progress with or without
 routine maintenance, and
 . developing - new data collections where primary capture/conversion 
 is in the very early stages or is planned.

One assignment of level(Page) vs status could be:

 . mature datasets  -  Page 0 only - eventual integration into
 maintenance process,
 . current datasets  -  Page 0 with as much Page 1 and 2 as practical
 with the routine collection of metadata built into the maintenance
 process (no retrospective Page 1/2), and
 . developing datasets - Page 1/2 metadata collection built into
capture/conversion process.

---------------------- substitute for italics -----------------------------------

If you put aside the effort required to do Level 1/2 retrospective
metadata collection  -  even if it could be recovered  -  the task
is far less daunting.

If anybody out there has "done it already" I would appreciate hearing
about it.

All comments most welcome.

Jim Mitchell