Re: Status of ANZLIC Metadata Guidelines

[Kim.Finney@ml.csiro.au]

>Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 09:56:59
>To: John Hockaday <johnh@erin.gov.au>
>From: finney@pop
>Subject: Re: Status of ANZLIC Metadata Guidelines
>
>John,
>
>The CSIRO (Division of Marine Research) is currently designing its in-house
metadata directory which will use the core elements of the Blue Pages theme
directory (and therefore ANZLIC standard fields). I would have to agree with
your sentiments regarding designing the directory structure to reflect user
needs. We have in fact conceptually added extra fields necessary for our
inhouse purposes to the existing Blue Pages category areas. Where there are
no relevant categories we have added them. I don't think the ANZLIC "pages"
concept will work for us internally as it won't reflect how our users will
want to use the system. Perhaps as you say the standard should be restricted
to "content" not "structure". If the standard includes stipulated structures
I know that we will find it hard to conform.
>
>Kim Finney
>Data Manager
>
>
>At 14:47 22/11/96 +1100, you wrote:
>>Mark Wallis writes:
>>
>> THE METADATA PAGES CONCEPT
>>> Many organisations are now realising the need to correctly document
>>> their data holdings, including datasets they have acquired from other
>>> organisations. Also some organisations often need to document
>>> additional metadata elements other than those detailed under the
>>> ANZLIC guidelines. These additional metadata elements could include
>>> details relating to map projection, attributes details and storage
>>> location. To accommodate this, ANZLIC has developed a `Pages Concept'
>>> where ANZLIC core elements assigned `Page 0' status,  with any
>>> additional metadata recorded at lower levels on `Page 1' (additional
>>> jurisdictional metadata), `Page 2' (additional organisation metadata)
>>> and so on. As `Page 1' elements gain acceptance throughout the
>>> industry, they may be moved to `Page 0' status.
>> allow organisations to combine additional Page 1 or 2 elements. This
>>> will allow jurisdictions or organisations to enter any additionally
>>> required metadata elements.
>>
>>I believe that this "pages" method is NOT the right structure for users
>>to add extra fields to the metadata.
>>
>>I believe that the extra data would probably be related to the current
>>ANZLIC categories (eg dataset, description, data currency etc) and
>>therefore would be more useful if they were included in these areas.
>>If the extra metadata did not fall into one of these categories then
>>an extra category could be added at the end of the metadata report. 
>>
>>It would become too confusing to have to go down through many pages to
>>find an extra field related to the same category just because it was
>>not an ANZLIC field.  If people did not know what the ANZLIC fields
>>were then the structure of the metadata directory would look
>>disjointed.
>>
>>Many people print the reports that they find on the World Wide Web and
>>the "Pages" method would mean that they have to print many pages just
>>to get all the details of the report.  A full metadata report should
>>not be very long.  After all it is metadata not data.  A list of
>>contents could be used if the supplier felt that it was necessary.  A
>>list of contents would demonstrate the illogical layout of the pages
>>method.
>>
>>It would be more coherent to have the metadata fields broken up into
>>categories rather than levels otherwise people would have to be
>>familiar with every field in the pages layers to know in which level to
>>look for a particular value.
>>
>>If ANZLIC want people to use their metadata fields then they should
>>consider how people will use the system, what they would use it for and
>>the importance of the metadata that people want to provide.  The
>>"pages" method would indicate that ANZLIC considers the ANZLIC fields
>>to be the most important fields to all users where in reality they are
>>not.  Especially in themetic directories.
>>
>>It IS important that the ANZLIC fields be incorporated in data
>>directories to provide conformity but to consider that the ANZLIC
>>fields are the most important, and therefore should be at the very
>>front of each metadata set, is arrogant and is not considering the
>>potential users of the system.  Thus they may find that people will not
>>adopt this system if it dicates the structure rather than provide a
>>standard.
>>
>>___________________________________________________________________________
>>John Hockaday - Systems Officer                                 GPO Box 787
>>email: johnh@erin.gov.au                                  Canberra ACT 2601
>>phone: +61 6 274 1173  fax: +61 6 274 1333                        Australia
>>URL:http://www.erin.gov.au/
>>ERIN          Environmental  Resources  Information  Network           ERIN
>>___________________________________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>>
>





-------------------------------------------------------
 oo\                  
(__)\       _         
  \  \    .'  `.     See Ya Round ....
   \  \  /      \         
    \  '"        \        Kim Finney
     .       (  ) \       Data Manager
      '-| )__| :.  \      CSIRO Division of Oceanography
        | |  | | \  '.    (03) 6232 5476
       c__; c__;  '-..'>.__

-------------------------------------------------------