1 / 62

Strategies for the Reluctants: Enabling Metadata Development

Strategies for the Reluctants: Enabling Metadata Development. Eric Landis Natural Resources Information Management elandis@ix.netcom.com Sharon Shin Federal Geographic Data Committee Secretariat sharon_shin@usgs.gov. Agenda. About Us and Our Mission Our World of Biological Data Issues

deva
Télécharger la présentation

Strategies for the Reluctants: Enabling Metadata Development

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Strategies for the Reluctants:Enabling Metadata Development Eric Landis Natural Resources Information Management elandis@ix.netcom.com Sharon Shin Federal Geographic Data Committee Secretariat sharon_shin@usgs.gov

  2. Agenda • About Us and Our Mission • Our World of Biological Data Issues • Our Metadata • Process, Training, Tools, Standards, Use and Users • Our 2005 FGDC/NBII Study • Process, Findings, Case Studies • Recommended Strategies for Enabling Metadata Development • Unit level • Agency level

  3. Eric Landis Natural Resources Information Management Clients Federal Government Agencies (unit, regional & national offices) European Union elandis@ix.netcom.com 651-275-0775 Sharon Shin Federal Geographic Data Committee Secretariat, Metadata Coordinator Federal government career National Park Service National Biological Service U.S. Geological Survey Sharon_shin@usgs.gov 303-202-4230 Who We Are

  4. Preserving the nation’s biological legacy through better metadata management Our Mission

  5. Our World • Complexity • Sociological variability for how data is collected, labeled, stored, retrieved and used • Constant change (such as extinction, migration, incursion) over time and place • Biodiversity • Interactions between organisms within thousands of ecosystems • What we’ve come to recognize. No longer single-discipline decision-making • Huge data holdings • Multiple standards, locations, formats and repositories dating back 250 years • In the U.S alone over 750 million natural history specimens and their metadata remain to be digitized

  6. Metadata Policies • Executive Order 12906 • U.S. Office Management and Budget • Circular A-16 • Circular A-130 • Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) • Data Reference Model • State Policy • Good Citizens

  7. How We “Do” Metadata • Metadata’s common practice • Training • National / International Standards • Tools • Roles in metadata

  8. Metadata: Common Practice • Omitted in the project planning process • Often cut from the budget when included • Legacy datasets = orphaned • No metadata police to assure creation • Until recently, no metadata police to assure content

  9. Metadata: After the Fact Process • Compile information Field notes • Maps/ GIS layers • Data tables • Reports • Rely on grey matter to recall other information

  10. Metadata Training • FGDC Recommended Metadata Curriculum • Classroom • On-line training. • Training Trainers

  11. FGDC Recommended Metadata Curriculum http://www.fgdc.gov/training/training-materials

  12. Metadata ToolsIntegrated with GIS Applications www.esri.com www.intergraph.com

  13. Metadata Entry ToolsOn-line (Free) http://www.ncddc.noaa.gov/Metadata/tools http://www.csc.noaa.gov/metadata/

  14. Metadata ToolsStandalone http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/12737 http://geology.usgs.gov/tools/metadata/tools/doc/tkme.html

  15. Scientists into Metadata Creators

  16. Geospatial Metadata Standards U.S. and International

  17. FGDC Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata Identification Information 1 Identification Information -- basic information about the data set. Type: compound Short Name: idinfo 1.1 Citation -- information to be used to reference the data set. Type: compound Short Name: citation ************ FAQ: Where are the data elements for the "Citation" element? Because the "Citation" elements are required by another section, the elements were grouped in Section 8. *************** 1.2 Description -- a characterization of the data set, including its intended use and limitations. Type: compound Short Name: descript 1.2.1 Abstract -- a brief narrative summary of the data set. Type: text Domain: free text Short Name: abstract 1.2.2 Purpose -- a summary of the intentions with which the data set was developed. Type: text Domain: free text Short Name: purpose

  18. FGDC-CSDGM- Graphic Representation http://biology.usgs.gov/fgdc.metadata/version2/

  19. International Standard www.iso.org

  20. Policymakers Decision makers Private Industries Environmental Organizations Curators Amateur Naturalists Land Use Planners Researchers Resource Managers Geologists Educators Publishers Utility Companies Public Agencies Our Patrons/ Our Users There is No Typical User

  21. How is Metadata Used?

  22. Dynamic Metadata • Project Planning • Project Development • Project Roll-out • Project Publication • Project Archive

  23. Metadata Uses and Views • Data Discovery: • Title • Abstract: why the data was created

  24. Title Creator Date Purpose Abstract Completeness Geographic coverage Keywords Metadata Use- Data Assessment

  25. Metadata View- Data Assessment

  26. Metadata Use:Data Access and Integration Metadata Content- All the preceding plus • Data quality • Data attributes • Data format • Projection • Distribution

  27. Metadata Use: Data Access and Integration- General

  28. Metadata Use: Data Access and Integration- Data Quality

  29. Protocol Metadata http://biology.usgs.gov/status_trends/MonitoringCommunity/

  30. What our Patrons Want • Infrastructure data to enable effective and efficient incident response • Biological data for managing public lands • Boundary and ownership data for property rights issues • Data for designing and directing scientific research • Materials to motivate and stimulate students • Unbiased information on regional and local trends • The role of humans on the environment • Data for monitoring endangered and invasive species • Information to understand the effects of metropolitan growth on ecological resources

  31. Data Discovery

  32. FGDC CSDGM Example

  33. FGDC and NBII 2005 Enabling Metadata Development and Use Studies

  34. Study Specs • Study objectives • Document current metadata practices, inhibitors and facilitators, and recommend strategies for enabling metadata development • 60+ interviews, workshops, observations, literature review, case studies in natural resource research and management agencies • Included metadata stakeholders • Metadata developers - Clearinghouse managers • FGDC Trainers - Educators • Data managers - Data archivists • GIS specialists - Metadata users • Librarians - Cataloguers

  35. Study Specs (continued) • Developed targeted questions for each group, but open dialogue dominated discussions. • Initially, assumed obstacles to metadata development included; • lack of time and money, • data security and ownership issues, • difficult to use tools, • overly complex standard, and • lack of agency directives.

  36. Division of Study Findings • Education and Training • For managers and metadata developers • Tools for Metadata Authoring and Viewing • Organizational Issues • At unit, regional and national levels • The FGDC (Version 2) Standard • Metadata development and management process

  37. Some Findings • Managers require education regarding the need, process, costs, benefits of metadata • Currently, metadata programs are initiated by data handlers, not managers or administrators • Tying metadata development to organizational goals and objectives facilitates success and avoids budget cuts • Metadata programs that rely on a single individual seldom succeed • Developing metadata throughout a project life cycle, from the planning phase on, eases the “metadata burden” • On-site metadata training has the added benefit of “broadcasting” the value and process to the trainees co-workers and supervisors

  38. More Findings • Metadata development is seldom incorporated into higher education curriculums • Currently available commercial metadata authoring tools are too complex for most metadata developers • Developers felt that their end product (the metadata record) is not presented in a clear and useful way to end-users • Definitions for some FGDC elements are unclear to even experienced metadata developers • First impression of standard appears onerous • The lack of readily available controlled vocabularies contributes to mis-cataloguing datasets • Data and metadata are yet to be valued properly

  39. Images of Findings

  40. Case Studies • Three case studies of successful metadata programs • Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute – St. Petersburg, FL • USGS Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center – Corvallis, OR • St. Croix National Scenic Riverway – St. Croix Falls, WI

  41. Case Study #1: Florida Fish and Wildlife Research InstituteMission to provide “timely information and guidance to protect, conserve, and manage Florida’s marine and coastal resources.”

  42. Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute • Maintain Information Science & Management division with 29 employees and $3.3 million budget • View spatial data as an asset that must be managed • Utilizes FGDC and FWRI-specific metadata standard • Developed written training materials and procedures • Maintains metadata coordinator position to assure quality, consistency and currentness • Adopted intranet and extranet strategies for sharing data

  43. Case Study #2: USGS Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science CenterProvide research and technical assistance in support of sound management and conservation of biological systems in the western US

  44. USGS Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center • Strong management support for standardized dataset documentation • Center-wide policy for FRESC-supported projects to be documented (e.g. metadata) • GIS specialist serves as metadata coordinator • Metadata development discussed with project leader prior to data collection • Metadata interview process is utilized through 17 questions.

  45. Case Study #3: NPS St. Croix National Scenic Riverway

  46. NPS St. Croix National Scenic Riverway • GIS specialist serves as metadata developer for most datasets • Sets aside full days to develop metadata records • Supervisor is “convinced” of importance of metadata • NPS Midwest office includes metadata development as criterion for evaluating future funding proposals • Cites on-site metadata training as important to success

  47. Three Case StudiesFour Common Elements • Strong metadata and data management advocate within management ranks • Maintaining a visible and active data management or coordinator position • Implementing metadata development at the beginning of project cycles • Conducting metadata development (and information management) training sessions for staff

  48. Recommended Strategies for Enabling Metadata Development

  49. Unit Level Recommendations • Planning and Organization • Establish a metadata development process that corresponds with the project lifecycle • Re-define the organizational structure to reflect the value of and support data management • Develop an information management plan • Create and enforce policies and directives for metadata development • Adopt existing and recognized controlled vocabularies

  50. Unit Level Recommendations (continued) • Support from Management • Educate managers about the what, why and how of metadata management • Promotion and education • Capitalize on metadata training opportunities • Promote metadata development with recognition and incentives

More Related