OSGeodata: Unterschied zwischen den Versionen
Stefan (Diskussion | Beiträge) |
Stefan (Diskussion | Beiträge) Keine Bearbeitungszusammenfassung |
||
| Zeile 7: | Zeile 7: | ||
:''Managing metadata well is the key to making a repository of open geographic data really useful and re-usable. Creating metadata can be a dull chore. Part of the problem is over-focus on production, rather than consumption; on standards, rather than on usage. The Geodata Committee at OSGeo has been working on a "simplest useful thing" approach to geographic metadata...''. (Citation from Jo Walsh) | :''Managing metadata well is the key to making a repository of open geographic data really useful and re-usable. Creating metadata can be a dull chore. Part of the problem is over-focus on production, rather than consumption; on standards, rather than on usage. The Geodata Committee at OSGeo has been working on a "simplest useful thing" approach to geographic metadata...''. (Citation from Jo Walsh) | ||
Therefore we urgently need a ( | Therefore we urgently need a metadata information model (see below) as well as a metadata exchange protocol (see 'geographic catalog protocol' below). | ||
Keywords: ''Open access to and dissemination of geographic data (geodata) and information; Metadata; Finding, | Keywords: ''Open access to and dissemination of geographic data (geodata) and information; Metadata; Finding, | ||
harvesting or discovery of geodata and web map services; Interoperability; Integration; Service binding; Spatial data infrastructure; Standards''. | harvesting or discovery of geodata and web map services; Interoperability; Integration; Service binding; Spatial data infrastructure; Standards''. | ||
== Towards a new | == Towards a new metadata exchange protocol... == | ||
After having agreed on a better protocol there is also a need for a better name, like 'Geographic Metadata Harvesting Protocol'. | After having agreed on a better protocol there is also a need for a better name than 'geographic catalog protocol', like 'Geographic Metadata Harvesting Protocol'. | ||
For general '''protocol requirements''' read [[OSGeodataMetadataProtocol]]. We tend to propose a harvesting approach which means, that in a first step XML files are pulished and in a second step [[OAI-PMH]] could be utilized. | For general '''protocol requirements''' read [[OSGeodataMetadataProtocol]]. We tend to propose a harvesting approach which means, that in a first step XML files are pulished and in a second step [[OAI-PMH]] could be utilized. | ||
| Zeile 22: | Zeile 22: | ||
== Need for a metadata information model == | == Need for a metadata information model == | ||
We definitively need a metadata information model. See [[OSGeodataMetadataModel]] for further discussion. | We definitively need a metadata information model. Geographic catalog is rather data provider centric name for a system and a model, so we prefer a user centric 'metadata (information) model'. See [[OSGeodataMetadataModel]] for further discussion. | ||
== Weblinks == | == Weblinks == | ||
Version vom 21. August 2006, 08:34 Uhr
Overview
These are experimental pages originated from OSGeodata Mailing List on OSGeo.org.
Let's finally unleash geographic information through open access and dissemination of geographic data and (metadata) search appliances!
- Managing metadata well is the key to making a repository of open geographic data really useful and re-usable. Creating metadata can be a dull chore. Part of the problem is over-focus on production, rather than consumption; on standards, rather than on usage. The Geodata Committee at OSGeo has been working on a "simplest useful thing" approach to geographic metadata.... (Citation from Jo Walsh)
Therefore we urgently need a metadata information model (see below) as well as a metadata exchange protocol (see 'geographic catalog protocol' below).
Keywords: Open access to and dissemination of geographic data (geodata) and information; Metadata; Finding, harvesting or discovery of geodata and web map services; Interoperability; Integration; Service binding; Spatial data infrastructure; Standards.
Towards a new metadata exchange protocol...
After having agreed on a better protocol there is also a need for a better name than 'geographic catalog protocol', like 'Geographic Metadata Harvesting Protocol'.
For general protocol requirements read OSGeodataMetadataProtocol. We tend to propose a harvesting approach which means, that in a first step XML files are pulished and in a second step OAI-PMH could be utilized.
For proposals around the metadata information model requirements see OSGeodataMetadataModel.
Need for a metadata information model
We definitively need a metadata information model. Geographic catalog is rather data provider centric name for a system and a model, so we prefer a user centric 'metadata (information) model'. See OSGeodataMetadataModel for further discussion.
Weblinks
Information:
- Wiki at osgeo.org for requirements
- Geodata mailing list at osgeo.org for discussions
- Pleadings... Blog 1 - "Leight Weight Web Resource Catalogue", Blog 2 - More Simple Web Services Catalogues...", and Blog 3.
Geographic information search services:
- Catalogs:
- mapdex.org
- ESRI's geography network
- National Portals: US, CA, EU, UK, FR, DE, AT, CH
- Search engines:
- General: Google Maps, MSN live, Yahoo!
- Specialized: geometa.info (still german only for linguistic processing reasons)
- GIS with catalog and search components:
- uDig, ArcGIS, ...?