Best Practices in Geospatial Metadata - Working Session at Digital Library Federation Forum 2014
Download as PPTX, PDF1 like354 views
The document outlines the best practices for geospatial metadata as discussed in a working session at the DLF Forum 2014, emphasizing the need for standardized guidelines and the development of map-based search interfaces. It includes recommendations for adopting ISO 19115 standards, expressing coordinates in decimal degrees, and utilizing controlled vocabularies for geospatial metadata. The document also highlights current challenges, potential solutions, and next steps for improving metadata practices across various platforms.
Best Practices in Geospatial Metadata - Working Session at Digital Library Federation Forum 2014
- 1. BEST PRACTICES IN GEOSPATIAL METADATA Working Session DLF Forum 2014
- 2. Geocaching.com, search on geocaching sites near Decatur, GA
- 3. Ohio Memory Project, “Then and Now” maps
- 4. Estimated Total Annual Building Energy Consumption at the Block and Lot Level for NYC
- 6. Digital Public Library of America, search on “kitten”
- 7. Digital Public Library of America, search on “kitten”
- 8. Digital Public Library of America, app: “DPLA State by State”
- 9. GEOSPATIAL METADATA QUICKSAND Don’t go there
- 10. Salt Lake City -- not in South Dakota
- 11. Location information or not?
- 12. St. Thomas, Nevada -- not in Barbados
- 13. Local names, global audiences • “Salt Lake” could mean: • Salt Lake City, UT • Salt Lake County, UT • The Great Salt Lake • Salt Lake City, West Bengal, India
- 14. Place name problems • Colorado City, AZ • Nevada City, CA • Nevada City, MT • Nevada County, CA • Virginia, St. Louis Co., MN • Virginia City, MT • Boulder, CO • Boulder, MT • Boulder, UT • Boulder City, NV
- 15. County name isn’t enough • Teton County, MT • Teton County, WY • Humboldt County, NV • Humboldt County, CA • Humboldt County, IA • Washington County, UT • Washington County, ID • Washington County, OH • Washington County, MD • Washington County, GA • Washington County, MS • Washington County, NC • Washington County, PA
- 16. Mountain West Digital Library, demo map
- 17. More problems Report by Dorotea Szkolar MWDL metadata intern Summer 2012
- 18. Coordinate formats • Numbers: • decimal degrees • degrees/minutes/seconds • Directions: • (+) and - • W, N, E, and S • westlimit, northlimit, eastlimit, and southlimit • Placement: • In same field • In different fields Xena and Callisto in quicksand
- 19. Field mapping • Dublin Core • coverage • spatial • subject Xena and Callisto in quicksand
- 20. More examples? Jean Dujardin sinks into quicksand in a still from The Artist.
- 21. How to get out? • Investigate recommendations and best practices for MWDL community • Learn more about controlled vocabularies • Learn more about mapping applications Westley rescues Buttercup from the lightning sand in The Princess Bride.
- 22. MWDL GEOSPATIAL DISCOVERY TASK FORCE Findings
- 23. Task Force Charge 1. Identify existing geospatial metadata practices 2. Develop guidelines for standardizing 3. Creating map-based search interfaces 4. Identify and share tools https://sites.google.com/site/mwdlgeospatial/
- 24. Phase One Three subgroups: 1. Review previous report 2. Identify low hanging fruit 3. Identify map-based interfaces
- 25. Task Force Timeline: Phase One
- 26. Phase One: Webinar Report Geospatial Discovery Task Force report (webinar): https://video.utah.edu/media/t/0_hoq01kon Community notes from webinar: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16B_Lbc6B4hO7I0sppEKeJKErRsOtWU6Thf2_JTbaJs0/edit
- 27. Phase Two Three more subgroups: 1. Controlled vocabularies 2. Coordinate data and GIS perspectives 3. Map-based Interfaces
- 28. Task Force Timeline : Phase Two
- 29. Current Recommendation: 1 All standards and practices adopted by the metadata review board should be compliant with the ISO 19115:2003* Geographic Information--Metadata standard. *Task Force will review the latest released standard ISO 19115- 1:2014 in the coming months.
- 30. Current Recommendation: 2 Since MWDL contributors may need to use varied controlled vocabularies, we recommend that a geospatial metadata format and selected controlled vocabulary be highly recommended but not enforced.
- 31. Current Recommendation: 3 There is a clear preference for expressing coordinates in latitude-longitude as decimal degrees over the degrees-minutes-seconds format. Ex. Mount McKinley: Latitude: 63.540777 Longitude: -151.723614 Latitude: N 63° 32' 26.7972" Longitude: W 151° 43' 25.0108"
- 32. Current Recommendation: 4 It is recommended that partners keep all the elements of a single term within a single iteration of the field. For example, don’t split latitude and longitude. Repeat spatial field for each new entity.
- 33. Current Recommendations: 4 ex. For example: Mt. McKinley Lat/Long expressed: <dcterms:spatial>63.540777, -151.723614</dcterms:spatial> Controlled Vocab expressed: <dcterms:spatial>Mount McKinley, Denali National Park and Preserve, Alaska</dcterms:spatial> URI expressed: <dcterms:spatial>http://geonames.org/5868589</dcterms:spatial> All together: <dcterms:spatial>63.540777, -151.723614; Mount McKinley, Denali National Park and Preserve, Alaska; http://geonames.org/5868589</dcterms:spatial>
- 34. Current Recommendation: 5 Partners should map geospatial metadata field(s) to the Dublin Core spatial refinement of coverage (dcterms:spatial), which can be done at the collection level. The OAI provider for the repository hosting the collection should support provision of qualified Dublin Core if possible.
- 35. Current Recommendation: 6 The spatial coverage refinement (dcterms:spatial) is highly recommended for all new collections harvested by MWDL.
- 36. Current Recommendation: 7 Where converting legacy data may be too difficult, partners can add an additional separate field mapped to the Dublin Core term spatial (dcterms:spatial) with basic, minimal geospatial metadata (at least at country and state level), in accordance with upcoming recommendations for controlled vocabulary.
- 37. Next Steps 1. Select a recommended controlled vocabulary. 2. Investigate best ways to represent geospatial information. a. Tools b. Software c. Techniques/Best Practices 3. Look further into GeoJSON vs. KML.
- 38. Next Steps 4. Review the formatting and syntax of Points and Boxes, particularly in regards to the DCMI Box/Encoding Schemes: a. DCMI Box Encoding Scheme at http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-box/ Example: name=Western Australia; northlimit=-13.5; southlimit=-35.5; westlimit=112.5; eastlimit=129 b. DCMI Point Encoding Scheme at http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-point/ Example: name=Perth, W.A.; east=115.85717; north=-31.95301 Example: east=148.26218; north=-36.45746; elevation=2228; name=Mt. Kosciusko
- 39. Next Steps 5. Develop regional gazetteer a. Investigate ways to integrate this into the recommended controlled vocabulary 6. Develop actionable plans to deal with legacy data a. List of common find and replace scenarios b. Analyze current top five strategies used to assign geospatial metadata, estimate cost and workflow needed to convert legacy data
- 40. Use Cases • “I just want my metadata harvested and showing up on DPLA’s map. I want my items to be represented at least at the State level in DPLA’s map.” • “I don’t have any geographic metadata and I want to get started assigning coordinates to things in my collection.” • “I want to create a walking tour of a buildings collection (historic homes of 1925) and need different points expressing street level locations (points + photo).” • “I’m not interested in coordinate data but I’m interested in putting in city, state, town information and I want to get started with linked data.” • “I want to display county outlines instead of just a point in the middle of the county.”