Difference between revisions of "Geodata Metadata Translata"
Wiki-JoWalsh (talk | contribs) m |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
indexing SLD and being able to query through an SLD driven approach | indexing SLD and being able to query through an SLD driven approach | ||
| + | |||
Jody: "No-one cares about the catalog at all... metadata is by definition useless" | Jody: "No-one cares about the catalog at all... metadata is by definition useless" | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Stefan's braindump == | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | At ISO/OGC there is currently plan 'A' underway and this is CSW 2.1 with | ||
| + | ebRIM. Most of us find this too complicated, but we have to find out | ||
| + | yet. As an protocol for distributed querying full management metadata I | ||
| + | perhaps don't mind, but as a common procotol for exchanging miminal | ||
| + | metadata I do! I'd like sexy small metadata records which allow for | ||
| + | smart search services... :-> | ||
| + | |||
| + | I have a special plan B (and probably someone proposes plan C?): | ||
| + | |||
| + | 1. All: Let's first recognize the uses cases and sort then out (minimal) | ||
| + | metadata for exchange and (exhaustive) metadata for own management. | ||
| + | 2. Service providers and data owners (= all): Let's decide on one | ||
| + | quickly first about the metadata exchange model together with an | ||
| + | incremental specification process for future adaptations. | ||
| + | 3. Data owners (and providers) only: Let's decide internal in an | ||
| + | organization about the metadata managemet model while adherring to | ||
| + | minimal metadata exchange protocols. | ||
| + | |||
| + | See http://www.gis.hsr.ch/wiki/OSGeodata_Discovery for some thoughts. | ||
| + | |||
| + | -- Stefan | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Category:Public Geospatial Data Committee]] | ||
Latest revision as of 08:41, 23 August 2007
Braindump
Processing services
Coord ref systems = preserving the original information and being able to do transforms
indexing SLD and being able to query through an SLD driven approach
Jody: "No-one cares about the catalog at all... metadata is by definition useless"
Stefan's braindump
At ISO/OGC there is currently plan 'A' underway and this is CSW 2.1 with ebRIM. Most of us find this too complicated, but we have to find out yet. As an protocol for distributed querying full management metadata I perhaps don't mind, but as a common procotol for exchanging miminal metadata I do! I'd like sexy small metadata records which allow for smart search services... :->
I have a special plan B (and probably someone proposes plan C?):
1. All: Let's first recognize the uses cases and sort then out (minimal) metadata for exchange and (exhaustive) metadata for own management. 2. Service providers and data owners (= all): Let's decide on one quickly first about the metadata exchange model together with an incremental specification process for future adaptations. 3. Data owners (and providers) only: Let's decide internal in an organization about the metadata managemet model while adherring to minimal metadata exchange protocols.
See http://www.gis.hsr.ch/wiki/OSGeodata_Discovery for some thoughts.
-- Stefan