1 The Metadata Groups - Keith G Jeffery. 2 Positioning  Raise profile of metadata  Data first  Also software, resources, users  Achieve outputs/outcomes.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
©euroCRIS/Keith G JefferyOA Workshop May 2010 CNR Roma The euroCRIS view of the Rome OA Workshop Keith G Jeffery President, euroCRIS
Advertisements

OMV Ontology Metadata Vocabulary April 10, 2008 Peter Haase.
1 Ontolog OOR Use Case Review Todd Schneider 1 April 2010 (v 1.2)
© Keith G Jeffery, Anne G S Asserson GL6: New York: December 2004: IP & Corporate Context Relating Intellectual Property Products to the Corporate.
© Keith G Jeffery, Anne G S Asserson GL 11 Washington Keith G Jeffery Director, IT & International Strategy, STFC
© Keith G Jeffery, Anne G S Asserson GL 10 Amsterdam Keith G Jeffery Director, IT & International Strategy, STFC
WMO Core Profile of the ISO Metadata Standard Steve Foreman Chair IPET-Metadata Implementation.
The current state of Metadata - as far as we understand it - Peter Wittenburg The Language Archive - Max Planck Institute CLARIN Research Infrastructure.
CERIF: Common European Research Information Format An international standard relational data model for storage and interoperability of research information.
ODM2: Developing a Community Information Model and Supporting Software to Extend Interoperability of Sensor and Sample Based Earth Observations Jeffery.
1 CS 502: Computing Methods for Digital Libraries Lecture 17 Descriptive Metadata: Dublin Core.
Descriptive Metadata o When will mods.xml be used by METS (aip.xml) ?  METS will use the mods.xml to encode descriptive metadata. Information that describes,
The RDF meta model: a closer look Basic ideas of the RDF Resource instance descriptions in the RDF format Application-specific RDF schemas Limitations.
1 Metadata Data Foundation and Terminology RDA-P5 San Diego - Keith Jeffery.
Keith G Jeffery Director, IT Grey Literature The Process and Quality Issues Keith G Jeffery.
Publishing Digital Content to a LOR Publishing Digital Content to a LOR 1.
© euroCRIS/Keith G Jeffery 1 Mutual enhancement of CERIF and project management systems Mutual Enhancement of CERIF and Project Management Systems Keith.
Metadata: An Overview Katie Dunn Technology & Metadata Librarian
An Overview of the Research Information Metadata Ecosystem Prof Keith G Jeffery ©Keith G JefferyAn Overview.
San Diego Supercomputer CenterUniversity of California, San Diego Preservation Research Roadmap Reagan W. Moore San Diego Supercomputer Center
RDA Data Foundation and Terminology (DFT) IG: Introduction Prepared for RDA 6 th Plenary Paris, Sept. 25, 2015 Gary Berg-Cross, Raphael Ritz Co-Chairs.
Metadata, the CARARE Aggregation service and 3D ICONS Kate Fernie, MDR Partners, UK.
Position Paper for Data Fabric IG Interoperability, Infrastructures and Virtuality Gary Berg-Cross, Keith.
Metadata and Geographical Information Systems Adrian Moss KINDS project, Manchester Metropolitan University, UK
©STFC/Keith G Jeffery The value of recording each step of the research process The Value of Recording each Step of the Research Process Keith.
©Keith G Jeffery/ Anne AssersonSupporting the Research Process with a CRIS CRIS Supporting the Research Process with a CRIS Keith G Jeffery Director.
1 Schema Registries Steven Hughes, Lou Reich, Dan Crichton NASA 21 October 2015.
Ocean Observatories Initiative Data Management (DM) Subsystem Overview Michael Meisinger September 29, 2009.
METADATA WORKSHOP Conclusions Keith Jeffery Peter Wittenburg.
The european ITM Task Force data structure F. Imbeaux.
1 24 September BREAKOUT :30 1)Review of Metadata Standards Directory (DCC version and GitHub) 2)Introduction of Metadata Standards Catalog.
1 Metadata –Information about information – Different objects, different forms – e.g. Library catalogue record Property:Value: Author Ian Beardwell Publisher.
1 METADATA Plenary Session RDA P5 San Diego. 2 Agenda  Introduction to Metadata & Principles of Metadata Groups  Use Case Template  Standards Directory.
Adoption of RDA-DFT Terminology and Data Model to the Description and Structuring of Atmospheric Data Aaron Addison, Rudolf Husar, Cynthia Hudson-Vitale.
1 Metadata Coordinating Chairs Meeting Gaithersburg November Keith Jeffery, Rebecca Koskela, Jane Greenberg, Alex Ball, Brigitte Jörg, Bridget Almas,
Rupa Tiwari, CSci5980 Fall  Course Material Classification  GIS Encyclopedia Articles  Classification Diagram  Course – Encyclopedia Mapping.
1 Dublin Core & DCMI – an introduction Some slides are from DCMI Training Resources at:
Metadata Interest Group Group Meeting at RDA Plenary 4 Amsterdam Keith G Jeffery Rebecca Koskela.
Auditing Grey in a CRIS Environment
The RDF meta model Basic ideas of the RDF Resource instance descriptions in the RDF format Application-specific RDF schemas Limitations of XML compared.
Eurostat 4. SDMX: Main objects for data exchange 1 Raynald Palmieri Eurostat Unit B5: “Central data and metadata services” SDMX Basics course, October.
1 Metadata Data integration for tackling global environmental challenges - Rebecca Koskela, Keith Jeffery, Jane Greenberg, Alex Ball.
Data in Context Co-chairs: Brigitte Jörg, Keith Jeffery RDA 3rd Plenary, March, 26th - 28th, 2014 Dublin.
1 Metadata Elements and Domain Groups - Keith G Jeffery.
“Data is the new Oil” (Ann Winblad) Keith G Jeffery JRC Workshop Big Open Data © Keith G Jeffery.
Analysis of Use Cases (and to some extent, standards) - Keith G Jeffery, Rebecca Koskela.
Metadata Interest Group Group Meeting at RDA Plenary 3 Dublin Keith G Jeffery Rebecca Koskela.
1 The Metadata Groups - Keith G Jeffery. 2 Positioning  Raise profile of metadata  Data first  Also software, resources, users  Achieve outputs/outcomes.
Adoption of RDA-DFT Terminology and Data Model to the Description and Structuring of Atmospheric Data Aaron Addison, Rudolf Husar, Cynthia Hudson-Vitale.
Metadata Standards Directory Alex Ball, Jane Greenberg, Keith Jeffery, Rebecca Koskela.
ADN Framework Overview A Collaboration of ADEPT, DLESE and NASA (2002 Nov. 19)
Describing resources II: Dublin Core CERN-UNESCO School on Digital Libraries Rabat, Nov 22-26, 2010 Annette Holtkamp CERN.
The Agricultural Ontology Server (AOS) A Tool for Facilitating Access to Knowledge AGRIS/CARIS and Documentation Group Food and Agriculture Organization.
Geospatial metadata Prof. Wenwen Li School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning 5644 Coor Hall
IPDA Registry Definitions Project Dan Crichton Pedro Osuna Alain Sarkissian.
The Metadata Groups Unpacking the Elements- Keith G Jeffery
WG/IG Collaboration Meeting 6 Dec 12-13, NIST, Gaithersburg 'Assembling the Pieces: Connecting Outputs with Each Other and with Domain Adoption‘
Wheat Data Interoperability Esther DZALE YEUMO KABORE Richard FULSS
Data Foundations And Terminology (DFT) IG
knowledge organization for a food secure world
SDMX Information Model
Data Management: Documentation & Metadata
WG/IG Collaboration Meeting June Göteborg METADATA GROUPS PERSPECTIVE Keith G Jeffery & Rebecca Koskela.
Metadata: Foundation, Philosophers’ and Rosetta Stones
MARINE STRATEGY FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE (MSFD) COMMON IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY Capturing metadata: Implementation of MSFD art – via a metadata catalogue.
Session 2: Metadata and Catalogues
Bird of Feather Session
Geoscience Australia Service Metadata
Joint Metadata Session Alex Ball, Keith Jeffery, Rebecca Koskela
Co-Chairs: Keith Jeffery, Rebecca Koskela, Alex Ball
Presentation transcript:

1 The Metadata Groups - Keith G Jeffery

2 Positioning  Raise profile of metadata  Data first  Also software, resources, users  Achieve outputs/outcomes  Present Plan  Involves other metadata groups  and most RDA groups MIG MSDWG  MSCWG DICIG Directory / catalog Common Metadata ‘standard’ Interop- erability discovery contextual schema Brokering, interoperation, services OTC OME Quality- Trust provenance RDPIG

3 But actually…… Metadata Groups Domain Groups Biodiversity Marine Biosharing Wheat Neutrons ……. Infrastructure Groups Data Fabric DFT PID Citation Repositories …….

4  Discovery  Finding data, software, people (users), resources (computers, storage, instrumentation);  Relevance to purpose (initial assessment)  Contextualisation  Appropriate for the purpose (assessment)  Quality (syntax, semantics – including multilinguality)  Recording activity (who did what, when, where to which)  Access: Connecting data to Software / Environment / resources  Schema level (syntax, semantics – including multiliguality) Metadata Used for

5 Metadata / other groups Plan Involves not only metadata groups but all RDA Evolved since P2 Washington DC  Use cases into repository (DICIG)  Standards into MSDWG directory/catalog (MSDWG  MSCWG)  Analyse for commonalities and differences (MIG)  Propose canonical metadata ‘packages’ for ‘purposes’ (MIG) consisting of ‘elements’  Validation of ‘packages’ (domain groups)  Provision of convertors  This is a resource problem!  Move to standardisation of ‘packages’ (RDA)

6 Metadata Principles - Keith G Jeffery

7  The only difference between metadata and data is mode of use  Metadata is not just for data, it is also for users, software services, computing resources  Metadata is not just for description and discovery; it is also for contextualisation (relevance, quality, restrictions (rights, costs)) and for coupling users, software and computing resources to data (to provide a VRE)  Metadata must be machine-understandable as well as human understandable for autonomicity (formalism)  Management (meta)data is also relevant (research proposal, funding, project information, research outputs, outcomes, impact…) METADATA Principles Created and endorsed by the RDA Metadata Groups

8 Metadata Elements for Packages for Purposes - Keith G Jeffery

9 Open Data: Purposing the elements  Unique Identifier (for later use including citation)  Location (URL)  Description  Keywords (terms)  Temporal coordinates  Spatial coordinates  Originator (organisation(s) / person(s))  Project  Facility / equipment  Quality  Availability (licence, persistence)  Provenance  Citations  Related publications (white or grey)  Related software  Schema  Medium / format ©Keith G Jeffery et alCRIS14 Rome May discovery context detailed

10  Many (most) of the elements are not simple single valued  e.g. Originator (organisation(s) / person(s))  Many are multilingual  So we need structured metadata (not flat metadata)  Base entities (exist in real world)  Linking entities (relationships between base entities) with role and temporal duration But Note

11 Analysis of Use Cases (and to some extent, standards) - Keith G Jeffery, Rebecca Koskela

12 Method  Use Case Templates  Aligned elements and added additional elements  Referenced to a few standards  sheet 1  Extracted common and required elements  sheet 2  Considered structure utilising modern semantic linking  sheet 3  Reduced to minimum that covers requirements of use cases  sheet 4

13 Spreadsheets

14 OrganisationPersonProject Publication (document) Facility Equipment Service Spatial coordinates Temporal coordinates Classification Scheme Classification Term Indicator Measurement Name/Title Keywords Product (dataset)

15 Publication (document) Facility Equipment Service OrganisationPersonProject Spatial coordinates Temporal coordinates Classification Scheme Classification Term Indicator Measurement Name/Title Keywords Product (dataset)

16 Publication (document) OrganisationPersonProjectFacility Equipment Service Spatial coordinates Temporal coordinates Classification Scheme Classification Term Indicator Measurement Name/Title Keywords Product (dataset)

17 Linking  The lines drawn connect two entities indicating a relationship;  There may be many linking relationships between the same two entities;  Each has a role e.g. Person-OWNER- Dataset;  The roles are defined in some kind of ontology  Each has a start and end date/time  This allows for versioning and provenance tracking

18 Discussion  Do we need licence as a separate entity (e.g. CC- BY-NC) or is the entity publication/document (with its name including licence kind) sufficient?  Do we need language as a separate attribute describing the language of the dataset content or is language a classification term associated to the dataset? What happens if the dataset has attribute values in>1 language.  Note: multiple versions in different languages – presumably each of these is identified uniquely?  Do we need subject (what the dataset is recording – ideally from a defined list of terms e.g. blood samples) as an entity or attribute or as a classification term associated to the dataset?