Mapping ISO metadata standards to codemeta

Mapping ISO 19115-1 geographic metadata standards to CodeMeta

PeerJ Computer Science ◽

10.7717/peerj-cs.174 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 5 ◽

pp. e174

Author(s):

Ted Habermann

Keyword(s):

Technical Committee ◽

Use Cases ◽

Software Repositories ◽

Metadata Standards ◽

Geographic Data

The CodeMeta Project recently proposed a vocabulary for software metadata. ISO Technical Committee 211 has published a set of metadata standards for geographic data and many kinds of related resources, including software. In order for ISO metadata creators and users to take advantage of the CodeMeta recommendations, a mapping from ISO elements to the CodeMeta vocabulary must exist. This mapping is complicated by differences in the approaches used by ISO and CodeMeta, primarily a difference between hard and soft typing of metadata elements. These differences are described in detail and a mapping is proposed that includes sixty-four of the sixty-eight CodeMeta V2 terms. The CodeMeta terms have also been mapped to dialects used by twenty-one software repositories, registries and archives. The average number of terms mapped in these cases is 11.2. The disparity between these numbers reflects the fact that many of the dialects that have been mapped to CodeMeta are focused on citation or dependency identification and management while ISO and CodeMeta share additional targets that include access, use, and understanding. Addressing this broader set of use cases requires more metadata elements.

Download Full-text

Mapping ISO metadata standards to codemeta

10.7287/peerj.preprints.27153 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Ted Habermann

Keyword(s):

Technical Committee ◽

Use Cases ◽

Software Repositories ◽

Metadata Standards ◽

Geographic Data

The codemeta project recently proposed a vocabulary for software metadata. ISO Technical Committee 211 has published a set of metadata standards for geographic data and many kinds of related resources, including software. In order for ISO metadata creators and users to take advantage of the codemeta recommendations, a mapping from ISO elements to the codemeta vocabulary must exist. This mapping is complicated by differences in the approaches used by ISO and codemeta, primarily a difference between hard and soft typing of metadata elements. These differences are described in detail and a mapping is proposed that includes sixty-four of the sixty-eight codemeta V2 terms. The codemeta terms have also been mapped to dialects used by twenty-one software repositories, registries and archives. The average number of terms mapped in these cases is 11.2. The disparity between these numbers reflects the fact that many of the dialects that have been mapped to codemeta are focused on citation or dependency identification and management while ISO and codemeta share additional targets that include access, use, and understanding. Addressing this broader set of use cases requires more metadata elements.

Download Full-text

Geographic Information Metadata—An Outlook from the International Standardization Perspective

ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information ◽

10.3390/ijgi8060280 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 8 (6) ◽

pp. 280 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Brodeur ◽

Coetzee ◽

Danko ◽

Garcia ◽

Hjelmager

Keyword(s):

Geographic Information ◽

Technical Committee ◽

Early Years ◽

Digital Data ◽

Digital Era ◽

Metadata Standards ◽

Geographic Datasets ◽

International Standardization ◽

Map Scale ◽

Magnetic North

Geographic information metadata provides a detailed description of geographic information resources. Well before digital data emerged, metadata were shown in the margins of paper maps to inform the reader of the name of the map, the scale, the orientation of the magnetic North, the projection used, the coordinate systems, the legend, and so on. Metadata were used to communicate practical information for the proper use of maps. When geographic information entered the digital era with geographic information systems, metadata was also collected digitally to describe datasets and the dataset collections for various purposes. Initially, metadata were collected and saved in digital files by data producers for their own specific needs. The sharing of geographic datasets that required producers to provide metadata with the dataset to guide proper use of the dataset—map scale, data sources, extent, datum, coordinate reference system, etc. Because of issues with sharing and no common understanding of metadata requirements, the need for metadata standardization was recognized by the geographic information community worldwide. The ISO technical committee 211 was created in 1994 with the scope of standardization in the field of digital geographic information to support interoperability. In the early years of the committee, standardization of metadata was initiated for different purposes, which culminated in the ISO 19115:2003 standard. Now, there are many ISO Geographic information standards that covers the various aspect of geographic information metadata. This paper traces an illustration of the development and evolution of the requirements and international standardization activities of geographic information metadata standards, profiles and resources, and how these attest to facilitating the discovery, evaluation, and appropriate use of geographic information in various contexts.

Download Full-text

Standards for Achieving Interoperability of eGovernment in Europe

Handbook of Research on E-Business Standards and Protocols ◽

10.4018/978-1-4666-0146-8.ch012 ◽

2012 ◽

pp. 249-268

Author(s):

Marc Wilhelm Küster

Keyword(s):

Web Service ◽

Data Exchange ◽

Open Data ◽

Current Situation ◽

Linked Open Data ◽

Use Cases ◽

Current Work ◽

Member States ◽

Metadata Standards ◽

Service Standards

E-government interoperability frameworks in Europe and the standards they reference are diverse, often reflecting different legal and policy priorities across the continent. Selected examples from a number of member states illustrate how legal interoperability impacts the choice or creation of e-Government standards. It looks at the situation of technical interactions, especially the use of web service standards, then at two data exchange standards, two metadata standards, and the current work on linked open data. The examples discussed represent different use cases (Government to Government / G2G, Government to Business / G2B, Government to Citizen / G2C), allowing an overview over the current situation in Europe.

Download Full-text

Standards for Achieving Interoperability of eGovernment in Europe

Digital Democracy ◽

10.4018/978-1-4666-1740-7.ch005 ◽

2012 ◽

pp. 82-99

Author(s):

Marc Wilhelm Küster

Keyword(s):

Web Service ◽

Data Exchange ◽

Open Data ◽

Current Situation ◽

Linked Open Data ◽

Use Cases ◽

Current Work ◽

Member States ◽

Metadata Standards ◽

Service Standards

E-government interoperability frameworks in Europe and the standards they reference are diverse, often reflecting different legal and policy priorities across the continent. Selected examples from a number of member states illustrate how legal interoperability impacts the choice or creation of e-Government standards. It looks at the situation of technical interactions, especially the use of web service standards, then at two data exchange standards, two metadata standards, and the current work on linked open data. The examples discussed represent different use cases (Government to Government / G2G, Government to Business / G2B, Government to Citizen / G2C), allowing an overview over the current situation in Europe.

Download Full-text

Understanding the Nature of Metadata – A Deep Insight in the Literature (Preprint)

10.2196/preprints.25440 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Hannes Ulrich ◽

Ann-Kristin Kock-Schoppenhauer ◽

Noemi Deppenwiese ◽

Robert Gött ◽

Jori Kern ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Review Process ◽

Use Cases ◽

Research Areas ◽

Metadata Standards ◽

Harmonization Process ◽

Problems And Solutions ◽

Research Questions ◽

Metadata Processing ◽

Definition Of ◽

Broad Overview

BACKGROUND Metadata are created to describe the corresponding data in a detailed and unambiguous way and are used for various applications in different research areas, e.g. data identification and classification. However, the clear definition of metadata is crucial for further use. However, experience with the processing and management of metadata has shown that the term "metadata" and its use is not always unambiguous. OBJECTIVE The goal of this study was to understand the nature of metadata definition and the resulting impact on information reuse. METHODS A systematic literature search performed in this paper is conducted in accordance with the PRISMA Guidelines for Reporting on Systematic Reviews. Five research questions were identified to streamline the review process addressing the characteristics, metadata standards, use cases and encountered problems. The review is preceded by a process of harmonization in order to achieve a general understanding of the terms used. RESULTS The harmonization process resulted in a clear set of definitions for metadata processing focusing on data integration. The following literature review was conducted by ten reviewers with different backgrounds and using the harmonized definitions. The review included 81 peer-reviewed papers from the last decade after different filtering steps to identify the most relevant papers. The five research questions could be answered, resulting in a broad overview of standards, use cases, problems and corresponding solutions for the application of metadata in different research areas. CONCLUSIONS Metadata can be a powerful tool for identifying, describing and processing information, but its meaningful creation is costly and challenging. The review process discovered many standards, use cases, problems and solutions in dealing with metadata and gave a broad overview of the topic. The harmonized definitions and the new schema should improve the classification and creation of metadata by enabling a common understanding of metadata and its context.

Download Full-text

CitSci.org & PPSR Core: Sharing biodiversity observations across platforms

Biodiversity Information Science and Standards ◽

10.3897/biss.5.75666 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 5 ◽

Author(s):

Brandon Budnicki ◽

Gregory Newman

Keyword(s):

Data Quality ◽

Data Sharing ◽

Citizen Science ◽

Natural World ◽

Use Cases ◽

Community Surveys ◽

Science Projects ◽

Metadata Standards ◽

Informatics Infrastructure ◽

Science Association

CitSci.org is a global citizen science software platform and support organization housed at Colorado State University. The mission of CitSci is to help people do high quality citizen science by amplifying impacts and outcomes. This platform hosts over one thousand projects and a diverse volunteer base that has amassed over one million observations of the natural world, focused on biodiversity and ecosystem sustainability. It is a custom platform built using open source components including: PostgreSQL, Symfony, Vue.js, with React Native for the mobile apps. CitSci sets itself apart from other Citizen Science platforms through the flexibility in the types of projects it supports rather than having a singular focus. This flexibility allows projects to define their own datasheets and methodologies. The diversity of programs we host motivated us to take a founding role in the design of the PPSR Core, a set of global, transdisciplinary data and metadata standards for use in Public Participation in Scientific Research (Citizen Science) projects. Through an international partnership between the Citizen Science Association, European Citizen Science Association, and Australian Citizen Science Association, the PPSR team and associated standards enable interoperability of citizen science projects, datasets, and observations. Here we share our experience over the past 10+ years of supporting biodiversity research both as developers of the CitSci.org platform and as stewards of, and contributors to, the PPSR Core standard. Specifically, we share details about: the origin, development, and informatics infrastructure for CitSci our support for biodiversity projects such as population and community surveys our experiences in platform interoperability through PPSR Core working with the Zooniverse, SciStarter, and CyberTracker data quality data sharing goals and use cases. the origin, development, and informatics infrastructure for CitSci our support for biodiversity projects such as population and community surveys our experiences in platform interoperability through PPSR Core working with the Zooniverse, SciStarter, and CyberTracker data quality data sharing goals and use cases. We conclude by sharing overall successes, limitations, and recommendations as they pertain to trust and rigor in citizen science data sharing and interoperability. As the scientific community moves forward, we show that Citizen Science is a key tool to enabling a systems-based approach to ecosystem problems.

Download Full-text