LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PIG Archives


PIG Archives

PIG Archives


PIG@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PIG Home

PIG Home

PIG  July 2007

PIG July 2007

Subject:

PREMIS and FGDC metadata question

From:

Ann Lally <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

PREMIS Implementors Group Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 9 Jul 2007 09:13:50 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (533 lines)

North Carolina State University is looking at this question as part of their
North Carolina Geospatial Data Archiving Project being funded by the U. S.
Library of Congress National Digital Information Infrastrcture Preservation
Program.  You can find out more at their website:
http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/ncgdap/research.html

Ann Lally 

-----Original Message-----
From: PREMIS Implementors Group Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of PIG
automatic digest system
Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 9:00 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: PIG Digest - 6 Jul 2007 to 8 Jul 2007 (#2007-32)

There is 1 message totalling 451 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. PREMIS and FGDC metadata question

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:    Mon, 9 Jul 2007 10:48:15 +1200
From:    Euan Cochrane <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: PREMIS and FGDC metadata question

This is a multipart message in MIME format.

--=_alternative 007D4461CC257312_=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Ruth,

I've tried to answer your questions, sounds like you are having a trying
time!

1. Is something like this mapping useful to the community or is it silly to
even think about it? [I would be willing to post it on the PIG wiki; but,
reserve the right to publish it in a paper I am writing].  If it is useful,
would the community be interested in reviewing/helping me solidify the
draft?

I think that this would definitely be a useful resource for the community to
have available. I know that Geospatial metadata is an area in which a lot of
people are keenly interested. 

2. What is your take on the FGDC vs PREMIS metadata issue?

From my (extremely) quick perusal of the FGDC i would say that it is mainly
used/useful for descriptive and discovery metadata purposes whereas PREMIS
is all about preservation. They seem like they would compliment each other
rather than overlap. In the data archive in which I am working we are using
the DDI (Data Documentation Initiative)standard for Descriptive/Discovery
Metadata and an adaptation of PREMIS for Preservation metadata in much the
same way as I would envisage you using the FGDC and PREMIS. 


3. What is your opinion on the question of whether data centres and digital
libraries, etc. should/could use the same set of standards?

I personally believe that it is virtually self-evident that all data
centres/digital libraries etc should Ideally use the same set of standards
,simply for reasons of interoperability and/or knowledge sharing. 

However my experience is that no matter how comprehensive a metadata
standard is, it usually has to be altered to be useful for any particular
implementation. For example we have altered both the DDI and the PREMIS
standards for our particular usage. As archiving and even metadata standards
are still in a relatively nascent stage at the moment it is likely that the
metadata standards will become more and more useful and widely implementable
as they get improved upon. This has already happened with the DDI, version 2
(which we use)was recently surpassed by version 3 which seems to address a
few of the implementation issues. 
The PREMIS xml schemas have tried to tackle this issue by having areas in
them in which you can put in whatever metadata elements you which (i.e. 
you can make them up). This both improves its interoperability (as more
people will be able to use the unaltered schema) and detracts from its
interoperability (as other users may not understand you particular
implementation of it).

Also, the PREMIS standard is more of a reference standard than a strict set
of terms to be used. It is best used as a checklist to ensure that you are
collecting all of the metadata you need for preservation purposes. So even
if you decide not to use the PREMIS schemas, PREMIS could still be of use
for this purpose. 

If you need to persuade your colleagues of the need for digital preservation
generally and preservation metadata in particular i can recommend the
On-line Cornell Digital Preservation Tutorial:
http://www.library.cornell.edu/iris/tutorial/dpm/

And this article in popular mechanics has a nice, easily accessible,
overview of some of the issues involved in digital preservation:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4201645.html

I hope this is helpful, if you have any questions or feedback please feel
free to get in contact.

Kind regards,



Euan Cochrane

Statistical Analyst,
OSRDAC (Official Statistics Research and Data Archive Centre) Statistics New
Zealand [log in to unmask]




Ruth Duerr <[log in to unmask]>
Sent by: PREMIS Implementors Group Forum <[log in to unmask]>
07/07/2007 11:51 AM
Please respond to
PREMIS Implementors Group Forum <[log in to unmask]>


To
[log in to unmask]
cc

Subject
[PIG] PREMIS and FGDC metadata question






I'd like your opinions on a few issues.  I work at a data center that 
primarily archives and distributes remote sensing data about the 
environment and as such I am probably one of, if not the only, 
science data manager that is interested in PREMIS metadata.  My 
reasons for being interested are:

1. I am a fan of the OAIS reference model
2. We need to use something to manage information about our archive
3. I hate reinventing the wheel (though am willing to balance wheels 
and add new spokes as need be)
4. It should eventually help interoperability allowing archives to 
easily back each other up through the exchange of metadata and data
5. It should eventually help harmonize the directions digital 
libraries and data centers are headed (I'd love to add the GIS 
community to this too), thereby providing a more seamless transition 
from data to information and knowledge, if not exactly to wisdom...

I've noticed that I get a lot of push back on using PREMIS, not just 
internally; but, also from my fellow science data managers 
elsewhere.  Some of that may simply be resistance to change or the 
infamous "not invented here" syndrome. It also may be partly that 
there is a lot of pressure to head in the direction of less metadata 
rather than more (i.e., I hear sentiments like "metadata isn't the 
solution - we need a better hammer" a lot).  One question I'm often 
asked is why anything beyond FGDC metadata is needed (almost all of 
my and my colleagues' data is documented at the data set level by 
FGDC metadata).  My answers about storage information, fixity, 
preservation events and agents, and rights are routinely met with 
statements like "FGDC can do that."  That has always seemed strange 
to me since the FGDC standard was specifically developed to contain 
metadata to support the following:

"The information included in the standard was selected based on four 
roles that metadata play:
- availability -- data needed to determine the sets of data that 
exist for a geographic location.
- fitness for use -- data needed to determine if a set of data meets 
a specific need.
- access -- data needed to acquire an identified set of data.
- transfer -- data needed to process and use a set of data." - from 
CSDGM, 1999

Not one of these purposes is to ensure the long-term preservation of 
data.  As such, my first thought has always been that FGDC and PREMIS 
metadata should be orthogonal - in other words, there shouldn't be a 
lot of overlap between the standards.  It that is the case, then it 
seems to me that it would make a lot of sense to use both standards 
simultaneously - FGDC to deal with external user access, PREMIS to 
deal with preservation needs.  Since I've gotten so much push back on 
this, I decided to see how much overlap between the two standards 
there really is.  I've attached a very rough draft of a PREMIS to 
FGDC mapping and am contemplating drafting the inverse FGDC to PREMIS 
mapping in addition.  The map was drafted for our internal wiki - so 
lot's of the comments are NSIDC specific.  My own impression is that 
there is a bit more overlap than I was expecting; but, that I had to 
pound those square pegs pretty hard to get them to fit in those round 
holes.

My questions for the group are:

1. Is something like this mapping useful to the community or is it 
silly to even think about it? [I would be willing to post it on the 
PIG wiki; but, reserve the right to publish it in a paper I am 
writing].  If it is useful, would the community be interested in 
reviewing/helping me solidify the draft?
2. What is your take on the FGDC vs PREMIS metadata issue?
3. What is your opinion on the question of whether data centers and 
digital libraries, etc. should/could use the same set of standards?

Thanks a bunch (in advance),

Ruth Duerr
NSIDC Data Stewardship Program Manager and MODIS/PARCA Data Coordinator




Visit Statistics New Zealand at the Small Business Expo,
TSB Bank Arena, Queen's Wharf, Wellington, 18-20 July 2007.

====================== Correspondents: Please Note =====================
The information in this email, and any files transmitted with it, is
confidential and is for the intended recipient only.   If you receive
this message in error, please phone us toll free on 0508 525 525, or
notify us via [log in to unmask]

The content of any email entering or leaving Statistics New Zealand is
automatically scanned, and may be opened and read by security staff.

Statistics New Zealand makes reasonable efforts to ensure that its email
has been scanned and is free of viruses. However, Statistics New Zealand
can make no warranty that this email or any attachments to it are free
from viruses.
 =======================================================================


--=_alternative 007D4461CC257312_=
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Hi Ruth,</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I've tried to answer your questions,
sounds like you are having a trying time!</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>1. Is something like this mapping useful to the
community
or is it &nbsp;<br>
silly to even think about it? [I would be willing to post it on the
&nbsp;<br>
PIG wiki; but, reserve the right to publish it in a paper I am &nbsp;<br>
writing]. &nbsp;If it is useful, would the community be interested in
&nbsp;<br>
reviewing/helping me solidify the draft?</tt></font>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>I think that this would definitely be a useful resource
for the community to have available. I know that Geospatial metadata is
an area in which a lot of people are keenly interested. </tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt><br>
2. What is your take on the FGDC vs PREMIS metadata issue?</tt></font>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>From my (extremely) quick perusal of the FGDC i would
say that it is mainly used/useful for descriptive and discovery metadata
purposes whereas PREMIS is all about preservation. They seem like they
would compliment each other rather than overlap. In the data archive in
which I am working we are using the DDI (Data Documentation
Initiative)standard
for Descriptive/Discovery Metadata and an adaptation of PREMIS for
Preservation
metadata in much the same way as I would envisage you using the FGDC and
PREMIS. </tt></font>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt><br>
3. What is your opinion on the question of whether data centres and
&nbsp;<br>
digital libraries, etc. should/could use the same set of
standards?</tt></font>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>I personally believe that it is virtually self-evident
that all data centres/digital libraries etc should Ideally use the same
set of standards<i>,</i>simply for reasons of interoperability and/or
knowledge
sharing. </tt></font>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>However my experience is that no matter how
comprehensive
a metadata standard is, it usually has to be altered to be useful for any
particular implementation. For example we have altered both the DDI and
the PREMIS standards for our particular usage. As archiving and even
metadata
standards are still in a relatively nascent stage at the moment it is likely
that the metadata standards will become more and more useful and widely
implementable as they get improved upon. This has already happened with
the DDI, version 2 (which we use)was recently surpassed by version 3 which
seems to address a few of the implementation issues. &nbsp;</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>The PREMIS xml schemas have tried to tackle this issue
by having areas in them in which you can put in whatever metadata elements
you which (i.e. you can make them up). This both improves its
interoperability
(as more people will be able to use the unaltered schema) and detracts
from its interoperability (as other users may not understand you particular
implementation of it).</tt></font>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>Also, the PREMIS standard is more of a reference
standard
than a strict set of terms to be used. It is best used as a checklist to
ensure that you are collecting all of the metadata you need for preservation
purposes. So even if you decide not to use the PREMIS schemas, PREMIS could
still be of use for this purpose. </tt></font>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>If you need to persuade your colleagues of the need
for digital preservation generally and preservation metadata in particular
i can recommend the On-line Cornell Digital Preservation
Tutorial:</tt></font>
<br><font
size=2><tt>http://www.library.cornell.edu/iris/tutorial/dpm/</tt></font>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>And this article in popular mechanics has a nice,
easily accessible, overview of some of the issues involved in digital
preservation:</tt></font>
<br><font
size=2><tt>http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4201645.html<
/tt></font>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>I hope this is helpful, if you have any questions
or feedback please feel free to get in contact.</tt></font>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>Kind regards,</tt></font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
Euan Cochrane<br>
<br>
Statistical Analyst,<br>
OSRDAC (Official Statistics Research and Data Archive Centre)<br>
Statistics New Zealand<br>
[log in to unmask]<br>
</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=40%><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>Ruth Duerr
&lt;[log in to unmask]&gt;</b>
</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Sent by: PREMIS Implementors Group Forum
&lt;[log in to unmask]&gt;</font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">07/07/2007 11:51 AM</font>
<table border>
<tr valign=top>
<td bgcolor=white>
<div align=center><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Please respond to<br>
PREMIS Implementors Group Forum &lt;[log in to unmask]&gt;</font></div></table>
<br>
<td width=59%>
<table width=100%>
<tr>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">To</font></div>
<td valign=top><font size=1 face="sans-serif">[log in to unmask]</font>
<tr>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">cc</font></div>
<td valign=top>
<tr>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Subject</font></div>
<td valign=top><font size=1 face="sans-serif">[PIG] PREMIS and FGDC metadata
question</font></table>
<br>
<table>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td></table>
<br></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>I'd like your opinions on a few issues. &nbsp;I work
at a data center that &nbsp;<br>
primarily archives and distributes remote sensing data about the &nbsp;<br>
environment and as such I am probably one of, if not the only, &nbsp;<br>
science data manager that is interested in PREMIS metadata. &nbsp;My
&nbsp;<br>
reasons for being interested are:<br>
<br>
1. I am a fan of the OAIS reference model<br>
2. We need to use something to manage information about our archive<br>
3. I hate reinventing the wheel (though am willing to balance wheels
&nbsp;<br>
and add new spokes as need be)<br>
4. It should eventually help interoperability allowing archives to
&nbsp;<br>
easily back each other up through the exchange of metadata and data<br>
5. It should eventually help harmonize the directions digital &nbsp;<br>
libraries and data centers are headed (I'd love to add the GIS &nbsp;<br>
community to this too), thereby providing a more seamless transition
&nbsp;<br>
from data to information and knowledge, if not exactly to wisdom...<br>
<br>
I've noticed that I get a lot of push back on using PREMIS, not just
&nbsp;<br>
internally; but, also from my fellow science data managers &nbsp;<br>
elsewhere. &nbsp;Some of that may simply be resistance to change or the
&nbsp;<br>
infamous &quot;not invented here&quot; syndrome. It also may be partly
that &nbsp;<br>
there is a lot of pressure to head in the direction of less metadata
&nbsp;<br>
rather than more (i.e., I hear sentiments like &quot;metadata isn't the
&nbsp;<br>
solution - we need a better hammer&quot; a lot). &nbsp;One question I'm
often &nbsp;<br>
asked is why anything beyond FGDC metadata is needed (almost all of
&nbsp;<br>
my and my colleagues' data is documented at the data set level by &nbsp;<br>
FGDC metadata). &nbsp;My answers about storage information, fixity,
&nbsp;<br>
preservation events and agents, and rights are routinely met with &nbsp;<br>
statements like &quot;FGDC can do that.&quot; &nbsp;That has always seemed
strange &nbsp;<br>
to me since the FGDC standard was specifically developed to contain
&nbsp;<br>
metadata to support the following:<br>
<br>
&quot;The information included in the standard was selected based on four
&nbsp;<br>
roles that metadata play:<br>
- availability -- data needed to determine the sets of data that &nbsp;<br>
exist for a geographic location.<br>
- fitness for use -- data needed to determine if a set of data meets
&nbsp;<br>
a specific need.<br>
- access -- data needed to acquire an identified set of data.<br>
- transfer -- data needed to process and use a set of data.&quot; - from
&nbsp;<br>
CSDGM, 1999<br>
<br>
Not one of these purposes is to ensure the long-term preservation of
&nbsp;<br>
data. &nbsp;As such, my first thought has always been that FGDC and PREMIS
&nbsp;<br>
metadata should be orthogonal - in other words, there shouldn't be a
&nbsp;<br>
lot of overlap between the standards. &nbsp;It that is the case, then it
&nbsp;<br>
seems to me that it would make a lot of sense to use both standards
&nbsp;<br>
simultaneously - FGDC to deal with external user access, PREMIS to
&nbsp;<br>
deal with preservation needs. &nbsp;Since I've gotten so much push back
on &nbsp;<br>
this, I decided to see how much overlap between the two standards &nbsp;<br>
there really is. &nbsp;I've attached a very rough draft of a PREMIS to
&nbsp;<br>
FGDC mapping and am contemplating drafting the inverse FGDC to PREMIS
&nbsp;<br>
mapping in addition. &nbsp;The map was drafted for our internal wiki -
so &nbsp;<br>
lot's of the comments are NSIDC specific. &nbsp;My own impression is that
&nbsp;<br>
there is a bit more overlap than I was expecting; but, that I had to
&nbsp;<br>
pound those square pegs pretty hard to get them to fit in those round
&nbsp;<br>
holes.<br>
<br>
My questions for the group are:<br>
<br>
1. Is something like this mapping useful to the community or is it
&nbsp;<br>
silly to even think about it? [I would be willing to post it on the
&nbsp;<br>
PIG wiki; but, reserve the right to publish it in a paper I am &nbsp;<br>
writing]. &nbsp;If it is useful, would the community be interested in
&nbsp;<br>
reviewing/helping me solidify the draft?<br>
2. What is your take on the FGDC vs PREMIS metadata issue?<br>
3. What is your opinion on the question of whether data centers and
&nbsp;<br>
digital libraries, etc. should/could use the same set of standards?<br>
<br>
Thanks a bunch (in advance),<br>
<br>
Ruth Duerr<br>
NSIDC Data Stewardship Program Manager and MODIS/PARCA Data Coordinator<br>
<br>
</tt></font>
<br>
<p><span style="font-family:'MS Sans
Serif';font-size:8.2pt;">&nbsp;</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:'MS Sans Serif';font-size:8.2pt;">Visit
Statistics New Zealand at the Small Business Expo,</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:'MS Sans Serif';font-size:8.2pt;">TSB Bank
Arena, Queen's Wharf, Wellington, 18-20 July 2007.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:'MS Sans Serif';font-size:8.2pt;"></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:'MS Sans
Serif';font-size:8.2pt;">&nbsp;</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:'MS Sans
Serif';font-size:8.2pt;">====================== Correspondents: Please Note
=====================</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:'MS Sans Serif';font-size:8.2pt;">The
information in this email, and any files transmitted with it, is</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:'MS Sans Serif';font-size:8.2pt;">confidential
and is for the intended recipient only.   If you receive</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:'MS Sans Serif';font-size:8.2pt;">this message
in error, please phone us toll free on 0508 525 525, or</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:'MS Sans Serif';font-size:8.2pt;">notify us via
[log in to unmask]</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:'MS Sans Serif';font-size:8.2pt;"></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:'MS Sans
Serif';font-size:8.2pt;">&nbsp;</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:'MS Sans Serif';font-size:8.2pt;">The content of
any email entering or leaving Statistics New Zealand is</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:'MS Sans Serif';font-size:8.2pt;">automatically
scanned, and may be opened and read by security staff.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:'MS Sans Serif';font-size:8.2pt;"></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:'MS Sans
Serif';font-size:8.2pt;">&nbsp;</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:'MS Sans Serif';font-size:8.2pt;">Statistics New
Zealand makes reasonable efforts to ensure that its email</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:'MS Sans Serif';font-size:8.2pt;">has been
scanned and is free of viruses. However, Statistics New Zealand</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:'MS Sans Serif';font-size:8.2pt;">can make no
warranty that this email or any attachments to it are free</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:'MS Sans Serif';font-size:8.2pt;">from
viruses.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:'MS Sans
Serif';font-size:8.2pt;">===================================================
=====================</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:'MS Sans
Serif';font-size:8.2pt;">&nbsp;</span></p>

--=_alternative 007D4461CC257312_=--

------------------------------

End of PIG Digest - 6 Jul 2007 to 8 Jul 2007 (#2007-32)
*******************************************************

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2019
November 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager