 |
 |
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 <br> silly to even think about it? [I would be willing to post it on the <br> PIG wiki; but, reserve the right to publish it in a paper I am <br> writing]. If it is useful, would the community be interested in <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 <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. </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 <[log in to unmask]></b> </font> <br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Sent by: PREMIS Implementors Group Forum <[log in to unmask]></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 <[log in to unmask]></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. I work at a data center that <br> primarily archives and distributes remote sensing data about the <br> environment and as such I am probably one of, if not the only, <br> science data manager that is interested in PREMIS metadata. My <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 <br> and add new spokes as need be)<br> 4. It should eventually help interoperability allowing archives to <br> easily back each other up through the exchange of metadata and data<br> 5. It should eventually help harmonize the directions digital <br> libraries and data centers are headed (I'd love to add the GIS <br> community to this too), thereby providing a more seamless transition <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 <br> internally; but, also from my fellow science data managers <br> elsewhere. Some of that may simply be resistance to change or the <br> infamous "not invented here" syndrome. It also may be partly that <br> there is a lot of pressure to head in the direction of less metadata <br> rather than more (i.e., I hear sentiments like "metadata isn't the <br> solution - we need a better hammer" a lot). One question I'm often <br> asked is why anything beyond FGDC metadata is needed (almost all of <br> my and my colleagues' data is documented at the data set level by <br> FGDC metadata). My answers about storage information, fixity, <br> preservation events and agents, and rights are routinely met with <br> statements like "FGDC can do that." That has always seemed strange <br> to me since the FGDC standard was specifically developed to contain <br> metadata to support the following:<br> <br> "The information included in the standard was selected based on four <br> roles that metadata play:<br> - availability -- data needed to determine the sets of data that <br> exist for a geographic location.<br> - fitness for use -- data needed to determine if a set of data meets <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." - from <br> CSDGM, 1999<br> <br> Not one of these purposes is to ensure the long-term preservation of <br> data. As such, my first thought has always been that FGDC and PREMIS <br> metadata should be orthogonal - in other words, there shouldn't be a <br> lot of overlap between the standards. It that is the case, then it <br> seems to me that it would make a lot of sense to use both standards <br> simultaneously - FGDC to deal with external user access, PREMIS to <br> deal with preservation needs. Since I've gotten so much push back on <br> this, I decided to see how much overlap between the two standards <br> there really is. I've attached a very rough draft of a PREMIS to <br> FGDC mapping and am contemplating drafting the inverse FGDC to PREMIS <br> mapping in addition. The map was drafted for our internal wiki - so <br> lot's of the comments are NSIDC specific. My own impression is that <br> there is a bit more overlap than I was expecting; but, that I had to <br> pound those square pegs pretty hard to get them to fit in those round <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 <br> silly to even think about it? [I would be willing to post it on the <br> PIG wiki; but, reserve the right to publish it in a paper I am <br> writing]. If it is useful, would the community be interested in <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 <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;"> </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;"> </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;"> </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;"> </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;"> </span></p> --=_alternative 007D4461CC257312_=-- ------------------------------ End of PIG Digest - 6 Jul 2007 to 8 Jul 2007 (#2007-32) *******************************************************