1. Metadata Handling in the North Carolina Geospatial Data Project (NCGDAP) NCSU Libraries Steve Morris Head of Digital Library Initiatives Rob Farrell Geospatial Initiatives Librarian Digital Preservation in State Government: Best Practices Exchange 2006

2. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 2 Overview Introduction to geospatial metadata Project approach to geospatial metadata handling Intersection with digital library metadata standards Project approach to content packaging

3. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 3 NC Geospatial Data Archiving Project Partnership between university library (NCSU) and state agency (NCCGIA), with Library of Congress under the National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program (NDIIPP) One of 8 initial NDIIPP partnerships (only state project) Focus on state and local geospatial content in North Carolina (state demonstration) Tied to NC OneMap initiative, which provides for seamless access to data, metadata, and inventories Objective: engage existing state/federal geospatial data infrastructures in preservation

4. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 4 Project Metadata Overview Geospatial Standards FGDC Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata (upcoming) North American Profile of ISO standard for geospatial metadata Digital Library Standards Qualified Dublin Core Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard (METS) PREMIS (PREservation Metadata: Implementation Strategies)

5. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 5 FGDC Metadata Overview Standard in 1994, mandated for federal agency use in 1995 1998 ver. 2 to be replaced by North American Profile of the ISO standard Descriptive, technical, and administrative metadata – over 300 elements FGDC is a content standard without an encoding standard – creates archive problems Many software products exist for authoring or making searchable FGDC metadata

6. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 6 FGDC Metadata Publication & Search FGDC Metadata Search Options Geo-Spatial OneStop (centralized, harvest-based catalog) Z39.50 Metasearch across NSDI clearinghouses (distributed catalogs) State/regional clearinghouses FGDC Record Distribution Harvested by Geospatial One-Stop Made available to state/regional clearinghouses Posted to agency websites Distributed with data (hopefully)

7. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 7 Metadata in the NC GIS Community FGDC CGDSM implemented by major state GIS agencies starting in 1994 NC CGIA Metadata Outreach: regional workshops, phone support, training materials Adoption Some adoption by county agencies (21 of 92 county GIS systems as of Spring 2004) Some adoption by municipal agencies and COGS (13 of 51 municipal GIS systems by Spring 2004) Rare adoption by private, university, NGO’s

8. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 8 Metadata Availability by County

9. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 9 Local Agency Geospatial Metadata Source: NC OneMap Data Inventory 2004

10. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 10 Refined vs. Unrefined Metadata FGDC CSDGM compliance Seventy-eight page document Costly to implement Incentives? Compliance as an end goal Help or Hinder? Tools for automating metadata production Free text options in CSDGM

11. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 11 Our Response Raise metadata to minimum level Normalize to a standard Manage “expert” intervention Carry forward original metadata record

12. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 12 Raise Metadata to Minimum Level (see handout) Metadata template Create template specific to data provider Automate template application Indicate our curatorship Check for sufficiency of critical elements Correct automation artifacts Review contact information Confirm data/metadata concurrency

13. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 13 Normalize to a Standard (see handout) XML format May involve format conversion Standard format for project metadata Specialized profile Allows automation attributes Aligns with international standards ISO 19139 topic categories

14. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 14 Manage “Expert” Intervention (see handout) Coordinate geospatial metadata management with: Administrative metadata collection Our own curatorship (see handout) Archive metadata production Logical workflows Automation where possible

15. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 15 FGDC Mapping to Dspace Qualified Dublin Core Map applicable elements to QDC Part of larger element mapping scheme Advantages Leverage geospatial metadata record Leverage earlier “expert” intervention Limitations Not all mappings are 1 to 1

16. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 16 Content Packaging Requirements Geospatial datasets are typically complex, multi-file objects Data are often accompanied by ancillary data, which must be associated with the data item Rights information and licenses must be associated with the item Possible driver: GeoDRM Working Group activity within the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC)

17. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 17 Project METS Approach (in Progress) Use as a “smart manifest” within the repository item (function as DIP intelligence) Avoid complexity Not used for modeling tiled, or temporal data relationships Not used for behaviors There is no assumption of METS record interoperability on export Use of METS is to derive network effect benefits of community interaction and to participate in dialog about content packaging

18. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 18 Content Packaging: Future Plans Participate in repository exchange activity – work towards better understanding of METS exchange and interoperability Consider mapping of metadata elements to PREMIS, within METS Watch geospatial community developments regarding content packaging (e.g. potential use of MPEG 21 DIDL with GeoDRM) Contribute library/archive use cases to GeoDRM developments

19. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 19 Summary: Metadata Issues FGDC processing in archive complex – will be easier after ISO 191139 is widely implemented Need to normalize and remediate existing FGDC metadata Feedback to statewide metadata outreach efforts is important Mapping to repository ingest item helps to refine definition of technical and administrative metadata elements METS vs. other content packaging solutions: what will be the long-term geospatial industry approach?

20. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 20 Questions? Contact: Steve Morris Head, Digital Library Initiatives NCSU Libraries Steven_Morris@ncsu.edu Rob Farrell Geospatial Initiatives Librarian NCSU Libraries Rob_Farrell@ncsu.edu http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/ncgdap