Comparison of CEN, FGDC and ISO standards for metadata Ing. Jan Ruzicka Institute of Economics and Control Systems VŠB – Technical university Ostrava 17. listopadu 15, Ostrava – Poruba E – mail:

Ruzicka, J.: Comparison of CEN, FGDC and ISO standards for metadata 2 Metadata –data set identification (title, version, etc.)  overview (abstract, spatial schema, language, purpose of production, etc.)  quality elements (lineage, positional accuracy, etc.)  related documents  related data sets  spatial reference system  extent (spatial, temporal)  content (data structure, classification, etc.)  administrative metadata (point of contact, distribution)  metadata of metadata (author, dates) CEN,FGDC,ISO J R

Ruzicka, J.: Comparison of CEN, FGDC and ISO standards for metadata 3 Compared standards Pre-standard "ENV 12657:1998 Geographic information – Data description – Metadata“ - CEN Working draft ISO/CD ISO Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata - FGDC J R

Ruzicka, J.: Comparison of CEN, FGDC and ISO standards for metadata 4 Structure and expressive expedients of standards - ISO Textual description organised in paragraphs UML (Unified Modelling Language) diagrams –well-arranged –do not give full description of metadata elements Textual description organised in tables –not well arranged –necessary to UML diagrams –short names (XML, SGML) J R

Ruzicka, J.: Comparison of CEN, FGDC and ISO standards for metadata 5 Structure and expressive expedients of standards - CEN Textual description organised in paragraphs EXPRESS-G schemas (diagrams) –well - arranged –do not give full description of metadata elements EXPRESS schemas –full description in textual form –structured text Textual description organised in tables J R

Ruzicka, J.: Comparison of CEN, FGDC and ISO standards for metadata 6 Structure and expressive expedients of standards - FGDC Structured text –well - arranged –easily comprehensible –simple structures –full description in textual form –easy to use without knowledge of UML or EXPRESS J R

Ruzicka, J.: Comparison of CEN, FGDC and ISO standards for metadata 7 Classification CEN - optional classification using thesaurus and thesaurus elements ISO - mandatory clsssification using category (list), optional by thesaurus FGDC - mandatory classification using thematic thesaurus FGDC and ISO do not give possibility to specify version and thesaurus administrator, CEN do not need classification - big defficiency J R

Ruzicka, J.: Comparison of CEN, FGDC and ISO standards for metadata 8 Administrative metadata Point of contact –CEN - optional, FGDC and ISO - mandatory Data access –CEN - free text, FGDC, ISO - well -formed structure - access, usage and security of data Support services –CEN - free text, ISO - what to update and update frequency, FGDC update frequency only J R

Ruzicka, J.: Comparison of CEN, FGDC and ISO standards for metadata 9 Metadata of metadata FGDC requires metadata author and description of metadata access, usage and security - it useful for metainformation systems FGDC does not make difference between date of birth and update date J R

Ruzicka, J.: Comparison of CEN, FGDC and ISO standards for metadata 10 Mandatory metadata elements J R

Ruzicka, J.: Comparison of CEN, FGDC and ISO standards for metadata 11 Conclusion ISO, FGDC - more concrete in metadata description CEN - gives only themes how to describe metadata elements FGDC, CEN - useful metadata elements optional ISO - useful metadata elements optional FGDC, CEN - well arranged documentation ISO - not well arranged documentation J R

Ruzicka, J.: Comparison of CEN, FGDC and ISO standards for metadata 12 Recommendation ISO - international standards ISO replaces CEN Metainformation systems based on CEN - have to move to ISO –first phase: metadata exchange in conformity to ISO, three main targets – mandatory classification, mandatory point of contact and implementation of useful lists given by ISO standard Metainformation systems based on FGDC - in general - in conformity to ISO J R