1. NEFIS (WP5) Evaluation Meeting, 15-16 November 2004 Evaluation Metadata Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg Response rate: 93% (14 of 15 partners send questionnaire back) Response rate per question varies between 70-100% Comments of “no response“ were: This does not concern us as data provider Question not applicable Answers not significantly influenced by data types! Varity of data types (37 datasets):

2. NEFIS (WP5) Evaluation Meeting, 15-16 November 2004 Evaluation Metadata Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg Are the NEFIS metadata the first contact you have had with metadata?

3. NEFIS (WP5) Evaluation Meeting, 15-16 November 2004 Evaluation Metadata Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg Partners knowledge and experience of elaborating metadata Partners knowledge and experience using metadata for data source retrieval

4. NEFIS (WP5) Evaluation Meeting, 15-16 November 2004 Evaluation Metadata Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg 8 of 14 partners are using tools to create metadata: Text editor Three Tab Metadata/ Arc Catalog Other…? Used standards or schema are: Dublin Core ISO/TC211, USGS guidelines compiled by Statistics Finland (in line with EUROSTAT instructions) FoxPro, Oracle Do you use any metadata standard or schema to describe and catalogue your datasets?

5. NEFIS (WP5) Evaluation Meeting, 15-16 November 2004 Evaluation Metadata Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg Preparation phase I Studying documentation (metadata schema, metadata guidelines, metadata template) Preparation phase II Preliminary version of metadata records Completion phase Entering final version of metadata records How much time did you spend to enter the metadata records?

6. NEFIS (WP5) Evaluation Meeting, 15-16 November 2004 Evaluation Metadata Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg Preparation phase 1 Preparation phase 2 Completion phase 3 Total P141115 P24217 P31510530 P4320,55,5 P5820836 P643310 P72327 P888420 P944614 P101,5 0,53,5 P112226 P1231,50,55 P13320,55,5 P142510540 Max2520840 Min1,5 0,53,5 Average6,25,72,914,6

7. NEFIS (WP5) Evaluation Meeting, 15-16 November 2004 Evaluation Metadata Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg Preparation phase 1 Preparation phase 2 Completion phase 3 Total P141115 P24217 P31510530 P4320,55,5 P5820836 P643310 P72327 P888420 P944614 P101,5 0,53,5 P112226 P1231,50,55 P13320,55,5 P142510540 Max2520840 Min1,5 0,53,5 Average6,25,72,914,6

8. NEFIS (WP5) Evaluation Meeting, 15-16 November 2004 Evaluation Metadata Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg Preparation phase 1 Preparation phase 2 Completion phase 3 Total P141115 P24217 P31510530 P4320,55,5 P5820836 P643310 P72327 P888420 P944614 P101,5 0,53,5 P112226 P1231,50,55 P13320,55,5 P142510540 Max2520840 Min1,5 0,53,5 Average6,25,72,914,6

9. NEFIS (WP5) Evaluation Meeting, 15-16 November 2004 Evaluation Metadata Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg Workload to enter metadata records

10. NEFIS (WP5) Evaluation Meeting, 15-16 November 2004 Evaluation Metadata Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg Workload to enter metadata records (Cluster)

11. NEFIS (WP5) Evaluation Meeting, 15-16 November 2004 Evaluation Metadata Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg most partners between 5-10 hours Workload to enter metadata records (Total)

12. NEFIS (WP5) Evaluation Meeting, 15-16 November 2004 Evaluation Metadata Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg Level of complexity to prepare and enter metadata: 29% = complex 71% = acceptable Do you consider the workload to enter metadata records as:

13. NEFIS (WP5) Evaluation Meeting, 15-16 November 2004 Evaluation Metadata Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg NEFIS Terms could include more structured levels (hierarchy) NEFIS Terms could be revised to improve the usability and standardize the terms between the different lists. as soon as this version of metadata preparation is implemented in a real Internet environment, drop down menus would reduce the time of data entry substantially. the different provided lists were not easy to use and data entry was neither easy, …some efficient tools…for preparing and entering metadata would be useful. Suggestions for improving metadata elaboration:

14. NEFIS (WP5) Evaluation Meeting, 15-16 November 2004 Evaluation Metadata Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg Are the guidelines easy to understand?

15. NEFIS (WP5) Evaluation Meeting, 15-16 November 2004 Evaluation Metadata Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg It is very difficult for us to judge this from the data user's point of view. Is the current NEFIS metadata schema operational and applicable for your use as a data provider? Is the current NEFIS metadata schema functional and applicable for a data user - for the purpose of data retrieval?

16. NEFIS (WP5) Evaluation Meeting, 15-16 November 2004 Evaluation Metadata Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg Yes, necessary even !! No, but there should be a contact person that I could ask if questions arise No, but in the case of individuals not familiar with metadata YES a separate meeting would bee too much, but a session in a meeting that takes place anyhow would be helpful Would a metadata tutorial or training course be helpful and appropriate?

17. NEFIS (WP5) Evaluation Meeting, 15-16 November 2004 Evaluation Metadata Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg Metadata schema – evaluation questionnaire matrix

18. NEFIS (WP5) Evaluation Meeting, 15-16 November 2004 Evaluation Metadata Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg Metadata records without problems

19. NEFIS (WP5) Evaluation Meeting, 15-16 November 2004 Evaluation Metadata Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg Problem of usability and functionality in general

20. NEFIS (WP5) Evaluation Meeting, 15-16 November 2004 Evaluation Metadata Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg Problem of understanding

21. NEFIS (WP5) Evaluation Meeting, 15-16 November 2004 Evaluation Metadata Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg Workload: time to prepare and enter required information

22. NEFIS (WP5) Evaluation Meeting, 15-16 November 2004 Evaluation Metadata Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg Too much information is required

23. NEFIS (WP5) Evaluation Meeting, 15-16 November 2004 Evaluation Metadata Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg Element should be deleted

24. NEFIS (WP5) Evaluation Meeting, 15-16 November 2004 Evaluation Metadata Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg Should be mandatory

25. NEFIS (WP5) Evaluation Meeting, 15-16 November 2004 Evaluation Metadata Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg Standardisation for better interoperability achieved?

26. NEFIS (WP5) Evaluation Meeting, 15-16 November 2004 Evaluation Metadata Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg Relevance - data and resource documentation

27. NEFIS (WP5) Evaluation Meeting, 15-16 November 2004 Evaluation Metadata Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg Relevance - data retrieval

28. NEFIS (WP5) Evaluation Meeting, 15-16 November 2004 Evaluation Metadata Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg Metadata – specific issues (elements/ refinements) Type Format Coverage Quality Report Subject

29. NEFIS (WP5) Evaluation Meeting, 15-16 November 2004 Evaluation Metadata Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg It might not be completely clear to everyone what georeferenced actually means. This could be more explicitly stated in the guidelines. The Dataset georeferenced description seems to be too much accurate for the purpose of this project Type: Clear differentiation DatasetGeoreferenced/ Dataset?

30. NEFIS (WP5) Evaluation Meeting, 15-16 November 2004 Evaluation Metadata Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg It gives the user valuable additional information, in particular if the user is interested in utilising the DatasetGeoreferenced for work. I am not sure that all georeferenced datasets can be described by the current version. …longitude and latitude (as decimal degrees or in degrees/minutes/seconds) are not provided as variables. Format: Is the "reference system encoding scheme" an appropriate addition to the NEFIS metadata schema?

31. NEFIS (WP5) Evaluation Meeting, 15-16 November 2004 Evaluation Metadata Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg It could be better to have the reference system within the element “coverage” It could actually be an own “Element” Is "format" the appropriate place for "reference system"?

32. NEFIS (WP5) Evaluation Meeting, 15-16 November 2004 Evaluation Metadata Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg Is Point encoding scheme an appropriate addition? Is Box encoding scheme an appropriate addition? 3 times no answer 4 times no answer

33. NEFIS (WP5) Evaluation Meeting, 15-16 November 2004 Evaluation Metadata Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg Would be helpful for more harmonisation (user end), but may cause difficulties Yes, but we do not have to use this. It would mean less work for those trying to locate information from an EFIS…but it might mean that data providers have to convert their data sets. The purpose is mainly to provide information on where to find the data - not to harmonise the data itself, and a predefined coordinate system could require much work for some datasets. Metadata includes map-projection definitions (RT 90) Should the coordinate system be predefined? 4 times no answer

34. NEFIS (WP5) Evaluation Meeting, 15-16 November 2004 Evaluation Metadata Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg Named elements which address “quality” within the DCMI schema: Creator, Description, Publisher, Coverage, Source, Date, Audience "Quality" addressed within DCMI elements, refinements and encoding schemes

35. NEFIS (WP5) Evaluation Meeting, 15-16 November 2004 Evaluation Metadata Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg Relative value of a “quality report“ “quality report“ under the element “descriptions“?

36. NEFIS (WP5) Evaluation Meeting, 15-16 November 2004 Evaluation Metadata Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg The question here is: Which of these options is appropriate for which type of data? Value of listed options to describe and structure "quality report"

37. NEFIS (WP5) Evaluation Meeting, 15-16 November 2004 Evaluation Metadata Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg the question is: Which user can use this information correctly? maybe applicable to some types of datasets but such information could also be included in the “quality report” description it could become very complicated (and time consuming for data providers) to collect such information in a standardised way. Value of quantitative measures of quality (e.g. standard error, sample size, sampling unit, resampling for measurement control)

38. NEFIS (WP5) Evaluation Meeting, 15-16 November 2004 Evaluation Metadata Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg they are different: some are detailed, others are of more general nature. Some harmonisation is needed. sometimes difficult to group the term under a theme I see some need for further elaboration and specification. In particular concerning the themes: ‘research’, ‘forestry institutions’ and ‘economics’. It will be important to review the list of NEFIS themes and their definitions. Are the definitions for the NEFIS Themes appropriate?

39. NEFIS (WP5) Evaluation Meeting, 15-16 November 2004 Evaluation Metadata Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg sometimes difficult to group the term under a theme very time consuming to go through the lists … more structure would be helpful. Question of balance between accuracy of description and time investment becomes apparent. some overlap of NEFIS terms can be found. The level of detail and the accuracy of the terms relating to a resource will always be an issue which will be nearly impossible to solve to everyone’s satisfaction. Can the dataset be appropriately described by using the NEFIS terms?

40. NEFIS (WP5) Evaluation Meeting, 15-16 November 2004 Evaluation Metadata Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg it could be the way to improve the term lists it’s very important during the development phase nominated terms are really needed; in some cases they are more relevant than NEFIS terms …it allows the provider to demonstrate which additional terms are seen necessary to describe the particular resource more accurately …it is important….but who will be the editorial board? How important is the option to add "Nominated Terms"

41. NEFIS (WP5) Evaluation Meeting, 15-16 November 2004 Evaluation Metadata Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg This element is in particular important for the data provider. The provider should have a clear vision on the addressees of the information resource… The data provider can not evaluate the class of entity to whom the resource is indented or useful. It is too subjective. Is the element "audience" an important addition?

42. NEFIS (WP5) Evaluation Meeting, 15-16 November 2004 Evaluation Metadata Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg Metadata Element 1. Title 2. Creator 3. Subject 4. Description 5. Publisher 6. Contributor 7. Date 8. Type 9. Format 10. Identifier 11. Source 12. Language 13. Relation 14. Coverage 15. Rights 16. Audience Metadata Schema - Resume = without problems ? = problems (hot spots) ? = with some problems ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

43. NEFIS (WP5) Evaluation Meeting, 15-16 November 2004 Evaluation Metadata Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg Perspective: establish a metadata working group?

44. NEFIS (WP5) Evaluation Meeting, 15-16 November 2004 Evaluation Metadata Aljoscha Requardt, University of Hamburg Discussion