OSGeodata: Unterschied zwischen den Versionen
Stefan (Diskussion | Beiträge) (→Towards a new geographic catalog protocol...) |
Stefan (Diskussion | Beiträge) (→Towards a new geographic catalog protocol...) |
||
| Zeile 14: | Zeile 14: | ||
== Towards a new geographic catalog protocol... == | == Towards a new geographic catalog protocol... == | ||
| − | A protocol specification consists of requests (operations) and responses (information model encoded in a streaming format and error messages, as codes). After having agreed on a better protocol there is also a need for a better name. | + | A protocol specification consists of requests (operations) and responses (information model encoded in a streaming format and error messages, as codes). After having agreed on a better protocol there is also a need for a better name, like 'Geographic Metadata Harvesting Protocol'. |
For general '''protocol requirements''' read [[OSGeodataMetadataProtocol]]. We tend to propose a harvesting approach which means, that in a first step XML files are pulished and in a second step [[OAI-PMH]] could utilized. | For general '''protocol requirements''' read [[OSGeodataMetadataProtocol]]. We tend to propose a harvesting approach which means, that in a first step XML files are pulished and in a second step [[OAI-PMH]] could utilized. | ||
Version vom 21. August 2006, 10:05 Uhr
These pages are about our search of "a protocol for the incremental exchange of metadata about geographic resources between systems" which is open, lean and mean. Proposals like OGC's CSW 2.0 do not fulfill these requirements. Profiled specifications like WFS or OAI-PMH (see below) are currently on our short list.
These are experimental pages originated from OSGeodata Mailing List on OSGeo.org.
Let's finally unleash geographic information through open access and dissemination of geographic data and (metadata) search appliances!
- Managing metadata well is the key to making a repository of open geographic data really useful and re-usable. Creating metadata can be a dull chore. Part of the problem is over-focus on production, rather than consumption; on standards, rather than on usage. The Geodata Committee at OSGeo has been working on a "simplest useful thing" approach to geographic metadata.... (Citation from Jo Walsh)
Keywords: Open access to and dissemination of geographic data (geodata) and information; Metadata; Finding, harvesting or discovery of geodata and web map services; Interoperability; Integration; Service binding; Spatial data infrastructure; Standards.
Towards a new geographic catalog protocol...
A protocol specification consists of requests (operations) and responses (information model encoded in a streaming format and error messages, as codes). After having agreed on a better protocol there is also a need for a better name, like 'Geographic Metadata Harvesting Protocol'.
For general protocol requirements read OSGeodataMetadataProtocol. We tend to propose a harvesting approach which means, that in a first step XML files are pulished and in a second step OAI-PMH could utilized.
For proposals around the metadata information model requirements see OSGeodataMetadataModel.
Need for a metadata information model
We definitively need a metadata information model. See OSGeodataMetadataModel for further discussion.
Weblinks
Information:
- Wiki at osgeo.org for requirements
- Geodata mailing list at osgeo.org for discussions
- Pleadings... Blog 1 - "Leight Weight Web Resource Catalogue", Blog 2 - More Simple Web Services Catalogues...", and Blog 3.
Geographic information search services:
- Catalogs:
- mapdex.org
- ESRI's geography network
- National Portals: US, CA, EU, UK, FR, DE, AT, CH
- Search engines:
- General: Google Maps, MSN live, Yahoo!
- Specialized: geometa.info (still german only for linguistic processing reasons)
- GIS with catalog and search components:
- uDig, ArcGIS, ...?
Specifiations:
- OGC's CSW 2.0
- OGC's WFS
- OAI-PMH - including home, wikipedia, documents, tutorials, tools and demos
