OSGeodata: Unterschied zwischen den Versionen
Stefan (Diskussion | Beiträge) (→Overview) |
Stefan (Diskussion | Beiträge) (→Towards a new metadata exchange protocol...) |
||
| Zeile 12: | Zeile 12: | ||
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''. | 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''. | ||
| − | == | + | == Need for a metadata exchange protocol == |
After having agreed on a better protocol there is also a need for a better name than 'Geographic Catalog Service or Protocol', like 'Geographic Metadata Harvesting Protocol'. | After having agreed on a better protocol there is also a need for a better name than 'Geographic Catalog Service or Protocol', like 'Geographic Metadata Harvesting Protocol'. | ||
Version vom 21. August 2006, 10:55 Uhr
Inhaltsverzeichnis
Overview
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)
Therefore we urgently need a metadata information model (see below) as well as a metadata exchange protocol (see below).
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.
Need for a metadata exchange protocol
After having agreed on a better protocol there is also a need for a better name than 'Geographic Catalog Service or Protocol', like 'Geographic Metadata Harvesting Protocol'.
For general protocol requirements read OSGeodataMetadataProtocol.
For proposals around the metadata information model requirements see OSGeodataMetadataModel.
Need for a metadata information model
We definitively need a metadata information model. Geographic catalog is rather data provider centric name for a system and a model, so we prefer a user centric '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, ...?
