METSÄNTUTKIMUSLAITOS SKOGSFORSKNINGSINSTITUTET FINNISH FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE Expert evaluation - details - Jarmo Saarikko (Metla team)

METSÄNTUTKIMUSLAITOS

SKOGSFORSKNINGSINSTITUTET

FINNISH FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE

www.metla.fi

Expert evaluation- details -

Jarmo Saarikko (Metla team)

NEFIS WP5 meeting

Hamburg 15.11.2004

Saarikko for NEFIS WP5 / Hamburg 15.11.2004 METSÄNTUTKIMUSLAITOS



www.metla.fi

Naming standards• Spelling of names is important. “Name” is

fixed, all other properties of DC entities can be translated etc.

• Spelling of term Names seems inconsistent between the Metadata Schema and Metadata Guidelines as well as with DCMI

– Name “quality report” is “qualityReport”

• Not all Terms used in Guidelines are in Schema: NEFISrefinements are missing?

• Start using namespaces in the documentation!




www.metla.fi

Nominated terms – procedure?• the procedure to handle nominations

should be created before collecting such terms

• has to be extremely clearly explained and documented

• using normal metadata descriptions for term suggestions to an edited thesaurus may be quite confusing




www.metla.fi

NEFISthemes• Some themes cover METHODS not really

SUBJECTS– "Maps and georeferenced data" – "Field Experiment"

• Alternatives labels – "Cartography" or "Geomatics" – "Research”

• Overlap: several subjects are covered under 2-3 themes

• Themes are now a classification (yes/no)?




www.metla.fi

Metadata entry• Using Word documents did not really

teach the correct structure or coding of metadata elements

• Someone has to manually enter the data into a database?

• Guidance to the ‘entry tool’ was not clear– e.g. handling multiple items




www.metla.fi

Metadata control• The destination of the provided

metadata was unclear• Who owns the metadata?• Who can modify or delete the metadata?• How?• Can the moderator of records be changed?• Automatic or manual upload?




www.metla.fi

Metadata guidelines (D5)• In general the guidelines were readable

and provided enough examples• However, there was some lack of

consistency over terms and values• Element “Subject” - confusing• List elements and refinements

separately• Separate technical doc. on the metadata

entry tool




www.metla.fi

Quality• European Schoolnet has dealt with this

topic extensively• European Treasury Browser

– ETB recommendations on quality criteria (2001)

– ETB deals with metadata, interoperability, multilinguality, has a thesaurus, etc.

– http://etb.eun.org/etb/




www.metla.fi

Namespaces• For easiness of documentation and

interoperability• List all namespaces used by Nefis project• Document the namespace for each of the

element and qualifier names used by Nefis• Variable Names in dataset metadata should be

listed in a separate namespace• see: FML




www.metla.fi

FML – forest markup language• D3 described requirements for a deeper

metadata structure than the “Core” elements (used for describing datasets)

• FML Scheme and its possible modules and namespaces can solve this problem

• This provides the required interoperability




www.metla.fi

Documents

METSÄNTUTKIMUSLAITOS SKOGSFORSKNINGSINSTITUTET FINNISH FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE Expert evaluation - details - Jarmo Saarikko (Metla team)