The LTER Information Managers spent a day and a half, a significant portion of the IM committee meeting, discussing metadata standards and implementation. The Information Management Committee heard reports from Matt Jones (NCEAS) and Peter McCartney (CAP, Metadata working group leader) about the status of the collaboration on developing Ecological Metadata Language (EML) 2.0. These reports confirmed that most of the proposed changes from the April meeting in Albuquerque have been done and that there are a few things left to do - the official status right now being ‘beta 2’. They also stepped through the entire EML 2.0 structure, discussed structuring of existing LTER metadata and looked at a number of tools that would aid this process. They reiterated the two main tasks for LTER sites to be:
Compliance is a bit misleading because there would be levels of ‘compliance’ whereby as a dataset is documented to a particular level then that opens up new capabilities for use of those data. These levels of ‘capability,’ instead of compliance, will be included in an article to be written for ESA bulletin or some similar outlet that will describe EML and why you would want to use it. (Names I have associated with developing this ‘best practices’ publication currently are Don Henshaw (AND), James Brunt(NET), Louise Johnson(CDR), Wade Sheldon(GCE), John Porter(VCR), Dick Olson(ORNL), Bill Michener(NET).) It was suggested that as a group we attempt to develop some of the more basic and easily attainable EML modules first – like EML resource – for all LTER data. There will also be a formal review process for EML via an organization like AIBS – Bill Michener (NET) is taking the lead on exploring options for the review.
We identified 3 working groups based on the slightly arbitrary groupings of non-parsable, parsable, and relational metadata types. These groups represent 100% participation by LTER sites! It is not anticipated that all members of the group will be able to attend all the meetings but each is a stakeholder in the outcome of the working group.
These groups are charged with documenting the different kinds of needs, tools needed, costs for each metadata type (task 1 and task 2 above) and producing an undefined body of metadata. Once these group representations are confirmed we will develop mail lists and allow these groups to self-organize, i.e., choose a leader(s), develop a meeting plan, etc. After viewing some of the available tools it may be necessary to combine representation from the non-parsable and parsable groups in the first meetings because what has been though non-parsable may in fact be parsable to a large degree. It has also been proposed. I will notify Peter and the groups once the funds are in place to begin this process.
Thanks to everyone who made this part of the annual meeting a huge success.
James Brunt
8/15/2001
Supplement Proposal Text (guidelines for this effort):
The LTER program recognizes the importance of long-term survivability of data and that one of the contributing factors determining that survivability is the documentation of data through metadata. It would be accurate to say that the LTER Network represents the largest online archive of documented ecological datasets in existence. However, recent efforts to develop advanced systems for searching, accessing and using distributed data require both more extensive metadata content and more structured forms of encoding that information to allow more automated forms of use. Collaboration between NCEAS, NET, the KNB project, the ASU-BDI project, and the LTER metadata working group has resulted in a draft metadata standard for ecological data – Ecological Metadata Language (EML). A final draft was produced in a combined NCEAS/KNB/LTER metadata workshop at the Network Office in early April. The content standard is of modular design with components related to specific information categories such as topical coverage, research context, table and column descriptions and connection details. This design allows extension to other classes of metadata information. For example, the Schoolyard LTER subgroup is investigating metadata standards for defining the applicability of data for educational use.
The LTER metadata working group now turns to the problem of
implementing a common standard for metadata across the LTER network.
Preliminary results indicate that sites vary from requiring major effort to
create and input metadata to requiring assistance in developing software to
translate existing metadata. A workshop will be organized as part of the 2001
LTER Information Management meeting to introduce software tools available and
begin developing pathways for sites to follow to compliance. However, it is
clear that the information managers will need to engage in more extensive
development, training, and support activities and that sites will need to
engage in activities ranging from coding software to marking up existing
datasets reach the target goal of having all LTER data and metadata accessible
using a common catalog system. To lay the groundwork for this we are proposing
to support 3 metadata working groups that will develop recommended
implementation plans for each of 3 metadata types (described below), example
datasets in EML format, and publications on implementing the ecological
metadata standard. This activity will have broad impact beyond the LTER
community in that we expect ecological metadata language to become the standard
used by the entire ecological community.
The LTER Information Management committee has identified
several key components that need to be specified as part of a comprehensive
plan for implementing metadata standards across the network. The most
significant effort is migrating the structure of existing metadata to a schema
based on, or compatible with, the recommended standard, EML 2.0. For some
sites, this may also require expanding current content coverage to satisfy
required content fields. Finally, technical developments will be required at
many sites to enhance existing reporting tools to support the new XML
structured metadata output formats.
The metadata collaborative working group is:
Kristin Vanderbilt (SEV)
Wade Sheldon (GCE)
John Porter (VCR)
Ken Ramsey (JRN)
Don Henshaw (AND)
Eda Melendez (LUQ)
John Campbell (HBR)
Karen Baker (PAL)
Wei Yee Lee (SBC)
Peter McCartney (CAP) – leader
Tim Bergsma (KBS)
Matt Jones (NCEAS)
Steve Cox (NCEAS)
Bill Michener (NET)
James Brunt (NET)
The 3 LTER task groups:
Non-parsable, ASCII:
Kristin Vanderbilt (SEV)
Louise Johnson (CDR)
Emory Booth (HFR)
Tim Bergsma (KBS)
Brent Brock (KNZ)
Eda Melendez (LUQ)
Wei Yee Lee (SBC)
Parsable:
Jim Laundre (ARC)
Jonathan Walsh (BES)
John Campbell (HBR)
Todd Ackerman (NWT)
Hap Garritt (PIE)
Ken Ramsey (JRN)
Kevin Wheeler (MCM)
Barbara Benson (NTL)
Karen Baker (PAL)
Relational:
Don Henshaw (AND)
Wendy Davis (BNZ)
Peter McCartney (CAP)
Ron Rouhani (CWT)
Linda Powell (FCE)
Wade Sheldon (GCE)
Emory Boose (HFR)
Ken Ramsey (JRN)
Eda Melendez (LUQ)
Wei Yee Lee (SBC)
Nicole Kaplan (SGS)
John Porter (VCR)