presentationPresentation given at the Collaborative Digitization Interest Group meeting at the American Library Association (ALA) Midwinter Meeting, Chicao, IL

Woolcott, Liz

English

The University of Utah: J. Willard Marriott Digital Library

CURRENT RECOMMENDATIONS FROMMWDL GEOSPATIAL DISCOVERY TASK FORCELiz WoolcottUtah State University, Merrill-Cazier LibraryJeremy MynttiUniversity of Utah, J. Willard Marriott LibrarySandra McIntyreMountain West Digital LibraryOhio Memory Project, “Then and Now” mapsEstimated Total Annual Building Energy Consumption at the Block and Lot Level for NYCOld Maps Online, http://oldmapsonline.orgDigital Public Library of America, search on “Chicago”Digital Public Library of America, app: “DPLA State by State”GEOSPATIAL METADATA QUICKSANDMisinterpreted locationA Salt Lake City landmarkis placed in South DakotaLocation information or not?Ambiguous place names• Washington County, UT• Washington County, ID• Washington County, OH• Washington County, MD• Washington County, GA• Washington County, MS• Washington County, NC• Washington County, PA• Boulder, CO• Boulder, MT• Boulder, UT• Boulder City, NVMore problemsReport by MWDL metadata intern Variances in coordinate formats• Numbers:• decimal degrees• degrees/minutes/seconds• Directions:• (+) and -• W, N, E, and S• westlimit, northlimit, eastlimit, and southlimit• Placement:• In same field• In different fieldsXena and Callisto in quicksandVariances in field mapping•Dublin Core • coverage• spatial• subjectJean Dujardin sinks into quicksand in a still from The Artist.GEOSPATIAL DISCOVERY TASK FORCEWestley rescues Buttercup in The Princess Bride.Task Force Charge1. Identify existing geospatial metadata practices2. Develop guidelines for standardizing3. Creating map-based search interfaces4. Identify and share toolshttps://sites.google.com/site/mwdlgeospatial/Phase 1Three subgroups:1. Review previous report2. Identify low hanging fruit3. Identify map-based interfacesPhase 2Three more subgroups:1. Controlled vocabularies2. Coordinate data and GIS perspectives3. Map-based InterfacesCurrent Recommendation: 1All standards and practices adopted by the metadata review board should be compliant with the ISO 19115:2003* Geographic Information--Metadata standard.*Task Force will review the latest released standard ISO 19115-1:2014 in the coming months.Current Recommendation: 2Since MWDL contributors may need to use varied controlled vocabularies, we recommend that a geospatial metadata format and selected controlled vocabulary be highly recommended but not enforced. Current Recommendation: 3There is a clear preference for expressing coordinates in latitude-longitude as decimal degrees over the degrees-minutes-seconds format. Ex.  Mount McKinley:Latitude: N 63° 32' 26.7972"Longitude: W 151° 43' 25.0108"Latitude: 63.540777Longitude: -151.723614Current Recommendation: 4It is recommended that partners keep all the elements of a single term within a single iteration of the field.  For example, don’t split latitude and longitude. Repeat spatial field for each new entity.Current Recommendations: 4 exampleFor example: Mt. McKinleyLat/Long expressed:<dcterms:spatial>63.540777, -151.723614</dcterms:spatial>Controlled Vocab expressed: <dcterms:spatial>Mount McKinley, Denali National Park and Preserve, Alaska, United States</dcterms:spatial>URI expressed:<dcterms:spatial>http://geonames.org/5868589</dcterms:spatial>All together:<dcterms:spatial>63.540777, -151.723614; Mount McKinley, Denali National Park and Preserve, Alaska, United States; http://geonames.org/5868589</dcterms:spatial>Current Recommendation: 5Partners should map geospatial metadata field(s) to the Dublin Core spatial refinement of coverage (dcterms:spatial), which can be done at the collection level. The OAI provider for the repository hosting the collection should support provision of qualified Dublin Core if possible.Current Recommendation: 6The spatial coverage refinement (dcterms:spatial) is highly recommended for all new collections harvested by MWDL.Current Recommendation: 7Where converting legacy data may be too difficult, partners can add an additional separate field mapped to the Dublin Core term spatial (dcterms:spatial) with basic, minimal geospatial metadata (at least at country and state level), in accordance with upcoming recommendations for controlled vocabulary. Current Recommendations: Resources• To see a complete list of the current recommendations, visit: http://goo.gl/ZHMgtu• To see all the meeting minutes and reports created by the task force, please visit: https://sites.google.com/site/mwdlgeospatial/home/meeting-minutesUse Case ScenariosDLF Forum 2014 session: gathered and shared “user stories” of complicated geospatial metadata decisions• Groups formed then discussed scenarios, input selected in use case survey• Survey results availableRecurring Cases• Use of neighborhoods in geospatial metadata• Historical and informal• Immigrant neighborhood with multiple and changing ethnicities • Deciding when a location is “near enough” to add to metadata• Changing political boundaries: what to call an area• Distinguishing which geospatial metadata to include:  about a specific location or from a specific location• Adding a geospatial layer to browse content by location subject matter• Location where photo taken or locations in the photo?Infographic• Providing a visual overview of the work of the Controlled Vocabulary subgroup• http://my.visme.co/projects/mwdl-geospatial-task-fPhase 3 – Next steps1. Select a recommended controlled vocabulary.2. Review the DCMI Box/Point Encoding Schemes: a. DCMI Box Encoding Scheme at http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-box/Example: name=Western Australia; northlimit=-13.5; southlimit=-35.5; westlimit=112.5; eastlimit=129b. DCMI Point Encoding Scheme at http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-point/Example: name=Perth, W.A.; east=115.85717; north=-31.95301Example: east=148.26218; north=-36.45746; elevation=2228; name=Mt. KosciuskoPhase 3 – Next steps3. Make recommendations for modifying the MWDL Dublin Core Application Profile. 4. Finalize the infographic.Phase 4 – Future plans1. Develop regional gazetteer.2. Develop actionable plans to deal with legacy data.Want to stay informed?Join the listserv: https://www.lists.utah.edu/wws/info/mwdl-geospatialTo subscribe, send an email message to sympa@lists.utah.edu with this subject: subscribe mwdl-geospatial firstname lastnameNote: replace “firstname” and “lastname” above with your first and last names.  Do not put anything in the body of the message.Contact Kristen Jensen (kjensen@utah.gov) or Liz Woolcott (liz.woolcott@usu.edu)Want to get involved?Questions?• Liz WoolcottDigital Discovery LibrarianUtah State University, Merrill-Cazier Libraryliz.woolcott@usu.edu• Jeremy MynttiHead, Cataloging and Metadata ServicesUniversity of Utah, J. Willard Marriott Libraryjeremy.myntti@utah.edu• Sandra McIntyreDirector, Mountain West Digital Librarysandra.mcintyre@utah.edu

Current Recommendations from MWDL Geospatial Discovery Task Force

https://collections.lib.utah.edu/dl_files/7e/b4/7eb44df728bd2f8aafe51f6215ffbc542dc5e75d.pdf

Current Recommendations from MWDL Geospatial Discovery Task Force

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

The University of Utah: J. Willard Marriott Digital Library