Summary of Australian Spatial Data Directory and Metadata Workshop Discussions

During the Australian Spatial Data Directory and Metadata Workshop the following issues were raised and discussed by the workshop participants:

• Granularity of the metadata is different at different nodes. For example, one node will have one metadata record for a series of datasets where another node will have one metadata record for each sheet in the series.
• There has been rapid development in geospatial standards since the ASDD was first established, for example, ISO 19000 series and OGC standards. This has a major effect on geospatial architecture design.
• Some workshop attendees mentioned that spatial data is now gathered by a diverse group of people within their jurisdictions, many of whom have minimal knowledge of geospatial information and no knowledge of the relevant standards.
• Some practices within nodes do not meet best practice for the development of metadata. Hence the metadata does not meet the needs of both the ASDD search engines and users.
• There is a need to improve the content and increase the number of records at nodes such as those from Local Government.
• Critical mass and improved content is necessary for increasing the number of accesses and usefulness of ASDD. Representatives for the jurisdictions agreed that they would try to improve the content and number of their metadata records.
• There are not enough metadata entries for emergency response datasets.
• There is a lack of awareness of the ASDD.

The following ideas were suggested as means to address some of the issues mentioned:

• The content of metadata can be improved by editors treating it like a scientific publication. The effect of this is to give compilation of metadata recognition in performance management.
• ANZLIC could encourage emergency response organisations to suggest which datasets are needed for their work and who could provide the metadata for these datasets.
• ANZLIC could continue to increase promotion of the ASDD. Each node could include a hypertext link to the ASDD from its own home pages. Each metadata record should have a hypertext link to the ASDD.
• Improve ASDD functionality to be more like a "Google" search. This would simplify the system for non-specialist users. Workshop participants were of the view that the "Google" search could not provide the same functionality as the ASDD gateways and it would find information irrelevant to the ASDD metadata entries. The ASDD basic search interface could be made simpler.

The following generally observations were recorded:

• The number of visits to ASDD site has been fairly steady over the last two years. A study of similar metadata gateways around the world indicated similar findings. In some cases there was a drop in the number of visits to these similar metadata gateways. This would indicate that the ASDD is still useful to the Australian metadata community. It was thought that there is a limited number of people whose interest would lead them to the ASDD, so a levelling out of the number of visits is to be expected.
• Australian Government Locator Service (AGLS) metadata is used in conjunction with ANZLIC metadata at many sites. For many agencies, especially smaller agencies, AGLS metadata is more easily developed and managed than ANZLIC metadata and some agencies are unlikely to go beyond this level. This is particularly true for small agencies at local government level.
• There needs to be a single web site that allows the search and retrieval of different types of metadata not just spatial metadata in ANZLIC format. The current ASDD allows search and retrieval only of metadata in ANZLIC format. Other metadata formats which could be used include AGLS meta tags.
• Most users are investigating ways to move towards OGC web services.
• Web registry and catalogue capabilities could be included in future versions of the ASDD to improve its functionality and to align it with the expected future directions for discovery of data using registries and the "publish - find - bind" model. This depends on which options will be adopted for the future of the ASDD.
• The ASDD could migrate to using web services either by the development of another web services system that will eventually replace the ASDD or the ASDD being developed to incorporate the OGC web services standards.
• The OGC Notional Reference Architecture framework has support within ANZLIC and will probably be used for the development of the ASDI. If the ASDD is to be developed to include Catalogue and Web registry services then it must follow this architecture.
• ISO and OGC Standards are being considered and used within the community.
• General consensus was that the ASDD should move ahead in functionality. The extent will be determined by which of the following options is chosen.

The following options were presented by ANZLIC and discussed by the workshop attendees as possible future strategies for the ASDD:

1. Improve the current look/feel functionality but retain its primary role as an online dataset metadata search facility.
2. Morph the ASDD to become the one-stop shop for discovery and access to metadata and geospatial data.
3. Morph the ASDD to become the one-stop shop for discovery and access to metadata, geospatial data and link to available geospatial web services (Web Map Servers, Web Feature Servers, Web Coverage Servers etc).
4. The ASDD could provide the geospatial data discovery services as part of the ASDI web services model.
5. The ASDD could be retired in time as Community of Practice (COP) portals emerge and its role becomes distributed by COP data catalogues.
6. A national ASDI web services catalogue could be built and maintained by a central host.
7. COP web services catalogues will be built to conform with the OGC Catalogue Services Version 2.0 spec.

It is possible that progressing through some of these options would be the natural path of development for the ASDD.

Node Managers agreed to ensure there is a commitment to improve metadata records. This should be reinforced by ANZLIC.

Workshop participants felt that following activities could be pursued to advance the future of the ASDD:

• Investigate if an ANZLIC Profile of 19115 is required.
• Create XSD for ANZMETA 1.3 DTD. The XSD would allow metadata managers to check the content of their XML metadata records online.
• OGC Notional Reference Architecture be investigated as a future option for the ASDD.
• A report be written on future options for the ASDD and on the benefits and resources needed to implement each of those options.