[Esip-discovery] [esip-semanticweb] metadata ontology

[Stephen Richard]

Yes, I think it's worth pursuing.  Widely used catalog tools like GeoNetwork
and ESRI Geoportal map metadata elements into an abstract metadata model
(e.g. the 'property-meanings.xml' in Geoportal) , which is currently
internal and not documented (although they use various Dublin core, FGDC,
and ISO concepts). Better metadata interoperability could be achieved if
these abstract models were formalized and shared. I've made a cut at a model
here:
http://lab.usgin.org/groups/metadata-interest-group/genericmetadatamodel 

steve

Stephen M. Richard
Arizona Geological Survey
416 W. Congress St., #100
Tucson, Arizona, 85701   USA
phone: 520 209-4127
AZGS Main: (520) 770-3500.  FAX: (520) 770-3505
email: steve.richard at azgs.az.gov


> -----Original Message-----
> From: esip-semanticweb-bounces at lists.esipfed.org [mailto:esip-semanticweb-
> bounces at lists.esipfed.org] On Behalf Of Siri Jodha Khalsa
> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 4:20 PM
> To: esip-semanticweb at rtpnet.org
> Subject: [esip-semanticweb] metadata ontology
> 
> At the ESIP semantic web cluster meeting on 7/15 in Santa Fe someone asked
> about creating a metadata ontology. Peter said this idea had already
discussed
> and dismissed. I mentioned that ISO/TC211 has a new project to create an
> ontology from the TC211 UML models. Peter said that encoding a model into
an
> ontology doesn't make it an ontology. I agree, but still think that
creating an
> ontology from the concepts represented in the TC211 abstract models is a
good
> idea.
> 
> I'm wondering whether this group is interested in discussing the topic.
> 
> First, some background: ISO/TC211 has developed a suite of standards to
> structure the description and representation of geographic information,
> beginning with a reference model. Spatial and temporal primitives are
defined to
> structure the description of geometry, topology and time. A methodology to
> catalog features defines the elements and structure of geographic features
and
> their semantics. Concepts describing quality measures, access constraints,
> encodings and other descriptive information are represented.
> 
> Since the same geographic features may be described differently according
to
> the specific context from which they are abstracted there is a need to
address
> the semantics issue more rigorously in the ISO19100 suites of standards.
For this
> reason a new project was initiated, ISO 19150, with the objective of
advancing
> the geo-semantic web beginning with converting, in a yet-to-be-determined
> fashion, the TC211 UML harmonized model into OWL.  Would this group be
> interested in participating in this effort?
> 
> sjs
> 
> --
> Siri-Jodha Singh KHALSA, Ph.D., SMIEEE
> National Snow and Ice Data Center
> University of Colorado
> Boulder, CO 80309-0449 Phone: 1-303-492-1445 GV: 1-303-736-9976
> http://cires.colorado.edu/~khalsa
> 
> _______________________________________________
> esip-semanticweb mailing list
> esip-semanticweb at lists.esipfed.org
> http://www.lists.esipfed.org/mailman/listinfo/esip-semanticweb