2010 Esri Federal UC

Table of Contents Meeting Info Review of Action Items Established at Prior Meeting (ESRI International User Conference, 2009) General Discussion Items FGDC- Update on Status of the North American Profile (NAP) of the ISO 19115/19139 Standard

Meeting Info

• What: Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI) & Geoportal Extension User Group
• When: February 19, 2010

Review of Action Items Established at Prior Meeting (ESRI International User Conference, 2009)

• Marten to provide a document that includes a summary of the Geoportal 9.3.1 beta testing results and the follow-ups/actions taken.
  • Most of the items identified during the beta testing program were included in the bug tracking system.
  • There may be a BETA program for version 10. Most of the feedback went to the bug tracking system.
• Search by Partner Collection Feature: EPA and NOAA to write up how they would like this to work and submit to ESRI.
  • The Geospatial One-Stop (GOS) search by partner collection feature has been customized now and it currently allows for searches by affiliation. This supports the functionality that the EPA and NOAA were looking for. If this is something that groups are interested in, it could be included in version 10.
  • Jessica Z. put in a vote for the affiliation feature to be included in version 10.
  • Group question: would this support a hierarchical structure? A classification scheme can also be built in.

General Discussion Items

• How many people harvest vs. publish metadata? EPA uses a mix and was wondering how other groups tend to operate.
  • NOAA CSC: it varies; one of the biggest issues is the coordination with groups. They have not set up cross-agency groups or restricted/unrestricted settings at this point.
• Other Unique Customizations:
  • Smithsonian group is using a customized version of the flex viewer for their home page.
  • From ESRI: If you expose your database as a service, you can point to a web service that is connected to the geodatabase that you're interested in. In the service pack, you can register an ArcGIS service with the Geoportal. Geoportal has a CS-W interface and a REST interface that allows transactions; you can edit the metadata directly.
• User Suggestion: It would be nice if there was a location for compilation of stylesheets for presentation. It could be an area of shared resources; not a lot of groups have necessarily figured this part out yet, and it would be nice to be able to share resources.
• User Suggestion: It would be nice if there could be more technical sessions for the Geoportal extension. Perhaps this could be implemented as a webinar/virtual training module.
• The ESRI developer summit is the venue for the technical/hands-on workshops, but many folks are not able to attend the summit.

FGDC- Update on Status of the North American Profile (NAP) of the ISO 19115/19139 Standard

• FGDC will be submitting a proposal for the NAP standard to be adopted (summer/fall of 2010). Entities and attributes need to be included first.
• There is some existing information on the FGDC website that speaks to transitioning to the NAP. The entire suite will eventually consist of:
  • NAP on-line training sessions will be available. There will be web-ex technologies used. These will be test-driven with the trainers. The time frame is late summer, after the international conference.
  • NAP Content
  • Implementation strategies
  • NAP Implementation Guide - The graphical representation of the NAP will still be color-coded the same way that the FGDC CSDGM is, but will look slightly different. The FGDC Metadata Work Group (MWG) will develop a best practices guide.
• If you want a copy of the NAP you can go to ansi.org and go to the standards store; you can purchase for $30.00.
• What is the big difference between the FGDC standard and the NAP?
  • Essentially the content of the FGDC CSDGM has been chopped up and resorted and presented differently. Some content was not carried over; things like BAUD rate. Some things were added, for example, to let reader know that the record may be presented in other languages. Some cultural things had to be added, such as address information. The biggest change is that the metadata has to be re-encoded in new structure. Content-wise there is a lot of overlap.
  • The NAP will cover both service and data metadata. There will be transformation and validation tools. There are some other tools that were developed by NOAA that are available. There are tools for validating ISO metadata (example: AUS).
  • Some groups are looking at getting OGC to adopt MIME types. Those do not exist for OGC services but would be the right way to go about it. There might be a chance that an SDE classification may be included. We might want to come up with a new list to reflect more recent resource types.
• Will extensions be supported?
  • No. The first will be the Biological Data Profile (BDP). They were fortunate because the BDP was already used as an example. The Remote Sensing profile is somewhat handled by 19115-2. Shoreline extension may be ingested.
• Time frame for implementation:
  • About 1.5 years after the adoption for it to be implemented. If we have a standard adopted by Fall/Winter 2010, then organizations can plan and put into budget calls by August of the following year. There are options for this. You could maybe have 1.5 years to develop an implementation plan. That includes time for the guidance and tools, etc. WG members will review the 19115. Bring back comments so that these can be discussed. In March there is an FGDC Metadata Work Group meeting and that will be one of the items on the agenda.

---

Back to Communities and Live Examples