GNIP 6 - CSW Metadata Format Transformation
David Winslow
Tom Kralidis
________________________________
> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 11:01:17 -0500
> Subject: GNIP 6 - CSW Metadata Format Transformation
> From: dwin...@opengeo.org
> To: geono...@opengeo.org
>
> See proposal on the
> wiki: https://github.com/GeoNode/geonode/wiki/GNIP-6----CSW-Metadata-Format-Transformation
>
> It's unclear to me what this proposal is actually proposing. Are we
> talking about offering downloads of metadata in multiple formats
> similarly to what we offer for data already?
Yes, like 'download as TC211', 'download FGDC', 'download Dublin Core'. These would be calls against OGC:CSW with different outputSchema parameters.
> Is "transforming" metadata
> something sticky in that it has a lasting effect on something stored on
> the server? What does pycsw have to do with anything?
>
Transforming metadata would be something that is done dynamically, so nothing stored, all OGC:CSW requests.
pycsw is mentioned because it will transform from/to the formats mentioned based on a configurable ruleset/mapping of elements/queryables (continuing to work on this). Not all OGC:CSW implementations are able to do such transformations. Hence, it would be out of scope to go out and upgrade OGC:CSW server implementations that do not support this.
..Tom
Jeffrey Johnson
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jeffrey Johnson <jjoh...@opengeo.org>
Date: Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: GNIP 6 - CSW Metadata Format Transformation
To: Tom Kralidis <tomkr...@hotmail.com>
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Tom Kralidis <tomkr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 11:01:17 -0500
>> Subject: GNIP 6 - CSW Metadata Format Transformation
>> From: dwin...@opengeo.org
>> To: geono...@opengeo.org
>>
>> See proposal on the
>> wiki: https://github.com/GeoNode/geonode/wiki/GNIP-6----CSW-Metadata-Format-Transformation
>>
>> It's unclear to me what this proposal is actually proposing. Are we
>> talking about offering downloads of metadata in multiple formats
>> similarly to what we offer for data already?
>
> Yes, like 'download as TC211', 'download FGDC', 'download Dublin Core'. These would be calls against OGC:CSW with different outputSchema parameters.
Yes, but also allowing for upload of metadata in these formats and
*still* allowing for download both in the original format and in these
other formats.
>> Is "transforming" metadata
>> something sticky in that it has a lasting effect on something stored on
>> the server?
>>
>
> Transforming metadata would be something that is done dynamically, so nothing stored, all OGC:CSW requests.
I do think that when metadata is uploaded, the original xml should be
kept around for posterity and made available for download without any
alteration. Not sure how this could/should be accomplished with
various csw back-ends, but its something we should think of longer
term.
>What does pycsw have to do with anything?
> pycsw is mentioned because it will transform from/to the formats mentioned based on a configurable ruleset/mapping of elements/queryables (continuing to work on this). Not all OGC:CSW implementations are able to do such transformations. Hence, it would be out of scope to go out and upgrade OGC:CSW server implementations that do not support this.
Concretely, GeoNetwork does *not* do a good job of this, or I could
simply not make it work the way I wanted it to. Part of Toms work
under this GNIP will to be develop a set of integration tests that do
the upload in one format and download in another, and we will be able
to use these to demonstrate the shortcomings of GeoNetwork and try to
get them addressed with the GeoNetwork community ... that will be much
easier with very specific tests.
> ..Tom
>
>