Next Call September 19, 2 pm UTC (Technical Subgroup)

  • Robert Hanisch's picture

    Author: Robert Hanisch

    Date: 18 Sep, 2018

    Here is some work that my colleague in the NIST Library did in comparing the existing metadata schemas. I’m sorry that I cannot make the meeting tomorrow (and I still owe a use case!).
    Here’s a draft version. The cells are colored to visually group fields with similar types of information (though I haven’t found a great way to group them beyond this). GEOFON and ICOS are not listed in the spreadsheet because they do not make specific recommendations for fields in their use cases.
    The general consensus between these case studies is that there should be a persistent ID and a name attached to an instrument; beyond that there are widely different ideas about what metadata should be collected. I would say you can generally group the types of information requested in the following way (this isn’t an exhaustive list): Instrument (PID, Name, Manufacturer, Model Nos., dates of use, device type and category, description), Ownership (Name, Country, Dates of ownership, Organization PID), External references (Funding, related instruments, publications) and Miscellany (Output, characteristics, events, capabilities, observable properties).
    From: <***@***.***> on behalf of "markus.stocker" <***@***.***>
    Date: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 12:51 PM
    To: Persistent Identification of Instruments Group
    Subject: [pid-instruments] Next Call September 19, 2 pm UTC (Technical Subgroup)
    We will have our technical subgroup call tomorrow, Wednesday, September 19, at 2 pm UTC (4 pm CEST).
    Call notes here:
    Cheers, m.

  • Markus Stocker's picture

    Author: Markus Stocker

    Date: 18 Sep, 2018

    thanks for this, great analysis and very useful. Many thanks to your
    colleague. I will take a closer look tomorrow. I believe we can build on
    this as it seems a simple and sensible approach.
    Cheers, m.

submit a comment