Feature Request/Idea: ISO 19115 versus Dataverse Geospatial Metadata Block (Proposed Changes)

[amberleahey]

Overview of the Feature Request
Hi all, we have been hearing a number of complaints about the limitations of the Dataverse Geospatial Metadata Block and we decided to do a comparison of the current fields to existing Geospatial Metadata Standards including FGDC, ISO 19115, and OGM (GeoBlackLight) ---- excited yet?!

Well guess what, Dataverse's Geospatial Metadata could certainly be improved to be more in line with these domain standards (maybe even one day export to them ----ohhhhhhh :))

In addition, there are a lot of opportunities to improve the quality of metadata for geospatial data which arguable is imperative for reuse of geo data!!! On top of this, many geospatial data researchers have web maps they want to archive with the raw data and are using all kinds of web map services that could be referenced from the source data and we desperately need better metadata frameworks for collocating these data resources.

What kind of user is the feature intended for?
(Example users roles: API User, Curator, Depositor, Guest, Superuser, Sysadmin)
All users will benefit from being able to add more standard metadata for geospatial data

What inspired the request?
Lack of geospatial metadata fields such as Projection , which is essential to reuse and not always extractable / stored in the files themselves (e.g. Shapefiles and PRJ ---- )

What existing behavior do you want changed?
Re-design the geospatial metadata block, have the relationships defined between Geographic Coverage and Bounding Box using structured relations for example. But the overall proposal is much much larger of a change, so this will need some considerable consultation for effective implementation.

Here are the results of the comparative review of Dataverse to ISO 19115 and OGM
Dataverse Geospatial Metadata Block Review and Comparison Mapping (2023).pdf

Any brand new behavior do you want to add to Dataverse?
Yes, this would be brand new metadata and offer opportunities for standards adoption for geospatial metadata in Dataverse. Future reuses may include an embedded previewer for web map services.

Any open or closed issues related to this feature request?
Yes lots, I will tag

[amberleahey]

Related to:

• Link bounding boxes to geographic coverage #7455
• [Feature Request] HDF5 / NetCDF support #7947
• Should the Geographic Bounding Box allow optional coordinates and multiple boxes in the XML? #7108
• Should the Geographic Bounding Box allow optional coordinates and multiple boxes in the UI? #7091
• Geospatial metadata block > bounding box coordinates fields > tool tips are INCORRECT and mention use of commas #10397

[amberleahey]

Dataverse Geospatial Metadata Block Review and Comparison Mapping (2023) (1).pdf
I missed the distribution info section in the previous PDF export ...see updated one above

[DS-INRAE]

Hello All,
With @Deschatres have also listed the mandatory fields required by INSPIRE but missing from the existing table.
We are working on a TSV file with suggestions for additions that we will share with you for discussion soon.

About source Quality Information: could someone tell me what “Georeferencing Information” is?