Instructions

Report as inappropriate Your report has been received

Shared by: VohF4wx

Tags

Stats

views:: 6
posted:: 11/16/2011
language:: English
pages:: 62

Public Domain

Document Sample

GWG/Metadata Focus Group

NSG Geospatial Metadata Profile
Instructions for Submitting Comments

When providing comments on the draft NSG Geospatial Metadata Profile, please use
the provided electronic spreadsheet and structure your comments as follows:

Paragraph/Subparagraph: The identification of the paragraph and subparagraph of the
section the comment addresses

The paragraph and subparagraph number are located along the left margin of the
document at the beginning of each section, in the format paragraph.subparagraph (for
example, 1.4).

Figure/Table/Line #: The identification of the figure, table, or line number of the section the
comment addresses

Type of Comment: Comments fall in one of three categories:
 General (G) comments that address overall issues
 Technical (T) comments that address the technical accuracy of sections or sub-
sections of the document
 Editorial (E) comments that are editorial in nature, for example improper
sentence structure or typographical errors

Comment: the reviewer's identification of the problem or question with the document

The comment should be as specific as possible and, if appropriate, include the text in
question. Comments will not be considered if they are overly general, for example, "I
don't like this section".

Proposed Change: the reviewer's proposed change to the document

The proposed changes should be as specific as possible to ensure the question or
problem is adjudicated correctly. Comments will not be considered without a specific
proposed change, including suggested wording.

Note: Type of Comment, Comment, and Proposed Change columns must include entries to be
considered. Either the Paragraph/Subparagraph or Table/Figure/Line # column must
contain entries.

Note: Extensive comments may be transferred electronically as attachments to this document.
References to attachments can be made in the Proposed Change column.
Please return by 24 July 2007 to
Norman.C.Andersen@nga.mil OR
Laura.Reece@ngc.com
e, please use

h of the

of the
ragraph (for

e section the

tions or sub-

proper

ument

e the text in
example, "I

tion or
ut a specific

e entries to be
lumn must

his document.
NSG GEOSPATIAL METADATA PROFILE
Comment Submission Form
Please return by 24 July 2007 to
Norman.C.Andersen@nga.mil OR Laura.Reece@ngc.com

Name of Person Completing Form: Stephen Kerr
Organization: NGA/NCGIS
Date: 20-Jul-07

NATIONAL SYSTEM FOR GEOSPATIAL INTELLIGENCE
(NSG) GEOSPATIAL METADATA PROFILE FOR
Standard Version and Date: DISCOVERY AND RETRIEVAL, Draft 0.5, 4 June 2007

Paragraph/ Figure/ Type of Comment Proposed Change
Subparagraph Table/ Comment
Line #
Entire Doc G/T Standards Compliance. See separate email traffic
between Kerr, Andersen and Silkensen regarding degree
to which this profile is a proper, compliant subset of the
profiled standards. For example, I believe the profile
violates most, if not all, of the compliance criteria
established in the Abstract Test Suite (ATS) documented
in ISO 19115 (a DISR mandated standard for GEOINT
applications for metadata).

C1.1 pg 13 line 4 G Levels of what? Functional-decomposition levels? Levels
of abstraction? Levels from 'general' to more 'specificity'?
Add text to describe approach, methodology, and
motivation for organizing metadata sets using levels.

page 13 G Need to add a section on methodology and rationale used
to align with the various mandated metadata standards.

page 13 G Need to add a section on what it means to comply with this
profile. Ideally, the document will also have an Abstract
Test Suite (ATS) to define criteria and measures for
establishing that implementations of the profile
11/16/2011 conform/comply. 3 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
page 13 G What standards are being profiled by this profile? IC
Metadata Std, DDMS, ISO/19115, and Dublin Core? Need
to explicitly identify the standards being profiled and the
strategy used if/when there are conflicting requirements or
conformance measures among the profiled standards. If
the approach is not to 'profile' these four standards, but to
create a 5th standard with mappings to the 4 standards,
then change the title of the document and all internal text
to remove the context of 'profiling'.

page 13 G Need section on transition from existing practice, this will
lay foundation for mapping tables in the appendix. This
assumes the purpose for the mapping tables is to deal
with transition, vice establishing a 5th standard.
C1.2.3 line 5 G The standards groups do not produce datasets as implied Add "Metadata requirements for" before "All datasets are
by the last sentence. driven by…."

Also, is the intent of the last sentence to inform readers
that metadata applicable to 'All Datasets' are not
addressed in this document? At least I could not find
where 'core' for all datasets is defined within the
document. If this is true, then add a statement as to
where one goes to get the Mandatory and Recommended
Core Metadata for 'All Datasets'.
C1.5 G What is the point of all this discussion on registries?
Reads like clips from a research paper, but provides no
requirements, guidance, direction, or pertinence to
establishing the metadata profile.

page 26 G Chapter 2. Shouldn't this chapter be specific to managing
change of this profile? Reads like extracts from a text
book on CM, but there are no useful specifics pertinent to
this profile.
C3.2.1 G/T What are the compliance requirements for assigning
labels from IC metadata Std, DDMS, Dublin Core and
19115? See separate string of emails between Kerr,
Andersen and Silkensen.

11/16/2011 4 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
page 34 box 20 G/T Metadata Standard Name. Why does this show 'Free
Text'. Isn't the metadata standard for this profile always
one of, or concatenated string of ISO 19115, DDMS, IC
Core, or Dublin Core? Or is intent to declare this
document as a 5th standard, and hence this document title
should appear as the domain value?

page 34 box 21 G/T Metadata standard version. Very confusing. Definition
implies the field is for the profile version, not the metadata
standard. So one field for metadata standard, but no
version; and one field for version of profile and no
identification of which profile. The Domain shows free
text, but isn't this always a reference to the profile?

page 35 box 24 Distribution format - Obligation. Change the obligation to
Conditional, mandatory for imagery datasets. Verify that
folks interested in Vector (and Sensor) datasets are OK if
folks opt not to declare the format of the data.

page 62 G/T How well does this align with OGC specs for SensorML
and TransducerML?

11/16/2011 5 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
page 65 box 4 G/T Releasibility Instructions. Unclear how this element relates
to releasibility element in the security markings. The
Domain shows IPL Core and 2500B, but IPL Core is not
among normative references and 2500B (should be
2500C) only has the security releasiblity element, not this
second element. Is the intent to add specificity to the
security releasibility element? If so, how do we show that
an element in the "main core" has more specific segments
for lower level specifications?

Name of Person Completing Form: Joseph J. Pantella, IV
Organization: FGM, Inc. (DISA Data Services Office)
Date: 5-Jul-07
Standard Version and Date: NSG-STD-003-07 Version 0.5, 4 June 2006

Paragraph/ Figure/ Type of Comment Proposed Change
Subparagraph Table/ Comment
Line #

Recommend using shading patterns rather than colors for
representation. (This issue reoccurs throughtout the
C1.F1 Editorial Difficult to read and understand if in black and white. document and will not be repeated for subsequent figures.)

Name of Person Completing Form: NGA/DCGS Metadata Harmonization Team
Organization: NGA and Service DCGSs
Date: 13-Jul-07
Standard Version and Date:
11/16/2011 6 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
Paragraph/ Figure/ Type of Comment Proposed Change
Subparagraph Table/ Comment
Line #
C1.2 - C1.2.9 Pages General The overall purpose of this section is unclear. How do the Review and rewrite as necessary.
13-24 diagrams in the section support the definition of metadata
elements and what is the traceability to the metadata
tables provided later in the document? Why are the yellow
boxes in figure C1.F2 different than the corresponding
yellow boxes in figures C1.F3, C1.F4, and C1.F5? What
is the source of the diagrams? The diagrams need to be
reviewed for completeness and correctness. e.g., figure
C1.F5 lists CADRG and ADRG as vector product format.

Chapter 2 Pages General Understand that that the Change Management section of Recommend that the intended CM process be reviewed
28-29 the document is only intended to provide an overview of and a concise, top level overview be provided in Section 2.
the CM process, however the information provided is CCB membership and stakeholders should be specified -
confusing and key CM aspects are missing. Paragraph organizations should be stated not individuals. The actual
C2.1.1, second sentence indicates that ..."The document details of the CM process (e.g., formats, timelines,
details how standards are organized and administered process, responsibilities) should be in a separate CM
within our realm." What document is meant here? The Plan/Procedure that is referenced in the Profile document.
makeup of the Change Control Board (chair, members), The CM Plan should also be provided to CCB membership
stakeholders in the process and other participants are not and other stakeholders for review and approval.
identified. A project manager role is identified and
responsibilities for allocating workspace for developers
listed. Unclear how these relate to managing changes to
the Common Core. The process described in section
C2.2 is confusing. Why does the CCB validate the change
request in C2.2.1.5 and then go through another approval
process in C2.2.1.6.1.

Name of Person Completing Form: Ethel Zetts
Organization: NNWC N62
Date: 13-Jul-07
Standard Version and Date: NSG-STD-003-07 (v 0.5) 4 June 2006

Paragraph/ Figure/ Type of Comment Proposed Change
Subparagraph Table/ Comment
Line #
11/16/2011 7 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
The process isn't described in detail enough for clear Recommend the insertion of a use case so a reader can
understanding the process and the roles and understand the process and who will have to approve,
C2.1 4T responsibilities within each area. review, etc.
The change management area doesn't provide enough
detail on the configuration management of the schemas
C.2.2.1.6.4 14 T and change requests will be handled.
The Project Baselines section doesn't provide enough
C2.2.1.6.6 22 T detail on the version control methodology.

Name of Person Completing Form: Keith Jester
Organization: Naval Oceanographic Office
Date: 12-Jul-07
Standard Version and Date: V0.5 4 June 2006

Paragraph/ Figure/ Type of Comment Proposed Change
Subparagraph Table/ Comment
Line #
AA.T1,
pgs. 122- DDMS Ref
NSG Crosswalk 128 Wrong NSG resource title ref to DDMS C5.T1 Should be C6.T1
DDMS Ref
Wrong date should be C6.T9
DDMS Ref
Wrong Temporal Coverage should be C7.T3
DDMS Ref
Wrong Description should be C7.T5
DDMS Ref
Wrong Language should be C6.T11
DDMS Ref
Wrong Classification should be C5.T1
DDMS Ref
Wrong Identifier should be C6.T2
DDMS Ref
Wrong Creator should be C6.T3
DDMS Ref
Wrong Publisher should be C6.T4
DDMS Ref
Wrong Contributor should be C6.T5
DDMS Ref
11/16/2011 Wrong Subject 8 should be C7.T1
dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
DDMS Ref
Wrong Type should be C6.T12
DDMS Ref
Wrong Geospatial Coverage should be C7.T2
DDMS Ref
Wrong Format should be C8.T1
DDMS Ref
Wrong Source should be C6.T13
DDMS Ref
Wrong Rights should be C6.T10

General IC ISM Crosswalk Missing

Ex. Resouce title = title (in DDMS, Dublin Core, DCGS
10.2, ASDI - dataset title (in ISO 19115). This happens for
General Why can't we standardize element names to one thing many NSG elements. At least line up with ISO 19115.

Resource date -- refers to a single point in time and a date
range (Temporal Cov.) See where (pg 33) it is a
compound data type but both types still only refer to single Don't see how you can have a start and end date. Either
Question date and time. Temporal coverage is a begin & end date. Omit the temporal coverage or add Begin/End date fields.

Might be useful for SOA type architectures and the fact we
have the rest of the DDMS elements. Why not this one if
DDMS REF Are we purposely omitting the DDMS element Virtual? we are "Manadated to comply….with DDMS" para C1.4.1
How do distinguish/inform between the metadata security
level and security for the data the metadata is written
Security about.

Name of Person Completing Form: Mary Clifford
Organization: Fleet Numerical Meterology and Oceanography Center (FNMOC)
Date: 18-Jul-07
Standard Version and Date: V0.5 4 June 2006

Paragraph/ Figure/ Type of Comment Proposed Change
Subparagraph Table/ Comment
Line #
Could they provide a real example for something like the
magnetic North Pole or Mount Everest. What they provide
C4.3.1.4
11/16/2011 Schema E is useful but not real. 9 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
Secretariat Comments

Accept. Defer to next update
cycle.
Partially done.
But did not add text to
approach, methodology, and
motivation for organizing
metadata sets using levels.

Accept. Defer to next update
cycle.
Partially done.
But did not add text to
approach, methodology, and
motivation for organizing
metadata sets using levels.
Accept. Defer to next update
cycle.

Accept. Defer to next update
cycle.

11/16/2011 10 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
Accept. Defer to next update
cycle.

Accept. Defer to next update
cycle.

Defer to next update cycle.
A data dictionary for "All
Datasets" level is not in this
Profile.
Accept in Principle.
Registries section re-written.

May want to expand in next
update cycle.

Defer to next update cycle.

Accept. Defer to next update
cycle.

11/16/2011 11 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
Defer to next update cycle.
Comment is correct; the
definition is somewhat
ambigious.

Defer to next update cycle.
Comment is correct; the
definition is somewhat
ambigious.

Defer to next update cycle.
Comment is correct; the
definition is somewhat
ambigious.
Defer to next update cycle.
Those fields were received
from the GWG/CSMWG; they
are working Sensor Model
issues.

11/16/2011 12 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
Accept.
2500B changed to 2500C.
This element was originally
intended to be limited to
"Releasability" element as
defined in 2500C. It was not
meant to include all of the
instructions for releasing an
item derived from controlled
imagery.

For consideration in next
update cycle: Suggest
remove the word
"instructions" from the
name and limiting it to the
releasability element as per
the security relationship
field.

Secretariat Comments

Defer to next update cycle.

11/16/2011 13 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
Secretariat Comments

Accept. Defer to next update
cycle

Secretariat Comments

11/16/2011 14 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
Defer to next update cycle.

Defer to next update cycle.

Secretariat Comments

Address in next update
cycle
Address in next update
cycle
Address in next update
cycle
Address in next update
cycle
Address in next update
cycle
Address in next update
cycle
Address in next update
cycle
Address in next update
cycle
Address in next update
cycle
Address in next update
cycle
Address in next update
cycle
11/16/2011 15 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
Address in next update
cycle
Address in next update
cycle
Address in next update
cycle
Address in next update
cycle
Address in next update
cycle
Address in next update
cycle

Address in next update
cycle

Secretariat Comments

Defer to next update cycle.

11/16/2011 16 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
NSG GEOSPATIAL METADATA PROFILE
Comment Submission Form
Please return by 24 July 2007 to
Norman.C.Andersen@nga.mil OR Laura.Reece@ngc.com

Name of Person Completing Form: Stephen Kerr
Organization: NGA/NCGIS
Date: 20-Jul-07

NATIONAL SYSTEM FOR GEOSPATIAL INTELLIGENCE
(NSG) GEOSPATIAL METADATA PROFILE FOR
Standard Version and Date: DISCOVERY AND RETRIEVAL, Draft 0.5, 4 June 2007

Paragraph/ Figure/ Type of Comment Proposed Change
Subparagraph Table/ Comment
Line #
page 13 G Remove all mention of the term "recommended" for
recommended core metadata, this is a profile intended to
be binding on the NSG, not just recommendations.

C1.2.5 line 2 G Unclear as to why 'sensor' is included in a
discovery/retrieval focused profile? Is the purpose to
"discover" and/or "retrieve" sensors? Or is intent to sub-
categorize 'all geospatial data sets' into the subcategories
of vector data, raster data, and sensor data? Need to add
text to clearly define these three 'bins' for all geospatial
datasets.

Also, the context of the sentence implies purpose is to
define vector/raster/sensor dataset, but scope of
document is to define D/R core metadata for these
categories of datasets.
C1.2.7 1st para G Discussion appears to be beyond scope of discovery and Remove fig C1.F3 and para C1.2.7.
Fig. C1.F3 retrieval metadata since it delves into metadata needed to
describe sensors, not D/R metadata to discover sensor
datasets as previously discussed in the document.

11/16/2011 17 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
C1.2.8 G Discussion appears to be beyond scope of discovery and Remove fig C1.F4 and para C1.2.8.
Figure C1.F4 retrieval metadata addressed in this document.
Decomposition of topics under raster have confusing and
conflicting lists of topics; not ready yet for public exposure
in a 'mandated' profile.
C1.2.9 G Discussion appears to be beyond scope of discovery and Remove fig C1.F5 and para C1.2.9.
Figure C1.F5 retrieval metadata addressed in this document.
Decomposition of topics under raster have confusing and
conflicting lists of topics; not ready yet for public exposure
in a 'mandated' profile.
C1.3.4 line 2 G Clarify. Doubt that 119A calls out 19115. It simply states Remove paragraph.
to use international standards before national, military,
industry, etc. standards?

Consider removing para since it is redundant to para
C1.4.1.
C1.4.1 G Same as previous paragraph?

C.1.4.1 line 1 G By what directive? Cite the mandate

C3.2.5 line 2 G/T This is supposed to be a specification of options from the Add "compound, extended care" after "DateTime,"
profiled standards, not a "for example" white paper -
list/define all allowed data types that are called out later in Add "classes" in between "define" and "metadata"
the tables.
page 32 box 10 G/T Identifier. In 19115, use of this item requires an element
to define the 'catalog' of identifiers from which the identifier
was selected. The concept of using the 'identifier' element
is rather obtuse and perhaps worthy of some text in the
profile to provide examples of how this element is used.

page 32 box 10 G/T Keywords. One purpose of a Profile is control vocabulary
as called for in the base standard. This profile should do
so in some fashion. A registry?

11/16/2011 18 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
page 36 box 32 G/T Relation - Definition. Shouldn't this profile set this up?
That is follow the guidance from the standard to establish
a formal identification system.

page 63 G/T Rows 5-9. Relevance to discovery and retrieval?

page 65 box 3 G/T Image Category Code. Total entry is flawed. Definition
speaks of 'producer code' relationship not addressed in
the profile. The values in Data Type are not 'data types'.
Needs total rework. See NTB input of 2007-01-31.

11/16/2011 19 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
page 66 box 5 G/T Image (primary) country code. What's this about?
Doesn't 19115 already have 'geographic identifier'? Isn't
past use of this CC in conjunction with BE numbers.
Which core element is intended to carry BE numbers?
Identifier element? Where 'Target Product' defined? It's
my understanding that a CC is desired for all varieties of
imagery, but thought that need was satisfied by the
'geographic identifier' element already included in the main
core.

page 66 box 6 G/T Image Name. Flawed definition. A definition based on
character count? Why not use 19115 element? How is
this different from 'area imagery ID'. See discussion on
that topic.

11/16/2011 20 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
page 66 box 8 G Already in sensor elements? Why is definition based on
character count?

page 67 box 9 G/T Sensor Type. Flawed entry. For example, look at list of
data types.

page 67 gen'l T What became of NTB submissions for:
transfer size
image/grid compression
image/grid dimensions
ground to image parameters availability
number of components

page 119 line 4 G What is the motivation for this appendix and associated
cross-walk table? Need brief description of the programs
and entities & relevance to including in this profile. I.e.
why is program-specific information appropriate to include
11/16/2011 in a standards profile? 21 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
Name of Person Completing Form: NGA/DCGS Metadata Harmonization Team
Organization: NGA and Service DCGSs
Date: 13-Jul-07
Standard Version and Date:

Paragraph/ Figure/ Type of Comment Proposed Change
Subparagraph Table/ Comment
Line #
Forward Page 2 Technical The first statement declares "This document along with Clarify the scope of this document. Clearly identify who it
the List of Data Dictionary and XML Schemas tables is applicable to and what it covers. If the Services develop
represent the metadata elements recommended for use geospatial products using foundation data provided by
by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA)." NGA are they required to use this document to make the
The remainder of the document addresses the "NSG", and data visible or do they use DDMS as directed by DoD
language such as "mandatory", and "...required to conform 8320.2?
to this entire data dictionary". The scope and authority of
this document are not clear.

C3.4.1.1 Page 33, General Line 2.2 of the table contains a Date Type Code in the Clarify approach. Provide human understandable
Table domain column. Does this indicate that a number will be response that does not require users to reference a table.
C3.T1 returned in response to a query vice textural information
indicating the resource date type? If so, how will a user
determine the meaning of the numeric code?

C3.4.1.3.1 Page 42 Technical While the names and definitions for security classifications Use classification marking names and definitions from
were drawn from ISO 19115, they are incorrect for the US sources that are accepted/approved by the Intelligence
Intelligence Community. Community. e.g., DoD 5200.1-R, EO 12958, IC
Information Security Marking

11/16/2011 22 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
C3.4.6.1 Page 66, Technical Sensor Name is "mandatory" and the source is listed as Validate all of the ISO 19115 "mandatory" obligations
Table MIL-STD-2500B. Sensor Name is not listed in MIL-STD against MIL-STD 2500 (all versions). In cases where the
C3.T6 2500B since it is not part of the NITF Header or sub- information is not available to populate a "mandatory" ISO
headers addressed in the standard. Sensor name may be 19115, and by extension a GWG core, entry then provide
present if the appropriate extensions are included with the guidance on the appropriate values to use.
NITF file. A file without an extension that includes "Sensor
Name" will not be "compliant" with this "mandatory"
obligation.

11/16/2011 23 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
Secretariat Comments

Accept in Principle.
Did not remove the word
"recommended", but clarified
what is meant and intended
for "recommended"
metadata.

Accept in Principle.
Prior removal of "discovery
and retrieval" from Profile
satisfies this comment.

Accept in Principle.
Prior removal of "discovery
and retrieval" from Profile
satisfies this comment.
11/16/2011 24 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
Accept in Principle.
Prior removal of "discovery
and retrieval" from Profile
satisfies this comment.

Accept in Principle.
Prior removal of "discovery
and retrieval" from Profile
satisfies this comment.

Accept in Principle.
Clarification made;
paragraph not removed.
Accept in Principle.
Clarification made;
paragraph not removed.
Accept in Principle.
Clarification made;
paragraph not removed.

Not Accept.
But did add the word
"classes" as recommended.
Accept in Principle.
Text added to state that ISO
19115 does not require the
"catalogue"' it is optional.
Only the actual identifier is
mandatory.

Not Accept.
This profile will not be
defining the taxonomy for
keywords. The purpose of
the profile is to define which
elements are necessary, but
not always the content of
those elements.
11/16/2011 25 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
Not Accept.
The Profile will not be setting
up the Relation field.
Accept in Principle.
Prior removal of "discovery
and retrieval" from doc
satisfies this comment.
Accept in Princple.
Last sentence in definition
removed.
The Imagery Category Code
is a result of the required
item necessary to identify a
specific resource used to
satisfy a mission goal. Part
of that requirement is the
allowable values for certain
imagery categories or similar
identifier which represents
the type of source used.
(ICAT in NITFS). SInce "BE
NUMBER" is not a core
element, this was the only
identifier available to
represent that connection.

11/16/2011 26 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
Accept in Principle. .
Deleted the words "two-
character" in the definition.
Changed "Filed" to "Field".
BE Number is not a core
element because it is
conditional on the item being
a "target". Therefore, the
mandatory contents of BE
Number are captured in
individual core elements.
The country code element
was specifically requested
by the Commands and
Service representatives and
can be different than the
"main core" occurence due
to the "primary" country
location or sub-division vice
the general location. (This
item is being refined through
the CC multi-standard
resolution committee.)
Geographic identifier in ISO
19115 need not be a specific
country code.

Accept in Principle.
Character count numeric
removed.
The "image name"
(according to the
Commands and Services
who use it!) is different
because it is a refinement
from the overall area image
ID, i.e., name of the Target.
It is "named" differently and
is a required field for
definitive targeting and
mission response.
11/16/2011 27 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
Accept in Principle.
Character count removed.
This is the specific entry of
the "Sensor type" since it is
a valuable piece of
information for the
"reliability". This field will
identify a specifc sensor by
name. Yes - it is in ISO
19130 as a sensor core
element but is mandatory for
the Imagery core as well (as
per request by the
Commands) in case the
sensor core does not
capture the information for
whatever reason (redundant -
but necessary).

Accept in Principle.
The list of data types were
reduced to "Frame,
Pushbroom, Whiskbroom,
SAR, LIDAR" as defined in
ISO 19130 (NWIP).
Not Accept.
These particular elements
are useful for transfer and
display. They will be added
as "Conditional" when those
ativities are added. These
elements have NOT been
thrown away or ignored.
They will be added in a
future version of the Profile
when "exploitation" gets
addressed.

Accept in Principle.
Satisifed by re-write of
Crosswalk introductory
section text.
11/16/2011 28 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
Secretariat Comments

Not Accept.
It is up to the User Interface
to translate any codes into
human understandable
words. Those codes and
words for implementations to
use cannot be provided in
this Profile. .

Not Accept.
The Security fields were
taken from the IC ISM. So if
they are incorrect, the IC
ISM contains the error and it
should be fixed within the
forum of the IC.

11/16/2011 29 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
Not Accept.

11/16/2011 30 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
NSG GEOSPATIAL METADATA PROFILE
Comment Submission Form
Please return by 24 July 2007 to
Norman.C.Andersen@nga.mil OR Laura.Reece@ngc.com

Name of Person Completing Form: Stephen Kerr
Organization: NGA/NCGIS
Date: 20-Jul-07

NATIONAL SYSTEM FOR GEOSPATIAL INTELLIGENCE
(NSG) GEOSPATIAL METADATA PROFILE FOR
Standard Version and Date: DISCOVERY AND RETRIEVAL, Draft 0.5, 4 June 2007

Paragraph/ Figure/ Type of Comment Proposed Change
Subparagraph Table/ Comment
Line #
Cover Page 7 G/E NSG – STD – 003 - 07 -- General approach to identifying
and numbering NGA-developed standardization
documents is currently under review. The document
identifier should be (TBR) until an approach is agreed
upon.
Foreword, pg 2 2 G/T Why is scope of use limited to only NGA? Title and other
statements within the document indicate that the scope is
applicable to all of the NSG.
Foreword, pg 2 2 G/E Why use the term 'recommended'? Isn't the intent to cite Delete "recommended". Add "core discovery and retrieval"
this profile in the DISR as a mandated standard? before "metadata elements"

XSD, pg 7 XSD E Erred spell-out of abbreviation XSD Change to: XML Schema Definition / XML Schema
Language
XSL, pg 7 XSL E Erred spell-out of abbreviation XSL Change to: Extensible Stylesheet Language
References, pg 9 G/T Need to identify which references are normative,
informative, and/or simply bibliography.
References, pg 9 G Need to identify sources for obtaining references.

11/16/2011 31 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
References, pg Ref 16 G/E/T There appears to be no reason to cite the NWIP for 19130 Remove citation to NWIP for 19130 and all references
10 work. Perhaps this citation exists because the tables made to 19130 throughout the document.
show 19130 as a 'source' of metadata for the profile. A
new work item proposal can not be a normative citation for
metadata requirements; and neither can 19130 since it is
an un-published, incomplete work.

C1.1 pg 13 G Stated purpose for the document does not seem pertinent Total re-write.
to the content of the document. Reads like the purpose of
the document is to define a configuration management
process for D/R standards. Isn't the purpose to 'profile'
D/R-related standards for use in the NSG? See Foreword.

C1.1 pg 13 line 3 G 2nd Sentence. Achieve what? Achieve more metadata
profiling and harmonization efforts (see subject of previous
sentence)?
C1.2.2 G Re: statement on tan boxes marked 'recommended'. How
can elements be both mandatory and suggested at the
same time?
C1.2.3 lines 1-3 G The stated definition of 'All Datasets'' is no different than Possible fix: Add "independently of" after "Organizations
the definition for all Geospatial datasets in the next of Activities" in second line.
paragraph.

C1.2.3 line 7 G Metadata applicable to all dataset is not addressed in this
profile? Where is this core addressed?
C1.2.4 G So of the three levels, 'All Geospatial Datasets' is the only
one addressed within the scope of the content for this
profile?
C1.2.4 line 6 G Document lists three terms for 'All Geospatial Datasets' as
being synonymous. So pick a term and stay with it; this is
the defining document for establishing implementation
compliance.
C1.2.6 lines 3-6 G Organizational Extension. Very confusing; appears to be
Figure C1.F2 an incoherent mix of 'apples/oranges' with the only
requirement that all elements must be unique among
organizations and agencies, commonality for re-use is
forbidden. The notional breakdown for Sensor in Fig
C1.F2 doesn't even align with that shown in Figs C1.F3,
C1.F4, and C1.F5. Paragraph states that folks have to
produce their own extensions, so why even attempt to
show the break-out in yellow boxes?
11/16/2011 32 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
C1.3.2 line 1 G This data dictionary … What data dictionary? Where? Add pointer/reference to the data dictionary.

Term 'recommended'. Remove the term "recommended".

C1.3.2.1 G Which mandated standards? Cite the mandated standards for which the seven elements
are satisfying compliance requirements.

C1.3.2.3 G/T Need to strengthen position for "optional", for example,
each development/implementation activity shall evaluate
the 'optional' list for applicability. An implementer may not
use other elements or extensions if the needed
functionality is available within the optional set.

C1.3.3 G Term: for consideration; need to be declarative.
C1.3.4 line 1 G NGA (should this be NSG) is mandated by what? Cite the
mandate for which this document is attempting to abide
by.
C2.2.1.6.1 line 1 E Typo Change "Change Control Board" to "Configuration Control
Board"
C3.2.3.3 lines 3-4 G Needs strengthening. Must use these elements if concept
is applicable, may not use other elements or extensions to
override or replace the standard set.
C3.3.1 line 3 E Change "should" to "shall"
C3.4 G/T Based on evaluation of the XML, the proposed core is a
'flat' structure, but all context within the 19115 data model
is lost. This profile needs a UML model or some means to
provide and overview and index into the data dictionary
tables

11/16/2011 33 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
page 33 box 13 G/T Dataset topic category - Obligation. Don't folks still need
to identify the main theme of the dataset, even when it is
not organized in a hierarchy? For imagery core, this
element is mandatory.

page 33 box 14 G/T Geographic Bounding Box - Obligation. Isn't this needed "M" if no Geographic Identifier or Bounding Polygon.
even for non-hierarchal datasets? This element is taken
out of context from 19115 where the conditionality makes
it required when a 'Geographic Identifier' (row 15) or
'Bounding Polygon' is not documented. The concept of
hierarchy level and meaning of 'dataset' is nowhere
explained in the profile. In fact, item 1 opts to use
'resource title' vice 'dataset title', yet item 13 uses term
'dataset'. Document needs improvement in consistent use
of terms. Note: the core needs to make provision for
allowing 'Bounding Polygon' in lieu of 'Bounding Box', at
least for georeferencable imagery datasets.
page 35 box 28 G/T Resource spatial resolution - Obligation. Change the
obligation to Conditional, mandatory for remote sensed
imagery of the earth.

page 36 box 31 G/T Rights - Obligation. Change the obligation to Conditional,
mandatory for imagery.

11/16/2011 34 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
page 36 box 32 G/T Relation - Obligation. The core shows this element as
optional; for imagery, it needs to be mandatory, assuming
this element is the same as 19115
MD_Identification.aggregateInfo.MD_AggregateInformatio
n (Lines 35.1, 61.1, 61.2, 61.3, 61.4, 61.5).
All imagery must declare whether or not it is a member of
some grouping of imagery. For example, membership in a
data series such as CIB or CADRG; part of a stereo pair;
part of mosaic collection for a scene; subpart of a larger,
multipart image; part of a composition (e.g. matched set of
images, raster map, elevation data, cloud cover, or
similar); part of a multi-look scene, etc.

page 37 box 33 G/T Source show GIMAP. What is it? Term/abbreviation does
not appear elsewhere in the document.
C3.4.2.1 G Need to point out that this profile does not have control
over security marking policies - It provides structure for
markings, but must always be applied per current security
marking policies.
C3.4.4.1 line 2 G/T What does CISS ISM have to do with this topic?

C3.4.6 G/T Without knowing the resolution to proceeding comments
and questions, it is very difficult to adequately
review/comment on the Imagery-specific metadata for
D/R. The following comments related to this topic are
subject to further review following adjudication of previous
comment for the core. A number of the imagery-specific
element appear to be redundant with elements in the core.
Or, perhaps in some instances, additional constraints on
core elements need to be placed when applied to imagery.
Why are we defining 'new' or 'extended' data elements
when 19115 already has elements suitable for these
purposes?

11/16/2011 35 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
page 64 box 1 G/T Area Imagery ID. What is this? Definition is similar to
'identifier' and 'resource identifier' in main core. Listing this
element as being imagery-specific is likely the result of the
profile being ambiguous about how to handle hierarchies
and aggregations of data.

page 64 box 2 G/T image geo. What is this? No definition included. Alternate
to 'geographic bounding box' in main core? Why is data
type restricted to real? Unclear as to what Domain
constraints are. Georeferencable imagery needs a
'bounding polygon'. See comments on geographic
bounding box discussion above.

page 72 G The XML schema is not compliant with ISO 19115 and/or
19135. The entire schema needs to be thoroughly
reviewed once the comments for the basic data model and
data dictionary are resolved.

page 120 G Headings for Table. Need to explain what these are and
why of interest here.

11/16/2011 36 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
page 123 G/T First two rows. Both are same core element?

Name of Person Completing Form: Joseph J. Pantella, IV
Organization: FGM, Inc. (DISA Data Services Office)
Date: 5-Jul-07
Standard Version and Date: NSG-STD-003-07 Version 0.5, 4 June 2006

Paragraph/ Figure/ Type of Comment Proposed Change
Subparagraph Table/ Comment
Line #
Recommend modifying text as appropriate and in
accordandce w/ changes to diagram. (This issue reoccurs
throughout the document and will not be repeated for
C1.2.3 Editorial Uses colors as references. subsequent text related to figures.)
DDMS abbreviates DoD Discovery Metadata Specification Change parenthetical text to read "DoD Discovery
C1.2.3 Technical not "DoD Metadata Specification." Metadata Specification."
C3.3.1 Editorial run together words "profileare" Modify to "profile are.".
Security is defined by the IC Information Security Markings Change reference to IC Core in the "source" column to IC-
C3.T1-7 Technical not the IC Core ISM (or add IC-ISM or CISS-ISM as is used later).

C4.1.5 Technical Can the reference to DDMS 1.3 be updated to DDMS 1.4? Recommend referencing DDMS 1.4 instead of DDMS 1.3.
C4.2.1.2 Editorial DOD Net-Centric Data Strategy (capital O in DOD). Recommend changing "DOD" to "DoD."
XSL is not short for XML Style Language it is short for Recommend modifying "XML Style Language" to "XML
C.4.2.1.4 Technical XML Stylesheet Language. Stylesheet Language."
I wouldn't characterize XSL as a follow-on to CSS, this
gives the impression that XSL is preferred to CSS which Remove the statement "XSL is a follow-on from the
isn't the case, they have different uses, one is for original Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) developed by W3C,
C4.2.1.4 Technical transformation, the other is for formatting. but contains additional innovations."

Name of Person Completing Form: NGA/DCGS Metadata Harmonization Team
Organization: NGA and Service DCGSs
Date: 13-Jul-07
Standard Version and Date:

11/16/2011 37 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
Paragraph/ Figure/ Type of Comment Proposed Change
Subparagraph Table/ Comment
Line #
Title Page Page 1 General The document appears to address more than the Delete "Discovery and Retrieval" from the title or add "
elements required to support Discover and Retrieval ....determining data fitness for use, data access, data
transfer, and use of digital data" to make it accurate IAW
ISO 19115. ISO 19115 defines "..the minimum set of
metadata required to serve the full range of metadata
applications (data discovery, determining data fitness for
use, data access, data transfer, and use of digital data)

General The IC and DoD use the DDMS profile for discovery. Consider adding the geospatial information in this
Programs and COIs within the DoD are directed to use document using an extension to the DDMS core.
DDMS and are doing so. DDMS supports extensions to
the core to accommodate COI (NSG?) specific
information. The DDMS has a "geospatial coverage"
category, contained in the "Summary Content Set", that
addresses geospatial coverage and includes basic
geospatial elements for data asset discovery including
geospatial data assets. This document adds an additional
layer of discovery elements to the core for Geospatial
Products, primarily driven by use of an expanded list of
ISO 19115 elements. Expanding the DDMS core defeats
the purpose of the core and negates the work done to date
to make geospatial data discoverable using DDMS.
However, incorporating the ISO 19115 elements or using
the information in this document to create an extension to
the DDMS core for Geospatial Products would not impact
the work done to date and allow the expanded geospatial
element set to be added.

Abbreviations Page 7 Editorial Acronym for DDMS is incorrect. Change to: "Department of Defense Discovery Metadata
and Acronyms Specification". Change throughout document where
incorrectly defined.
Abbreviations Page 7 Editorial Acronym for NGA is incorrect. Change to: "National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency".
and Acronyms Change throughout document where incorrectly defined.

Abbreviations Page 7 Editorial Acronym for XSD is incorrect. Change to: "XML Schema Definition". Change throughout
and Acronyms document where incorrectly defined.
Abbreviations Page 7 Editorial Acronym for XSL is incorrect. Change to: "eXtensible Stylesheet Language". Change
and Acronyms throughout document where incorrectly defined.
11/16/2011 38 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
C1.1 Intro Page 13 General As written the paragraph does not accurately describe the Determine purpose of the document and rewrite as
understood purpose of the document. Is the primary appropriate. If purpose is to define discovery metadata,
purpose of the document to "…define a systematic suggest the following as a purpose/introductory statement:
approach to managing, organizing, and disseminating "The purpose of this document is to define standard
standards…" or to define the actual metadata elements to geospatial discovery metadata elements for use by all DoD
be used by DoD and the IC Community? and IC organizations working with geospatial information,
and to establish a formal process for making changes to
the elements. This effort is in support of the DoD Net-
Centric Data Strategy to make data visible, accessible and
understandable to any potential user in the DoD. The
discovery metadata elements defined in this document are
based on, and consistent with, other key metadata
specifications and standards to include DDMS, Dublin
Core and ISO 19115."

C1.2.1 Page 13 Editorial Second sentence of paragraph states: "To achieve Please clarify sentence.
this…." Unclear what "this" is. General comment: suggest another editing pass through
the document to improve sentence clarity and paragraph
flow throughout - too numerous to comment on
individually.
C1.2.1 Page 14 Editorial Figure C1.F1 indicates that "Tan" boxes represent optional Please clarify text and/or figure.
elements. Text in paragraph C1.2.2 indicates that the
"Tan" boxes include both mandatory and optional
elements. Appears contradictory.
C1.2.1- C1.2.5 Page 14 Technical Figure C1.F1 and the associated paragraphs do not Add ISO 19115 to the "All Datasets" portion of the figure
include ISO 19115 association with "All Datasets". and the associated paragraphs.
However, ISO 19115 is in fact a "source or related
reference" for the Geospatial Coverage category elements
in DDMS.

C1.2.3 Page 14 Editorial Last sentence in paragraph should also include Dublin Add Dublin Core to last sentence.
Core to be consistent with figure C1.F1
C1.3.4 and Pages Editorial Paragraph C1.4.1 duplicates wording in paragraph C1.3.4 Delete one of the paragraphs. Determine level of
C1.4.1 24-25 except for the last sentences in the paragraphs which compliance by DoD and IC organizations and use proper
differ in level of compliance to the document. last sentence i.e., required to conform or likely to conform?

C1.5.3 Page 25 Editorial No perceived value in providing a list of assorted registry Suggest deleting section C1.5.3 and all subparagraphs.
definitions as contained in this section. Focus on providing the NGA definition of a registry.

11/16/2011 39 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
C2.2.1.6 Page 28 Editorial CCB is defined as "Configuration Control Board" in the Correct acronym list or Paragraph C2.2.1.6.
document acronym list on page 7. Which definition is
correct?
C3.4.1.1 Page 33, Technical "Resource title" definition does not have the same Change the heading "Source" to read "Source or Related
Table definition as DDMS "title" that is listed in the Source Reference"
C3.T1., column. The use of the column heading "source" implies
Row 2 a one-to-one relationship.

C3.4.1.2 Pages General The table reflects the IC ISM. DDMS already incorporates Reference DDMS.
48 - 55, these elements within the "Security" category set. It is not
Table clear what "Security" core means in the lead in paragraph
C3.T2 C3.4.2.1

Appendix A Pages General What is the purpose of this Appendix? The appendix Clearly state the purpose for this table. Clarify the
121-128 mixes information from standards (ISO 19115, IC), information presented to identify organization, initiatives,
specifications (DDMS), systems (DCGS 10.2), contracts, systems, specs, standards, etc. Consider
applications (GKB-F, Top Drawer), contracts (GeoScout), removal of this Appendix.
requirements documents (NAC), organizations (NGA),
communities (NSG), and initiatives (MGCP, ASDI). The
GWG core appears to be a superset of this disparate
grouping rather than a core focused on discovery and
retrieval.

Appendix A Pages Technical DCGS is upgrading DCGS 10.2 to use the full DDMS 1.3 Please remove the DCGS 10.2 column or add a note that
121-128 specification for the DCGS discovery metadata catalog future versions of DCGS will use DDMS and the DCGS
core. The DCGS 10.2 column is OBE and no longer 10.2 column can be deprecated.
needed.

Name of Person Completing Form: Ethel Zetts
Organization: NNWC N62
Date: 13-Jul-07
Standard Version and Date: NSG-STD-003-07 (v 0.5) 4 June 2006

11/16/2011 40 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
Paragraph/ Figure/ Type of Comment Proposed Change
Subparagraph Table/ Comment
Line #

Clarify what XML registry…one within the IC? Or other
C1.5.2 16 G "The XML Registry" location.

C1.5.3.1 25 E What does DGIWG stand for? First time the acroynm is used spell out the meaning.
Although CCB is spelled out in a later paragraph it would
be easier for the reader to have it defined the first time it
C2.2.1.6.1 18 E What does CCB stand for? appears.
C2.2.1.6.3 11 E plane should be plan
C2.2.1.6.3 11 E The last sentence doesn't read clean.
C3.3.3.1 & The Stage 9 (extension documentation) and in 3.3.4.1 the Recommend the changing of either the stage number
C3.3.4.1 32 & 2 T stage 9 (extension obligation) and/or the definition so they are not confusing.

Name of Person Completing Form: Jennifer Hailes
Organization: Commander, Naval Meteorology and Oceanography Command (CNMOC)
Date: 10-Aug-07
Standard Version and Date: V0.5 4 June 2006

Paragraph/ Figure/ Type of Comment Proposed Change
Subparagraph Table/ Comment
Line #

"This Metadata is the initial driver…." This document isn't
1.2.3 Line#3 T metadata it is a metadata specification or "profile". Change to: "This metadata profile is the initial driver…".

"All datasets are driven by the work of the…." The term
ALL is very broad and should be restricted in some way
(i.e. US Federal agencies) and all DATASETs for the
federal government are NOT driven by DDMS and IC
metadata standards... only the metadata about the Change to: "All metadata for US Federal agencies is
1.2.3 Line#5 T datasets is "driven" by these standards. based upon the work of the …."

11/16/2011 41 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
"…assist in discovery and retrieval." Metadata is NOT just
about discovery and retrieval (though that is the focus of
this Profile). Don't believe that ISO 19115 was just about Change to: "…assist in discovery, retrieval and semantic
1.2.4 Line#3 T discovery metadata. description of the data."
Figure
C1.F1 -- In all of the early verbiage and Figures the term for
Figure "Imagery" is depicted as "Raster". Yet in the details (such
C1.F2 -- as Tables C3.T1.2 and C3.T6) you only use the term Change Figures and text from "Raster" to "Imagery" to
C1.2 -- C1.2.5 -- Figure "Imagery". These need to be more consistent to eliminate correlate with the Schemas and Tables that elaborate on
C1.2.7 C.F4 E confusion between the two. Imagery metadata.

"Additional elements will be defined within the quality, life-
cycle, and textual data." I have read though this entire
document and still don't know what this references.
Maybe the "quality" reference is in regards to the Data
C1.2.8 Line#6 T Quality Metadata in C3.4.3 -- but I'm just not sure Either expand on what this means or remove it.
The term "in-work" is used in both places. What does this
mean? That the vector metadata in this specification is
still incomplete? Why state that? Should a DISR standard
Line#6 7 still be under development? Why use the term "...will be Change to: "The core set of mandatory vector elements is
C1.2.9 #8 E derived..." derived from the access and ….."

"…are required to conform to this entire data dictionary."
Not sure if "this entire data dictionary" is referring to the Change to: "…are required to conform to this metadata
C1.3.4 Line#5 E ISO standard or this Profile. Very confusing. profile."
If you conform to IC, DDMS and ISO 19115, is there a
possibility you WON'T conform to this profile? Not sure
what this standard gives us that a developer isn't already
required to comply with in the other standards already in
C1.4.1 Line#5 E same confusion as above (C1.3.4) the DISR?

Not sure what the purpose is behind defining a number of Recommend either deleting this section or moving it into
pgs 23 - different type of XML registries? Not all of these registries an appendix. It is very distracting from the real purpose of
C1.5.3 25 E really seem applicable either. the document -- defining the metadata profile.

whole Is the reference "Common Core" suppose to represent the Need to spell this out more specifically and say that this
paragra "Common Core Geospatial Metadata for Discovery and CM process pertains to this document/profile and the
C2.1.1 ph E Retrieval" -- to include the document and the schemas? schemas as well. Assuming it does.

11/16/2011 42 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
"The following section provides the Core geospatial
metadata data dictionary, sub-core components (contact,
"The purpose of this listing of data dictionary tables…" is security, quality, vector, imagery (raster) and sensor) data
paragra confusing. Shouldn't the introduction be defining what this dictionary, and source information for each element in
C3.1.1 ph E section includes? Recommend re-wording this section. tabular format."
"Fields and Definitions" It is not obvious (from C3.1.1) that
this section is simply defining the following table/data
dictionary headings. The term "Fields" is a bit confusing
because it is typically associated with the cell of a table
where "Headings" is more often associated with the full
column. The term "Definitions" would be assumed and is
C3.2 Line#1 E extraneous. Change to: "Table Headings".

Why define the codes: M, C, O when you don't actually
C3.2.3 E use them in the dictionary?

Either need to define what "Extended Core" means in
regards to Data Type (though this could easily be confused
with the Domain list "ExtendedCores" in Table C3.T1.2) or
paragra In some instances, you did not follow this definition, i.e., leave it blank and explain in this area what it means when
C3.2.5 ph T "Extended core" is not a datatype. the Data Type is blank.

paragra Need to expand this definition to explain the sub-core
C3.2.5 ph T references like "contact core" and "quality core".
"…presented in this profileare intended…" missing a
C3.3.1 Line#1 E space between "profile" and "are" Change to: "…presented in this profile are intended…"
11/16/2011 43 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
The first thing a developer will do when they see this is try
to figure out if what they have already done with DDMS
and ISO 19115 that can be mapped into this data
dictionary. You reference the source here, but never Add the following text: "The mapping for each core
mention that there is an exact mapping of these elements element in this data dictionary to it's original source can be
to these sources in Table AA.T1! You also extensively found in Table AA.T1." I would also highly recommend
paragra use Domains that already exist in ISO 19115, but never that you simply reference the domain sets
ph -- actually mention that. In fact, in section C3.4.1.3.1 you (MD_CharacterSetCode, MS_RestrictionCode,
C3.4.1.1 -- Domain actually re-iterate the ISO 19115 domains that you use, CI_RoleCode, etc..) in the following sections instead of re-
C3.4.1.3.1 Tables T but never reference the ISO standard. listing them in this standard as well.

According to earlier sections, this profile is based on
DDMS, Dublin Core, IC ISM and ISO 19115. If that is true,
why didn't you use the "name" and "definition" from one of
these sources? Why use the Top Drawer name? You
have now added a third name for the same element that
data providers/users must comply with. Why add to the Recommend using the ISO 19115 names and definitions
Table confusion? Why not use the ISO name or the DDMS for the common core elements and not the Top Drawer
C3.4.11 C3.T1 T name? names and definitions
Under Data Type and Domain the terms "Extended Core",
"Security Core", "Contact Core", etc… are use but never
really explained or identified exactly. For example, you
use the term in Table C3.T1 "Contact Core", but the Recommend adding/including the Data Dictionary Table
details for the "Contact Core" are titled: "Contact Sub-Core number in the Domain and Data Type columns when
Data Dictionary....". Why not just reference the Table referencing "sub-core" or other referenced schemas and
C3.4.11 E
Table C3.T1 number? data dictionaries.

Why is this domain table here? It is never used or
referenced. It actually adds confusion, should one use the
ISO Classification Domain code list or the IC ISM
C3.4.1.3 T
Table C3.T1.3 classification code list? Recommend removing this table.
11/16/2011 44 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
Recommend simply referencing IC ISM in section C3.4.2
Why reiterate IC ISM here? It is a free publicly available and not include the Tables C3.T2 or Section C4.3.2. In
standard (unlike ISO 19115 which you have to purchase). section C4.3, keep the import for IC-ISM-v2.xsd, but in
The only change I see is that you removed the Element place of <xsd:element name=-"Security" minOccurs="0"
"SecurityAttributesGroup" and "upgraded" all the attributes maxOccurs="unbounded"> put in: <xsd:attributeGroup
in that IC ISM element to elements. By doing this, you ref="ism:SecurityAttributesGroup"/> (as part of the element
have lost the intent that all of these "attributes" are just<xsd:element name="Core-Metadata">). If you really want
describing one element and thus grouping all of your to keep the element "Security", then just make it consist of
information about a single security identification under onejust the ISM SecurityAttributesGroup. Then a user can just
element. Your XML implementation is also very confusing. use the attributes in the IC-ISM XSD file and not rename
Section -- You define the "Security" element twice, once in the "Core and restructure all of the security tags to be compliant with
Section / Security" XSD, another time in the "Core" (pg 74) and your schema (as it is now). Right now, a developer would
Schema - then you also "include" the IC ISM attributes and "rename" have to map your naming to anything they had tagged via
C3.4.2 -- C4.3.2 -- - it with a "attribute ref" tag! Why? Seems like a whole lot IC ISM standards to meet your standard. Just doesn't
C4.3.1.2 Schema E of work for no reason. make sense to me.
Recommend replacing this sentence with something
similar to Line#2 C3.4.3.1 "The Quality (replace with
Vector) package from ISO 19115 was used to construct
"The Common Information Sharing…., was used to this list". Would also recommend defining what MGCP is
construct this list". Doesn’t belong here and doesn’t apply in the Source column of Table C3.T4 in this sentence as
C3.4.4.1 Line#2 T to Vectors -- cut'n'paste error? well.
Why define all of these? It maybe nice background (to put
in an appendix), but other than the XML schema, the
definitions really do not apply to this document. For
example, you define XSL, but a developer doesn’t need to
know about XSLs to implement the XSDs associated with Recommend removing sections C4.2.1.4 and C4.2.1.5
C4.2.1 Sections T this document. and/or move this whole section to an appendix.

11/16/2011 45 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
These schemas are very hard for a user to follow when
you define "sub-core" XSD files, but never tell the reader
what each file is "saved" as or how they are
include/referenced in the core XSD file. For example,
where is the include statement for the Contact Sub-Core
and Security in the Common Core XSD file? Is it part of
the coreMetadata-profile.xsd???? In the Data Dictionary
you define "metadata point of contact" with the "Domain"
of "Contact Core", I would expect the coreMetadata-
profile.xsd to reference some xsd file (call it
contactMetadata-profile.xsd as described as in C4.3.1.3) Recommend: 1) provide the actual XSD files to the
and just element ref "Contact" for the reviewer with the Profile Document 2) Add comment(<! >)
"MetadataPointofContact". According to your schemas, to the XSD files that would include the "Schema Name:" 3)
MetadataPointofContact is not defined by the element add include statements for each "Sub-core" XSD file 4)
Contact, but in the data dictionary it is. reference elements in the Core schema that are defined in
C4.3 Schema T the "sub-core" schemas

Reviewing NAVO's comments, they assumed you used
DDMS V1.3, but it looks like you used DDMS V1.2 (NOTE:
you are a bit behind, Version 1.4 is already in draft form) -- Recommend you add the version numbers to each
AA.1 T
Table AA.T1 thus all the recommended changes in the next worksheet. standard in this table.

11/16/2011 46 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
Secretariat Comments

Accept.

Accept.
Accept.
Clarification made. But the
words "discovery and
retrieval" were not added
because the Profile is not
restricted to discovery and
retrieval only.

Accept.
Accept.

11/16/2011 47 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
Accept.

Accept.
Paragraph revised.

Accept.

Accept.
Accept in Principle.
Specific change not made,
but clarification added to
paragraph.
Accept.
Clarification made.
Accept in Principle.
Clarification made to
paragraph.

Accept.

Accept
11/16/2011 48 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
Accept.
Clarification made in
document.
Accept in Principle.
Clarification made by
pointing to data dictionary
table in document.

Accept.
Words in comment added to
paragraph.
Accept.
Accept.
Clarification made in
document.

Accept.
Accept.
Added words in comment to
paragraph.
Accept.

Accept.
UML models added to
document.

11/16/2011 49 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
Accept.
The condition was corrected
to state "Required if
hierarchy level Equals
dataset".
The hierarchy name might
be somewhat misleading; it
does not mean anything is
organized, it just states what
kind of resource is being
described (dataset,
feature...etc)

Accept.
The condition on this
element was corrected to
state "Required if hierarchy
level Equals dataset and
geographic identifier not
documented".
Accept.
Obligation changed, and
sentence added to Imagery
Core introductory section to
reflect change in obligation
for imagery.
Accept.
Obligation changed, and
sentence added to Imagery
Core introductory section to
reflect change in obligation
for imagery.
11/16/2011 50 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
Accept.
Obligation changed, and
sentence added to Imagery
Core introductory section to
reflect change in obligation
for imagery.
Accept in Principle.
GIMAP removed.

Accept.
Words in comment were
added to paragraph.
Accept.
This typo was deleted.

See specific imagery-related
comments below.

11/16/2011 51 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
Accept in Principle
Area Image ID is referenced
as the equivalent to
"resource ID" as the
requested piece of
information's primary source
identifier. As the
implementation of
aggregated data becomes
better defined, the "Image
ID" used as a resource
becomes better defined.
(Note the word "product" in
the definition.)
Accept in Principle.
Image Geo is the geographic
location (Geograpgic
bounding box) of the image
used to create the item of
interest. The data type
should NOT be retricted to
"Real" - it should be
"Floating Point" to allow for a
greater range of values. For
this use, "bounding polygon"
is not required. It may be
added in the future as the
constraints for access and
discovery are removed.

Accept.
XML schema revised.
Accept in Principle.
Satisifed by re-write of
Crosswalk introductory
section text.

11/16/2011 52 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
Accept in Principle.
Satisifed by re-write of
Crosswalk introductory
section text.

Secretariat Comments

Accept.

Accept.
Accept.

Accept.

11/16/2011 53 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
Secretariat Comments

Accept.
Text added to opening
paragraph of document.

Not Accept.

Accept.

11/16/2011 54 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
Accept in Principle.
Added text but did not
include the word "discovery"
as suggested in comment
because the document is not
intended to be restricted to
discovery only.

Accept in Principle.
Added the sentence to the
text of C1.2.3, but did not
add ISO 19115 to "All
Datasets" level in graphic
because ISO 19115 is not
included in that top level
metadata.
Accept.

Accept.
Deleted C1.3.4.

Accept.
Registries section re-written
to satisfy comment.
11/16/2011 55 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
Accept.

Accept.

Not Accept.
The Security category set in
the DDMS does not actually
define all the elements. It
provides a link to the IC ISM,
and then gives an example.
That is not sufficient for this
Profile.

Accept.
Comment satisfied in re-
write of the Crosswalk
introductory section text.
Also, this appendix is meant
to be informative, to show
what the NSG Metadata
Core Profile has in common
with the listed standards and
specifications.

Accept.
DCGS column removed.

11/16/2011 56 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
Secretariat Comments

Accept.
This reference was deleted
as part of re-write of section.
Accept.
The reference to DGIWG
was deleted as part of re-
write of section.
Not Accept.
On the contrary, CCB *is*
spelled out in its first use.
Accept.
Accept.
Accept.
Mistake corrected.

Secretariat Comments

Accept.

11/16/2011 57 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
Accept.

Accept in Principle.
Changed all titles and
references to "Raster
(Imagery)" Core.

Accept.
Sentence deleted.

Accept.

Accept.
XML registry definitions
deleted.

Accept.

11/16/2011 58 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
Accept.

Accept.
Accept in Principle.
Deleted the M, C, O and
replaced with "Mandary",
"Conditional" and "Optional"
since those whole words
existed in most of the cells
currently.

Accept.
Replaced the last sentence
of C3.2.5 with:
"The data type attribute is
also used to indicate
Compound elements and if
the element is described by
one of the Extended Cores.
Compound elements will
follow immediately and a
reference will indicate the
location of the Extended
Core in this document"

Accept in Principle.
Added references within
data dictionary tables to
point to Contact Sub-core
and Quality Core.

Accept.
11/16/2011 59 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
Accept in Principle.
Text added, but did not
remove the codelists.

Not Accept.
The names used in the
Common Core table are not
pulled from Top Drawer. Top
Drawer is using the names
used in the Common Core.
The Common Core names
and definitions are pulled
from the ISO 19115
Recommended Metadata
Core. The definitions used
mostly reflect ISO 19115
definitions, but some have
been modified to make more
sense in the flattened format
used in the data dictionary
tables.

Accept.

Not Accept.
Codelist is referenced by the
XML and UML, so it is being
retained in the document.
11/16/2011 60 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
Not Accept.
The table with the security
elements has been included
so readers can see the
definitions without
downloading the IC ISM. The
XML implementation will
actually be the IC ISM XSD.
So nothing is being
redefined here; just the
definitions are being
provided.

Accept.

Not accept.

11/16/2011 61 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls
Accept

Accept.

11/16/2011 62 dffc35bd-0b6c-44fe-bbdd-1db321e494b5.xls