Meta-Door-Beta Tester Review by csgirla


More Info
									Meta-Door Beta Tester Review June 22, 2005

1. Show Help command for all choices on webpage. Window pops open briefly for all, then closes. Also, on all other webpages… the help window only stays open briefly. What’s up with that? 2. When editing an existing metadata record, it would be nice to have the filename show on each tab to remind what data record one is working on. Especially, once folks have lots of data records they are working with. Identification Tab Dataset Description/References Section 3. Originator: …. Should say Originator(s). Also how do you format the entries if there are more than one Originator?? Separate by commas? Nope this did not work. So MetaDoor must be able to handle multiple originators. Many Metadata records will have mulitiple originators. 4. Geospatial Data Presentation Form: Standard says free text is also a possible entry. Please leave a place in the box for free text entry. Since this is really a Geospatial Question, my data do not fit. But also since this is also a required field, I must fill it out. You must leave room for all types of answers to this field. 5. Other Citation Details: there is a typo in field description under field box. 6. Change/update description of URL: under field text box to say “Web address (www. or http://) that links or contains the data set.” 7. Larger Work Citation: Info under field box says “ See help for format style”. When you click on the help, it does not give format style that is necessary for this field. 8. When you come to the bottom of this page Dataset Description/References, there is no save button or directions on what to do next. Dataset Attributes Section 9. Currentness Reference/ Other currentness Reference not listed above: need room for more text in box. My explanation was cut off. 10. Digital Format/Attributes/Other formats not listed above: I had both fields filled out and in final version (review) only the the info in the Digital Format/Attributes field was shown. My data are in MS Excel and CSV formats, so I need to have both boxes useable. 11. Offline Media: Need to update choices to include DVD, remove 5 ¼ disk? remove outdated stuff, include newer choices? 12. Recording Format: Need to include “unknown” as an option here and/or an option for free text 13. Data Set Credit: In explanation under field box. Also include new wording… funding agency and grant number(s). So the final text would say “ Recognition of those who contributed to the data set and the funding agency(ies) and fund grant number(s).” 14. Cross Reference: There is a particular format that this info has to be in, but is not mentioned here or does the software do the formatting behind the scenes? I’m going to put my info in both ways to see what happens. I put my info in many different ways and the final product was never correct. I have no clue as how to input the info into any of the Citation boxes. 15. What happens if you do not finish the section? Does it save the work you’ve done?

Keywords Section 1. Subject (Theme) keyword Thesaurus: Limits the user to only one choice. Need to have text box for free text!!The other choice to “free text” according to the standard is “none”. 2. Keywords (Theme, Place, & Stratum): none of these came out (formatted) correctly in the review (HTML) part of the output. Temporal Keywords list DID come out ok. 3. Taxonomic Keywords/General Taxonomic Coverage: None of my information was listed in the output/review portion of the Meta-Door program. 4. General Taxon Coverage: Typo in explanation below box (should be taxa). I just found out last year that this field cannot stand alone for the standard. One must have these fields filled out now: Taxonomic Classification Taxon Rank Name: Taxon Rank Value: Spatial DataTab Spatial Reference Section: 1. Direct Spatial Reference Method: This is a mandatory field, so I must fill it out if I fill out the Geographic description box above it. I do not understand why the two fields below this must be completed if point was chosen. I may just not understand the GIS side of things, but all of my data are point data, and not truly spatial with objects. I never understood this, Dave when this was done in the form. TheGeographic Description field is a NBII extention to allow those with non-spatial data to describe their area without having to go to the truly Spatial fields (SECTION 4 of FGDC Metadata). So maybe this part of the Meta-Door page should be rearranged more like the NBII style. Move the Geographic description field with the Bounding Coordinates. Just a suggestion. Review Form There is no guidance as to what one needs to do next. I did not see any HELP button to take you to the next step.

Overall Comments/Issues The biggest issue now is that all the Citation Field boxes that require a special formatting did not come out right in the output files. This includes the Larger Work Citation Cross Reference Citation Methodology Citation and the Classification System Citation I have a quick/easy? solution to this if you want to hear it.. Have pull down boxes for Originator(s), Publication date, Title, Geospatial form, publishing info, etc. Also, Formatting issues within text boxes. They Do not recognize line spaces between text information. How can you start a new paragraph of info without some type of delination. Right now it runs all together.

Also, I have a lot of info that needs to be in columns. It runs all of this info together as well. The programmer at the NBII, corrected both of these issues in his XML markup from my sgml text documents. Info for Metadata Standard Name should be: Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata, Part 1: Biological Data Profile Version should be: FGDC-STD_001.1-1999 Error Report from MP Said that there were 2 errors: Methodology was not permitted in Lineage 2.5 Taxonomic System was not permitted in Data Quality Info You might want to make sure that you are using the latest nbiinw.cfg file. The regular FGDC formatting does not recognize the NBII profiles. I have the latest cns, mp, and nbii.cfg files that you might want to check with yours.

Overall, though this is the best thing around to my knowledge. It is easy to use and has the cns & mp tool built into it. But one must already be trained in the metadata process all the way through to the mp error-checking and publishing to the clearinghouse, to use this tool. It still doesn’t take it far enough for the novice at the end.

To top