MRTG Meeting 2009-02-Copenhagen

→ Information about submission as TDWG standard
→ MRTG Wiki Homepage
→ Current Schema Draft. This version is under internal review as part of the submission to TDWG.
→ Audubon Core Non normative document
→ MRTG Development History
→ MRTG Meeting Notes
→ MRTG Best Practices
→ XML Schema representation of Audubon Core
→ RDF representation of Audubon Core
→ MediaWiki Help

Face to face MRTG meeting February 2008

Coming soon to a GBIF Secretariat near you...

Agenda From http://wiki.gbif.org/gbif/wikka.php?wakka=MRTGMeetingFebruary2009

[More photos]

1 Agenda

Venue: GBIF Secretariat Conference Room (4th floor)

1.1 23rd February 2009

0930 hrs - 1700 hrs

• Refinement of the draft MM Metadata standards

Objective: Refine schema in such a manner that it is ready to submit for TDWG ratification process. Therefore, standard docket needs to consists of a vocabulary of terms (properties, elements, fields, concepts) [TERMS], the policy governing the maintenance of these terms [NAMESPACEPOLICY], the complete history of terms including detailed attributes [HISTORY], and at least one application profile for the use of these terms [SIMPLEXMLSCHEMA]. We would also need to ensure that we have clarity and statements regarding the cross-walk with terms/concepts used by DublinCore and DarwinCore schemas.

1.2 24th February 2009

0930 hrs - 1700 hrs

• Refinement of the draft MM Metadata standards (continue)

1.3 25th February 2009

0930 hrs - 1700 hrs

• Technical implementation of mobilising MM data (especially development of MM data repositories),

• • Need "bindings" to allow serialization in some form e.g. XML, RDF/XML, ...
  • Need clear statement of requirements for metadata providers to serialize to one or another of the serializations spec'd above
  • Need assistance to metadata providers to establishing their own multimedia repositories
  • Metadata providers need assistance in ingesting metadata from their repository contributors.
  • Metadata providers need assistance in how to assist their contributors in the ingestion process.
  • Metadata providers need assistance in responding to resource service requests based on queries containing metadata.
  • Document relation between images mentioned in DwC and those mentioned in MRTG, including best practices when organization can do both; which if not both will you do?

• • GBIF needs to develop documents and training about how metadata and resource acquisition assist in important use cases:
    • applications needing occurrence records
    • identification tools
    • education
    •  ???

Need picture of architecture and how it fits with current GBIF data flow architectures.

Contributor-->Content Provider-->MRTG Metadata Provider--(via MRTGIinterface-->MRTGImpl (Implementation, e.g. Mediawiki, AJAX, TAPIR Output Model, IPT )

MRTG recommends that these be set in the context of the following data flow architecture:

What are obstructions to implementing

IPT slide here Had some presentation about IPT. They need to be early reviewers of schema.

Get Remsen ecat schema as model

Scenario: Currently have a big image library that I can serve with DwC metadata via IPT. If I later want to serve with MRTG data, what will I have to do? Is there a tool for automating conversion/mapping to MRTG?

Is there an IPT slide with end-to-end dataflow illustrated, perhaps with a real example, e.g. niche modeling or distribution maps.

Usefulness of past few days(Annette):

• Roles and implication for GBIF Participants in mobilising MM data, especially evaluation of trade-offs in terms of
  • advancing knowledge (what specific areas of biodiversity science and questions would be advanced by the multimedia repositories and how important are these relative to other priorities),

See MRTG Scenarios for realistic scenarios of how MRTG can be used.

and

• • analysis of the capacity of the biodiversity community (especially GBIF Participants) in mobilising Multimedia Resources.

Integration of authority services (names, localities, languages, countries, habitats, gazetteers, ) into MM resources management tools to improve the quality of MM data,

• Have addressed some authority by use of namespaces, e.g. authorities for terminology, bcd: (Bob: but this is not an authority for data).
  • ISO639-2, -3 for language code
  • Should say for georeferencing biogeomancer?
  • Country names: ISO country names
  • For some terminology: Biocomplexity Thesaurus or other namespaces

• Most(?) but free text fields, and some of those, require or recommend specific controlled vocabularies.

Reviews of MRTG need to ask what such authority services have been (a)ignored; (b)impeded; (c)supported by MRTG.

Separately, what if anything, does MRTG to do support provenance and does GBIF or other MRTG users care? Should committee take a position that GBIF should care. Does it raise barriers?

• Inventory of products, tools, standards and processes used for annotation, quality enhancement, and management of biodiversity-related MM artifacts.

• • Vishas: this includes: Committee could give advice about what is needed and what is known. The [Tools] page tells some of those from orginal [ http:blahblah GBIF MRTG WIKI]] and additional contributions focused on tools that seem to be adaptable to managing and serving MRTG data.

• Outline requirements of a training manual for MM data mobilisation. (What should the training manual contain, and what should be its target audience?)

• • See MRTG Training Materials Requirements which has titles (and outlines) of the putative training manuals. Also contains links to other peoples image management community manuals.

MRTG February 2009 Meeting Participant Feedback

MRTG February 2009 Meeting Participant Committments