GeoNetwork Community of Practice - Josh Vote (CSIRO)
GeoNetwork Community of Practice
Use Case – AuScope
Josh Vote| Software Developer
3 April 2017
2007 –AuScope Grid + SISS
• Need for standardisation on data formatting, content and tools
Use Case ‐ AuScope | Josh Vote2 |
• OGC Web Services
• Point of truth at the data
• Minimal human intervention
• Machine –> Machine is king!
• Metadata backed by a standard
• Machine (and Human) readable
• Open source and extensible
• Active development community
• No “one registry to rule them all”
• Can we turn a search term like “Gold” into something that also covers Au/Mineral 79
Use Case ‐ AuScope | Josh Vote3 |
• Everything else didn’t meet our requirements
• 2008 – GI‐Cat, metaCat, GeoPortal, EB‐XML, Muradora
• Limited machine readability
• 2013 – CKAN
• incomplete CSW support
• Issues with manual records not appearing in CSW
• Problems with spatial data
Use Case ‐ AuScope | Josh Vote4 |
How did it all go?
• Still in use today
• SISS 3.1 (2015) currently references GN v2.10.4
• SISS web services + registries still in active use
• All of our virtual labs/discovery portals still use Geonetwork
• And SISS too
Use Case ‐ AuScope | Josh Vote5 |
How did it all go?
• Supports both “Registry Searching” and “All available records”
style user experiences
Use Case ‐ AuScope | Josh Vote6 |
GeoNetwork – The Good
• Harvesting OGC Web Services
• All relevant metadata is responsibility of data providers
• No metadata versioning issues.
• Registry of registries
• Good performance for small‐medium size registries
• Simple GUI for general purpose metadata visualisation
• Easy enough to administer
• LDAP integration
• Migration tools
• Public/Private groups and records
Use Case ‐ AuScope | Josh Vote7 |
GeoNetwork – Pain Points
• Manual or Harvested records.
• No way to merge changes
• High level metadata statistics
• eg – Enumerating keywords (more than just top 10)
• Performance at scale 50k+ records
• Caveat ‐ this hasn’t been tested in awhile
• User interface
Use Case ‐ AuScope | Josh Vote8 |
What hurt (but isn’t entirely GeoNetwork’s fault)
• Linking data services automatically
• eg ‐ WFS + WMS from the same data
• Limitation of OGC webservices (work in pipeline to address this)
• Limited Searching
• OGC CSW is rather limited.
• “anytext”, “keywords”, “bounds”, “dates”
• Complex metadata standard – simple queries
Use Case ‐ AuScope | Josh Vote9 |
GeoNetwork – The Unclear
• The role of registries/ISO 19115 with data services
• How best to represent data services?
• Do we just run with the harvested record format?
– This is what AuScope currently does
– We run into trouble when talking to registries that do things differently
• Do we record at the data service level or data product level?
• Data service typing?
• What about non standard dataservices?
• How do we preserve machine‐machine discovery of data services?
Use Case ‐ AuScope | Josh Vote10 |
Where to from here?
• Consensus on data service representation in GeoNetwork
• Commitment on Machine – Machine usage of GeoNetwork
• Consistency in format
• Descriptive types
• An emphasis on discovery / searching
• Getting “Gravity” data/services from a registry shouldn’t be hard
Use Case ‐ AuScope | Josh Vote11 |
t +61 8 6436 8607