[Geopackage] Historical question on metadata

Barry O'Rourke barry at compusult.net
Sun Jun 3 14:09:33 EDT 2018


Hello Paul, Jeff,

We have also been investigating techniques for generating and utilizing 
GeoPackage metadata. Our first workflow provides a user with the ability 
to create an ISO 19115 metadata document that describes the GeoPackage 
overall. The user can then publish this ISO 19115 metadata document into 
a service registry and provide other users with the ability to discover 
GeoPackages of interest using a catalog search and determine suitability 
of use.

We are also storing this metadata as an XML document in a relational 
table within the GeoPackage itself.

Paul, we are very interested in investigating how you are using ISO 
19115 to describe "data" within the GeoPackage. Do you have a sample 
GeoPackage we could work with?

How are we planning to document these approaches and make them available 
for discussion?

Thanks,

Barry


On 4/20/2018 6:52 PM, Jeff Yutzler via Geopackage wrote:
> OK, I get it now. I haven't actually seen an example of many-to-many 
> metadata in the wild so I didn't know that was possible.
> -Jeff
>
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:51 PM, Paul Daisey via Geopackage 
> <geopackage at lists.opengeospatial.org 
> <mailto:geopackage at lists.opengeospatial.org>> wrote:
>
>     All:
>
>         Pepijn has it right; the GeoPackage v1.0 metadata model had
>     two tables following a common relational database design for
>     implementing many to many relationships, which were needed to
>     implement the hierarchical metadata model defined in ISO 19115. 
>     One metadata record can apply to many data items (tables / rows /
>     columns or any subset thereof), and one data item can be described
>     by many metadata records (e.g. from different sources).
>
>         Cheers,
>
>     Paul Daisey
>
>
>     On 4/20/2018 3:19 PM, Pepijn Van Eeckhoudt via Geopackage wrote:
>>     Hi Jeff,
>>
>>     Which tables do you mean exactly? gpkg_metadata and
>>     gpkg_metadata_reference?
>>
>>     One stores the metadata itself; the other is the association
>>     relationship between the metadata and the data it describes.
>>     Splitting the two allows reuse of metadata for multiple tables.
>>
>>     If I remember correctly, Paul Daisy did most of the work on
>>     metadata so he might be able to give you a better answer.
>>
>>     Pepijn
>>
>>>     On 20 Apr 2018, at 21:10, Jeff Yutzler via Geopackage
>>>     <geopackage at lists.opengeospatial.org
>>>     <mailto:geopackage at lists.opengeospatial.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     Hello list.
>>>     Does anyone out there remember why we have two separate metadata
>>>     tables as part of the Metadata Extension (this was originally
>>>     part of core)? I am trying to produce guidance for this
>>>     extension and as far as I can tell, there is a 1:1 mapping
>>>     between the two tables. Am I missing something?
>>>     -Jeff
>>>
>>>     -- 
>>>     Jeff Yutzler
>>>     Image Matters LLC <http://www.imagemattersllc.com/>
>>>     Mobile: (703) 981-8753
>>
>
>     -- 
>     Paul Daisey 301-651-7148
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Jeff Yutzler
> Image Matters LLC <http://www.imagemattersllc.com/>
> Mobile: (703) 981-8753

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/geopackage/attachments/20180603/b17fe0b4/attachment.html>


More information about the Geopackage mailing list