| 73 | | A lot of resources in the !GeoNetwork space have been devoted to managing ISO19115 metadata records, ISO19115 metadata objects and relationships between objects and records. In many ways, exploring RDF is an attempt to achieve the same outcome means that metadata records would be broken down into small facts that can be used and reused in any metadata record (not just an ISO metadata record) - history shows that no single metadata standard has ever gained ascendancy over all domains eg. Taxon Concept Schema and Darwin Core are popular for biological data, Dublin Core remains popular for (which?) some applications, SDMX is used for statistical metadata and so on - using a generic fact representation seems to be a more worthwhile and sustainable approach |
| | 73 | !GeoNetwork is good at: |
| | 74 | * managing ISO19115 metadata records, ISO19115 metadata objects and relationships between objects and records |
| | 75 | * mapping meanings between different standards to a generic set of fields for searching |
| | 76 | |
| | 77 | In many ways, this is replicating what can be done with RDF, however: |
| | 78 | * it is somewhat limited to the ISO metadata standard and no single metadata standard has ever gained ascendancy over all domains eg. Taxon Concept Schema and Darwin Core are popular for biological data, Dublin Core remains popular for (which?) some applications, SDMX is used for statistical metadata and so on |
| | 79 | * RDF is a generic approach to handling knowledge and it is specifically intended to support mappings between knowledge in different domains (eg. mappings between concepts in different metadata standards from different domains) |
