metadata

We have started to put some of our IGIBS data into GeoDoc. We will have a couple of datasets showing land use change particularly for forestry for the whole of the Dyfi catchment . There is also some more detailed data from vegetation surveys looking at a series of plots from the different habitat types found in the Dyfi Biosphere. More data will be prioritised for inclusion into IGIBS as we refine the potential uses for the project. I spent a few hours helping with some of the survey on Borth bog so that I will be able to complete the metadata records with an understanding of the process involved in its collection.

It has become very apparent that for many of the geospatial datasets then it is the creator of the data that is best placed (or possibly the only one able) to complete the metadata records. So thanks to Jonathan Brownett who is now starting to complete what will might just be the first INSPIER compliant metadata record for the project (may even be the first for the University).

The process really brings two issues to the fore. Firstly that when the metadata record is complete and published the data can really take on a life of their own with the possibility of access by anybody who cares to search for them. Almost makes the evangelist in me want to start the Data Liberation Army, but I think that the DLA acronym has been taken. Second is that there could be an immense amount of work needed in the preparation for the INSPIER Directive. If every dataset looked at by IGIBS needed metadata creation then there is probably a year’s worth of work for one meticulous individual or several days’ work for many tens academic and post graduate staff. Either way the importance of metadata creation at the point of data creation must be a consideration for future datasets.

I think it will be, shall we say, interesting to see how INSPIRE is applied to universities and to individual researchers as there will simply not be enough resources to complete INSPIRE compliant metadata for every iota of geospatial information held by a university department. If universities are to fall under the INSPIRE regulations then some prioritization of metadata creation and data publication will be needed to give the academic world a fighting chance of meeting at least the spirit if not the letter of the Directive. I can only assume that it might for example be aimed at newly published and publicly funded research from academic staff as then there will be a number of ways to make data available once it is associated with its published article and held in institutional or research council repositories. If, for example, all the data from undergraduate and postgraduate theses and dissertaions need to be made available then it would be an insurmountable hurdle to jump.

It will be important for institutions to realize that while there may be some extra resources needed to meet any new regulations then each metadata record and collection of data that is made public will be a benefit to the wider academic community and to the the community at large. So taking an attitude of “selfish altruism” might be the best way of viewing any future work needed to make geospatial data resources available for more people.

Why is this relevant to IGIBS? I almost hear you say… well there are many reasons but for me the relevance lies in one of the outcomes for the project which is a “best practice model” for a university department’s interaction with the academic SDI. Clearly the INSPIRE regulation could have a very significant impact on that model.

The INSPIRE directive of 2007 seeks to establish a Community wide infrastructure for public spatial data. Relevant to IGIBS is both the likely effect of INSPIRE on HEIs and the degree of preparedness there is in the run up to the deadline for Annex III spatial data requirements in 2013. Annex III data categories are the greatest in number (21 out of 34) and the most HE orientated. They cover a range of environmental subjects such as habitat and species distribution, atmospheric quality etc.

While it is clear that almost every University will hold data that could fit into Annex III, I have found very little firm advice about what HEIs’ obligations are likely to be. My very short and inadequate working summary of the directive is as follows:
To create an infrastructure in which public bodies make their policy forming and task enabling environmental geospatial data findable, available and analysable by the wider community.

So my first question is “will a University be classed as a public body?” Luckily (or so I thought) there is some firm advice from DEFRA on this. In their Guide to INSPIRE regulations 2009 they helpfully point to the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) as a guide to defining a public body. Now in the EIR blurb they helpfully point to the Freedom of Information definitions of a public body. Finally I tracked down a list and confirmed that Universities are likely to be a public body. Which, after some well publicised FoI requests about climate change, we all knew anyway! This Chinese whispered chain of advice leaves me wondering if the definition of a public body is quite as sewn up as I thought. Is it possible that for the purposes of INSPIRE HEIs won’t be classed in this way? Well the usual side step is used by me (and by DEFRA in their guide above) in that it is only the courts that make a final ruling.

Therefore, it is possible or even possibly likely that HEIs are public bodies for the purposes of INSPIRE. So which data might they need to make available? I think INSPIRE regulations will be designed to only include data that are part of a body’s major role. So Natural England will need to make their data on species distribution accessible to the public and to other bodies. Whereas they (probably) won’t have to make their data on the locations of staff development sessions available; as it isn’t part of their main role as a conservation organisation.

This leaves me wondering what the public role of a University is. Well as I am sitting in one writing this it should be a simple question to answer. A few conversations over coffee later and there is clearly no consensus on the complete role, so my summary of suggestions will have to be….. “a mix of education, research and other less easily defined contributions to society and the economy”. Ultimately the decision about HEIs’ obligations may again be made by the courts. If I were to guess then if geospatial data is used for research or teaching then it is contributing to one of the major roles of a HEI and so could come under INSPIRE.

So after half a day’s work I am still looking for firm advice on what HEIs should be preparing for in the next couple of years. Now I am sure that somewhere there are discussions going on between more astute and better informed people than myself. What I am unrealistically hoping for is a publication from DERFA in the next couple of months that will give firm guidance to lowly short contract researchers like me, oh and Vice Chancellors. So I can finalise a report and they can direct preparations for INSPIRE which might include extending a few peoples’ contracts.

The best guess I can make about “ best practice” would involve HEIs welcoming INSPIRE, as the development of the national SDI can only help in research and teaching and in adding value to the academic SDI. In terms of actions that should be taken, then it’s more difficult to be so certain. A minimum response to current INSPIRE regulations should involve cataloguing and metadata creation for all those poor and unfortunate orphaned geospatial datasets currently in the workhouse or on the streets, as this is not only preparation for INSPIRE but also part of best practice. As for any other actions well that is above my pay grade.

Map Library becomes digital……

Metadata Are Go!

INSPIRE and Higher Education Institutes (HEIs)

Geospatial Metadata & Spatial Data Workshop