Nongeospatial metadata for the ecological sciences
Nongeospatial metadata for the ecological sciences
复制标题
DOI：
10.2307/2269427
复制
发表时间：
1997-02-01
影响因子：
5
通讯作者：
Stafford, SG
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Michener, WK;Brunt, JW;Stafford, SG
与数据保存和共享有关的问题正受到科学协会、资助机构和广大科学界越来越多的关注。例如，生态学家越来越多地使用其他科学家收集的数据来解决更广泛的空间、时间和主题尺度上的问题(例如，全球变化、生物多样性、可持续性)。没有一个数据集是完美和不言而喻的。因此，生态学家必须依靠一套指令或文档来获取特定的数据集，确定其是否适合于满足特定的研究目标，并准确地解释后续处理、分析和建模的结果。“元数据”代表描述数据集的内容、背景、质量、结构和可获得性的指令或文档集。虽然地理科学界已经制定并广泛认可了地理空间元数据标准，但生态科学还没有这样的标准。在这篇文章中，我们研究了与开发和实施非地理空间生态数据的元数据相关的潜在收益和成本。我们提出了一组通用的元数据描述符，可以作为非地理空间生态数据的“元数据标准”的基础。提出了满足不同组织或调查员特定目标的元数据实施的替代策略。最后，我们对生态元数据的未来发展和实施提出了几点建议。
Issues related to data preservation and sharing are receiving increased attention from scientific societies, funding agencies, and the broad scientific community. Ecologists, for example, are increasingly using data collected by other scientists to address questions at broader spatial, temporal, and thematic scales (e.g., global change, biodiversity, sustainability). No data set is perfect and self-explanatory. Ecologists must, therefore, rely upon a set of instructions or documentation to acquire a specific data set, determine its suitability for meeting specific research objectives, and accurately interpret results from subsequent processing, analysis, and modeling.''Metadata'' represent the set of instructions or documentation that describe the content, context, quality, structure, and accessibility of a data set. Although geospatial metadata standards have been developed and widely endorsed by the geographical science community, such standards do not yet exist for the ecological sciences. In this paper, we examine potential benefits and costs associated with developing and implementing metadata for nongeospatial ecological data. We present a set of generic metadata descriptors that could serve as the basis for a ''metadata standard'' for nongeospatial ecological data. Alternative strategies for metadata implementation that meet differing organizational or investigator-specific objectives are presented. Finally, we conclude with several recommendations related to future development and implementation of ecological metadata.