Metacat

This is a request from Mark Stromberg (stromberg@berkeley.edu):

Here is a list of things to change for making it more general and include best
practices. This both includes a report on a lot of the discussion and a guide
for someone actually changing the HTML code in the Guide and on the web form.
This is aimed at the web form for ESA. So, the changes should be first
implemented in the current LTSS page. Then we can migrate to NRS pages, etc.? I
think if you did the LTSS page, NRS and OBFS could do their own editing (Me,
Marsh, Kevin Brown)

Overview and Introduction
We should put something like this in both the Guide and webform:

What is the Registry?
A way to discover data, or more clearly, the person with a data set. Any links
provided to real data sets are only potential links, as there is no data archive
(yet). So, much of the data registry is focused on letting a user track down
individuals who either authored some ecological data, or know where to find it.
When an ecological data archive with contributed data sets exists, the registry
can provide links to the actual data. For now, the registry is a means to find data.

Revise the format to reflect usability. Consult with Laura Downey.
Shade each section
Include boxes with examples: Good Examples .vs. Bad Examples
Have suggestions under "Bad Examples" and suggestions on "Good Examples"
Then, by each section: match the field names in the web form to the field names
in the Guide. Need a complete check of Guide to exactly match the web form.

Basic Information
Station Name (in Guide): change to Organization Name (webform): For ESA, no pull
down, but Organization. Need examples:

User friendly format change
Good: National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis
University of Michigan Biological Station
Duke University FACE Facility

Bad: University of California Santa Barbara
Michigan Station
Duke University

Data Set Title
User friendly format change
Your examples, good and bad are fine; split in boxes. Continue to use the
related pairs; a good example and a bad example from each.

Data Set Originator (Guide) .vs. Principal Data Set Owner
User friendly format change.
"Originator Role" only on Guide. ..not in web form. We should explain in the
Guide, and maybe on the web form that the "Originator" is traditionally what
ecologists consider to be the "author". Additional Originators are comparable to
"co-authors"
Check for typos; "not required of you provide" in Guide.

Additional Originators (in Guide) yet "Associated Parties" on web form
User friendly format change
Maybe show two lines so you immediately know more than one can be there.
Add some description of what each role. I like the reduced number of roles, but
could add a user-defined role? Or add 1 or 2 more of the roles in the full
Morpho set?
Here, we might allow people to have more than one role assigned to each
additional originator. Also allow a field that can be filled in with "Different
From Above".
"Originator" is confusing..is it the same as PI?
"Metadata provider" is confusing; this is the person filling out the form?
Add "Data Poacher"....(Reichman).

I think the consensus was that we need a section called Attribution that lists
those who receive credit for the data's existence. We might want to use names we
already know like Authors, Co-authors? We need to talk more about this. Or,
maybe the clarification in the first field might eliminate a need for "Attribution".

Data Set Abstract
User friendly format change
Good Example (ok in guide) but need a bad example.

Keyword Information
User friendly format change
Looks good; matches

Temporal Coverage of Data
User friendly format change
Looks good, matches

Spatial Coverage of Data
Remove the "Use Station Coordinates"
Maybe install a place name look up for coordinates...see COREO site that uses
the place name (address, street name, etc.) that generates the Latitude and
Longitude. If so, put the address before this...
Rest looks ok..

Taxonomic Coverage of Data
User friendly format change.
Three fields, each needs instruction (Taxon Rank, Taxon Name, Taxonomic Authority)
Here, we need to add some language that is explanatory. We suggest:
There are two fields that will allow people to find the level of taxonomic
resolution associated with the data being described. You could include a list of
species, with "species" in Taxon Rank, and the name "Ursos arctos" in the Taxon
Name. Or, if the data set does not include information based on specimens
identified down to the species level, then "Genera" and "Ursos" If the data only
include determinations to a higher taxonomic concept, say "Tribes" and
"Oryzeae". etc.

Taxonomic Authority: Consensus was that we want the resource one used to
identify the taxon or associate a taxonomic concept. For instance, the reference
citation for the field guide, key, or nomenclature revision.
Suggest that people check in with Glasgow Name Serve or ITIS
(www.itis.usda.gove) before they enter their taxa names to avoid mis-spelling.
Provide links near data entry field, or put link in guide.

Methods
User friendly format change.
"Add Paragraph"- what does this do?; why not just keep writing in the box?

Data Set Contact
User friendly format change.
Again, is there some way we can ask people for a geographic name of where the
data were taken and let it generate the Lat and Long? If so, maybe this could be
moved up? But, then, we are asking different questions. This is about
discovering where to find a person. So, it is fine as it is.

Distribution Information
User friendly format change.
Dataset Name or Identifier: Give some examples of data identifiers, good and
bad. Reference to "filename and path" in Guide is jargon and they are so
ephemeral anyway, don't mention them. Delete reference to "station"; replace
with organization. Give some good and bad examples of dataset names, maybe from
LTER dataset names.

Data medium; give examples; paper, digital files, video tapes, etc.
Clearly point out that if any URL provided should be as permanent as possible
and that no guarantee that the data may be there in the future, as local
computers and servers change names rapidly.

Additional Information/Remarks (Guide) and Additional Information (web form);
suggest user describe the data format; Excel, Access, FoxPro, DBase, or any of a
large universe of data formats.

Submit Dataset
User friendly format change.
Very confusing. The web form says....
NOTE: You must submit your data in order for these to be entered in the Data
Registry! This phrase suggests that the actual data must be submitted somewhere.
Just delete the phrase?
Make the "Submit" button clearer. The button should say "Submit Metadata
Described Above", or something to that effect. The Reset button is dangerous.