Metadata Dialects

Metadata content can be approached in a variety of “dialects,” depending on the needs of specific user communities. Though different, these languages also significantly overlap – as the “who, where, when, why, and how” must always be addressed, regardless of the community approach. Thus, in reality, these differences in approach are more akin to dialects of a universal documentation language than multiple, disparate languages. As such, for the purposes of this work, the term “metadata dialect” will refer to standardized metadata documentation approaches, in order to promote emphasis on universal documentation concepts as opposed to implementation of individual standards. The following are some of the most common dialects used throughout the ESIP community.

Note: While they are discussed independently, a dialect can use aspects of other dialects within its own — if the two dialects have the same/similar structure or the same file format.

• ADIwg (Alaska Data Integration Working Group)
• CSDGM (FGDC Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata)
• DCAT (Data Catalog Vocabulary)
• Dcite (DataCite 3.1)
• DIF (Directory Interchange Format)
• Dryad
• ECHO (EARTH OBSERVING SYSTEM (EOS) CLEARINGHOUSE)
• ECS (EOSDIS Core System)
• EML (Ecological Metadata Language)
• HCLS (Dataset Descriptions: HCLS Community Profile)
• HDF EOS5 (Hierarchical Data Format Earth Observing System 5)
• ISO
• ISO -1
• netCDF (Network Common Data Format) Conventions
• SERF (Service Entry Resource Format)
• SOS (Sensor Observation Service)
• THREDDS (Thematic Realtime Environmental Distributed Data Services)
• WSDL (Web Service Description Language)

Let's Start at the Beginning