Background
EC-OBPSS includes a metadata field for Societal Needs. During the metadata alignment exercise, we also identified two additional, related metadata fields:
- Science and Society
- All OceanObs Societal
These three metadata fields appear to address similar concepts and may overlap with each other as well as with other metadata already proposed or implemented in OBPS.
Current situation
IOC-OBPS: No dedicated metadata field for Societal Needs.
EC-OBPSS: uses the following controlled vocabulary:
- Climate
- Food security
- Maritime Safety
- Ocean Health
- Operational Needs
- Vulnerable Communities
Assessment
During the review, no authoritative source or governance for the Societal Needs vocabulary could be identified.
Introducing multiple metadata fields covering similar concepts could lead to duplication, inconsistent metadata assignment, and uncertainty for contributors.
Questions for the community
- Is there an authoritative source or governance process for the Societal Needs vocabulary?
- What is the intended distinction between:
- Societal Needs
- Science and Society
- All OceanObs Societal
- Do these fields capture unique information that cannot already be represented through existing metadata?
- Would a single metadata field better address these concepts?
Proposed outcome
Current recommendation: Do not introduce Societal Needs as a separate metadata field until its scope, governance, and relationship with the other societal metadata fields have been clearly defined.
This recommendation can be revisited if a community-endorsed vocabulary and clear use cases are identified.
Related Issues
Background
EC-OBPSS includes a metadata field for Societal Needs. During the metadata alignment exercise, we also identified two additional, related metadata fields:
These three metadata fields appear to address similar concepts and may overlap with each other as well as with other metadata already proposed or implemented in OBPS.
Current situation
IOC-OBPS: No dedicated metadata field for Societal Needs.
EC-OBPSS: uses the following controlled vocabulary:
Assessment
During the review, no authoritative source or governance for the Societal Needs vocabulary could be identified.
Introducing multiple metadata fields covering similar concepts could lead to duplication, inconsistent metadata assignment, and uncertainty for contributors.
Questions for the community
Proposed outcome
Current recommendation: Do not introduce Societal Needs as a separate metadata field until its scope, governance, and relationship with the other societal metadata fields have been clearly defined.
This recommendation can be revisited if a community-endorsed vocabulary and clear use cases are identified.
Related Issues