"Seegrid will be due for a migration to confluence on the 1st of August. Any update on or after the 1st of August will NOT be migrated"

Geothermal requirements


Related pages

Purpose of this document

This document describes additional requirements and features for GeoNetwork to aid in the metadata entering process for the Geothermal Centre of Excellence (http://www.geothermal.org.au/).

Requirements on user issues

  1. Implementation of new Metadata Standard Priority: High
    We would like a way to input some more information regarding the data. Right now there is no box that fits for us to enter some of our metadata.
    For instance for Altona 2000 Seismic Survey, we would like to have information regarding:

               Datum Elevation above Mean Sea Level = FLOAT 
               Data Sample Start Time = FLOAT
    These information are necessary for the user to work on the data once he downloaded it. They have to appear somewhere.
  2. One good way to do it, maybe to add definitions from another standard so that all the data have a sens in xml. For instance, using some of the definition of GeoSCiml would make sens for the wells. I couln't find a standard for seismic data, but maybe using the definitions of SEGY headers wouldn't be too stupid as this format is the main one used in the industry.

    Assessment: ALERT! Requirement is not generic enough to go into the trunk. -- MichaelStegherr - 2009-11-23

  3. Setting up access restriction on wagcoe.ivec.org machine Priority: Medium

    Some of the data are not supposed to be released to the public. Only the WA Geothermal COE staff should be able to access all data on the wagcoe.ivec.org machine. As most of WAGCOE staff already have login and password for twiki access, it would be convenient if the same login and password could be used.

  4. Assessment: Will be done by iVEC. Assisting with configuration issues. -- MichaelStegherr - 2009-11-23

  5. Minor comments:

    1. Looks like it is possible to add a map in the Geographic bounding box insert, with displayed on it the limit of the object. See here for an example. Not sure it is an implementation versus just clicking on a button, but I couldn't find the button if there is one. Priority: Low
    2. Assessment: DONE This is already being worked on in the trunk. Should be available with the next release. -- MichaelStegherr - 2009-11-23

    3. Couldn't figure out how to use the EPSG codes in the Reference system info insert, EPSG:4939: GDA94 (Geodetic) or EPSG:28350: GDA94 / MGA zone 50, for instance. It is mentioned in the manual but without explanations. It would be really good to be able to use these codes, especially as they are standards, instead of typing the systems as we wish. Priority: High
    4. Assessment: Added "Suggestions" drop down list with a few values for now. Ryan suggests creating generic version that queries the service at http://www.epsg-registry.org/ and offers all codes instead. Submit as a patch to GN-dev-list afterwards. -- MichaelStegherr - 2009-11-23

    5. Just need a clarification regarding the Geographic extent coordinate system. As we input the Reference system of the data, ideally I would think that we need to give the bounding box in the same coordinate system and then GeoNetwork convert to WGS84. I couldn't find a confirmation in the manual, so right now I put the bounding box coordinates in WGS84 instead of AGD66 or AGD84 for instance. Could you clarifiy that? Priority: Low
    6. Assessment: ALERT! Requirement is not of high priority. Keeping in backlog. -- MichaelStegherr - 2009-11-23

Requirements for search tool (start with those first)

It would be nice if the search tool could be reorganized, as some criteria don't fit our needs.
Here is a picture of how ideally we would like it to be:


  1. Features of What?

    1. Possibility to right click on words to have an explanation on the meaning of the parameter. For instance, right clicking on "What?" would give "Search a set of words in the entire metadata parameters", Priority: Low
    2. Assessment: Change labels to more meaningful ones instead. -- MichaelStegherr - 2009-11-23

    3. The scroll down boxes should all be content dependent. If the content of "Category" is modified then the content of "Keywords" has to be updated and if the content of "Keywords" is modified then the content of "Measure" has to be updated, Priority: High
    4. Assessment: Need to know the dependencies! Which keywords should be displayed for which category? -- MichaelStegherr - 2009-11-06

      Write proposal first. If it gets accepted, commence implementation. -- MichaelStegherr - 2009-11-23

    5. The two new search criteria "Measure" and "Data type" refer to Data Quality info / Data quality / Report / Name of Measure and Distribution info / Distribution format / Version. (Maybe Distribution info / Distribution format / Version is not the best place to put the data type, we can discuss that.) Priority: Medium
    6. Assessment: ALERT! Requirement is not of high priority. Keeping in backlog. -- MichaelStegherr - 2009-11-23

    7. Search by keywords should be improved. Currently all the different level keywords appear at the same time. For instance if you create a first level keyword 'Geophysics' and a second level keyword 'DayLST' depending on the keyword 'Geophysics', both of them appear at the same level in the search box. Right now we enter the keywords as 'Geophysics | DayLST' but it means we cannot search on the 'Geophysics' keyword. It would be nice to have the possibility to search the keywords by level as displayed on the picture below: Priority: High
      Keywords_now.jpg Keywords_improved.jpg
      Current way of searching keywordsImproved way of searching keywords

    8. Assessment: Highest priority. Write proposal first. If it gets accepted, commence implementation. -- MichaelStegherr - 2009-11-23

    9. Not sure yet we can implement different levels in "Measures" parameter, but if so, good to have the same search process then just discussed for "Keywords", Priority: High
    10. Assessment: Depends on implementation of both features above. -- MichaelStegherr - 2009-11-23

    11. I tested the Search accuracy and I will need some clarifications about how it is supposed to work because right now it doesn't do what I would expect. Users don't need to know about the search accuracy, we can just fix it to what is appropriate. Priority: Low
    12. Assessment: DONE Hiding Search accuracy. -- MichaelStegherr - 2009-11-23

  2. Features of Where?

    1. It would be good to have the search map centered on Australia and New-Zealand, as we will likely only deal with data on those two countries. If possible it would be useful to implement an icon on the left side of the map to enable to reset the view to Australia and New-Zealand, just below the current reset view to the world icon,
    2. Also instead of a list of countries to set the view of the map, a list rof Australian terranes would be more useful. We can provide the map and boundaries (several government locations where this can be downloaded). Priority: Low

    Assessment: Port over from BlueNet MEST. -- MichaelStegherr - 2009-11-23

  3. Features of When?

    1. Right now we don't use the Catalog, Group and Kind search, Priority: Medium
    2. Assessment: DONE Hiding those features. -- MichaelStegherr - 2009-11-23

    3. The "Ressource issued" refers to Identification info / Data Identification / Citation / Date and the "Dataset issued" refers to Identification info / Data identification / Extent / Time period. Priority: High
    4. Assessment: DONE Implemented search: https://cgsrv1.arrc.csiro.au/jira/browse/AUS-1425 -- MichaelStegherr - 2009-10-20

Requirements for metadata display

  1. Clear display of Keywords
    The display is a bit less important but if easy to implement then it would be nice to do it. When you input different level keywords, all the keywords appear in the description. See below the example of the keywords 'Geochemistry | Thermo chronology | Thorium', 'Geochemistry | Thermo chronology | Uranium', 'Geochemistry | Thermo chronology | Helium' and 'Geochemistry | Thermo chronology | Samarium':


    It would be really easier for the user to get the keywords if it was managed as shown in the following picture:


  2. Assessment: ALERT! Depends on search tool requirement 1. Requirement is not of high priority. Keeping in backlog. -- MichaelStegherr - 2009-11-23

  3. Possibility to hide the Metadata Insert
    When using the current ISO19139 Metadata Standard the Metadata insert is useless and it would be nice to have the possibility to hide it.
    However if a new Metadata Standard is created then this insert will be used to put its name, version and author.


  4. Assessment: ALERT! Requirement is not generic enough to go into the trunk. -- MichaelStegherr - 2009-11-23

  5. Improvement of Spatial representation info insert
    This insert is not clear and too big in regards of the few information it gives. If possible it would be more user-friendly to reorganize it.

    Assessment: Need more information. -- MichaelStegherr - 2009-11-23

    In the case of Seismic data it would be great to change "Transformation parameter availability'' for "Data georeferenced" and "Check point availability" for "Navigation data availability". Using these descriptions it would be easier for users to understand what it is.

  6. Assessment: Need more information. -- MichaelStegherr - 2009-11-23

  7. Minor comments:
    1. Date as YYYY-MM-DD instead of YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SS,
    2. Assessment: Where does this occur? -- MichaelStegherr - 2009-11-24

    3. Scale of map as 1:50000 instead of writing Denominator 50000.
    4. Assessment: ALERT! This would involve a change of the metadata template, which is out of scope of this project (see first requirement). -- MichaelStegherr - 2009-11-24

Topic revision: r29 - 15 Oct 2010, UnknownUser

Current license: All material on this collaboration platform is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence (CC BY 3.0).