The WISER metadatabase: the key to more than 100 ecological datasets from European rivers, lakes and coastal waters
In ecological sciences, the role of metadata (i.e. key information about a dataset) to make existing datasets visible and discoverable has become increasingly important. Within the EU-funded WISER project (Water bodies in Europe: Integrative Systems to assess Ecological status and Recovery), we designed a metadatabase to allow scientists to find the optimal data for their analyses. An online questionnaire helped to collect metadata from the data providers and an online query tool (http://www.wiser.eu/results/meta-database/) facilitated data evaluation. The WISER metadatabase currently holds information on 114 datasets (22 river, 71 lake, 1 general freshwater and 20 coastal/transitional datasets), which also can be accessed by external scientists. We evaluate if generally used metadata standards (e.g. Darwin Core, ISO 19115, CSDGM, EML) are suitable for such specific purposes as WISER and suggest at least the linkage with standard metadata fields. Furthermore, we discuss whether the simple metadata documentation is enough for others to reuse a dataset and why there is still reluctance to publish both metadata and primary research data (i.e. time and financial constraints, misuse of data, abandoning intellectual property rights). We emphasise that metadata publication has major advantages as it makes datasets detectable by other scientists and generally makes a scientist’s work more visible.
KeywordsAquatic metadata Ecological databases Online query tool Data accessibility Intellectual property rights Water Framework Directive
We want to thank Jan Karud and Roar Brænden for their help with the initial development of the metadatabase. Furthermore, we are grateful to all WISER partners for contributing metadata. Thanks to Daniel Hering for coordinating the project and for valuable help during the metadatabase development and manuscript writing. We further want to thank Aaike De Wever for fruitful discussions and two anonymous reviewers for their comments. The WISER project was funded by the European Union under the 7th Framework Programme, Theme 6 (Environment including Climate Change), Contract No. 226273.
- Borja, A., M. Elliott, P. Hernriksen & N. Marbà, 2012. Transitional and coastal waters ecological status assessment: advances and challenges resulting from implementing the European Water Framework Directive. Hydrobiologia. doi: 10.1007/s10750-012-1276-9.
- De Wever, A., A. Schmidt-Kloiber, M. O. Gessner & K. Tockner, 2012. Freshwater journals unite to boost primary biodiversity data publication. BioScience 62(6): 529–530.Google Scholar
- Dudley, B., S. J. Moe, A. Schmidt-Kloiber & L. Carvalho, 2012. Extraction of data from WISER databases. Poster Presentation at the WISER Final Conference, Tallinn, Estonia, 25–26 Jan 2012. Book of Abstracts. ISBN 978-9949-484-19-5.Google Scholar
- Fegraus, E. H., S. Andelman, M. B. Jones & M. Schildhauer, 2005. Maximizing the value of ecological data with structured metadata: an introduction to Ecological Metadata Language (EML) and principles for metadata creation. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 86(3): 158–168.Google Scholar
- Hering, D., A. Borja, L. Carvalho & C. K. Feld, 2012. Assessment and recovery of European water bodies: key messages from the WISER project. Hydrobiologia, this issue.Google Scholar
- Hey, T. & A. Trefethen, 2003a. The data deluge: an e-science perspective. In Berman, F., G. Fox & A. J. G. Hey (eds), Grid computing: making the global infrastructure a reality. Wiley, Chichester: 809–824.Google Scholar
- Kirchner, T., H. Chinn, D. Henshaw & J. Porter, 1995. Documentation standards for data exchange. In Ingersoll, R. & J. Brunt (eds), Proceedings of the 1994 LTER Data Management Workshop. Long-Term Ecological Research Network Office, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA: 5–8.Google Scholar
- Michener, W. K., R. J. Feller & D. G. Edwards, 1987. Development, management, and analysis of a long-term ecological research information base: example for marine macrobenthos. In Boyle, T. P. (ed.), New Approaches to Monitoring Aquatic Ecosystems. ASTM STP, Vol. 940. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia: 173–188.Google Scholar
- Moe, S. J., B. J. Dudley, A. Schmidt-Kloiber & D. Hering, 2012. The WISER way of organising ecological data from European rivers, lakes and transitional and coastal waters. Hydrobiologia, this issue.Google Scholar
- Penev, L., D. Mietchen, V. Chavan, G. Hagedorn, D. Remsen, V. Smith & D. Shotton, 2011. Pensoft Data Publishing Policies and Guidelines for Biodiversity Data. Pensoft Publishers [available on internet at http://www.pensoft.net/J_FILES/Pensoft_Data_Publishing_Policies_and_Guidelines.pdf]. Accessed 18 Nov 2011.
- Shorish, Y., 2010. The Challenges to Data Sharing in the Sciences: Implications for Data Curation. Term paper, Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign [available on internet at http://people.lis.illinois.edu/~shorish1/courses.html] (accessed 05 Dec 2011).
- Vandepitte, L., F. Hernandez, S. Claus, B. Vanhoorne, N. De Hauwere, K. Deneudt, W. Appeltans & J. Mees, 2011. Analysing the content of the European Ocean Biogeographic Information System (EurOBIS): available data, limitations, prospects and a look at the future. Hydrobiologia 667: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Verdonschot, P. F., B. Spears, C. K. Feld, S. Brucet, H. Keizer-Vlek, I. Gunn, L. May, S. Meis, A. Borja, M. Elliott, M. Kernan & R. K. Johnson, 2012. A comparative review of recovery processes in rivers, lakes, estuarine and coastal waters. Hydrobiologia. doi: 10.1007/s10750-012-1294-7.
- Wayne, L., 2005. Institutionalize metadata before it institutionalizes you. Federal Geographic Data Committee [available on internet at www.fgdc.gov/metadata/metadata-publications-list] (accessed 06 Feb 2012).