mmd:location

[steingod]

Decide if continued or to be removed. If continued check information for sub element location_reference and how that should be reformulated.

[steingod]

@ferrighi and @mortenwh , I assume to remove, I think geographic location is better, unless there are specific needs in e.g. S-ENDA?

[mortenwh]

I'll add this as a task suggestion for the sprint. It seems to be ok but it would be nice to integrate this in the sprint workflow.

[ferrighi]

I am not sure how much this is used, but I would not mind keeping it from a semantic prospective, as a text description of location.

[steingod]

I have no objection keeping it but preferably then extending slightly to get a proper semantic context framework around it. This links directly to similar discussions in the context of SeaDataNet and CODATA.

[mortenwh]

What is the status here?

[steingod]

I am not sure we reached an conclusion here. I think if we keep, we need to link with resources that have good descriptions/definitions of names used. E.g. when referring to the North Sea, what does that actually mean...

[ferrighi]

Considering we have added in the Keywords controlled vocabulary the support for GCMDLOC, which uses also the resource https://gcmd.earthdata.nasa.gov/kms/concepts/concept_scheme/locations we could think about removing this element in mmd. Parsing the keyword vocabulary attribute in xslt will allow to expose proper GCMD/dif location in hierarchical way and also use the appropriate thesauri in iso, as done for the GCMD Science Keywords.