Hi Kathy, thanx for sharing your experience with categories. Your list
of categories is quite divers, it has thematic concepts like
beaches/climatology and hierarchylevel (class)-like items like models.
Can I ask you what are you using the categories for? I guess you know
these categories are not available in your metadata, so you probably add similar concepts in your metadata as hierarchylevel, keyword or
topiccategory?
Doesn't it feel redundant to you to have two places to manage similar
concepts? And wouldn't you be able to use the metadata-information
itself to get a similar result as you have now with categories? I'm just wondering how people use categories.
Personally I do see a usage of having codelists like "categories" in
geonetwork. That is if we would map geonetwork-codelist-values to
schema-specific codelists. It will enable us to set categories
automatically from metadata content and suggest things like keywords and topic categories while users are editing the metadata and allow to
suggest related content when users are browsing the catalogue.
Hope to hear from you, bye Paul.
Kathy Koch schreef op 13-2-2015 om 21:57:
The generic categories were not useful for us, so we added totally different ones specific to our usage requirements (e.g. beaches, climatology, models, etc.).
I did like having the default set and being able to modify or get rid of what I needed and the process was relatively simple as it is.
I suppose if you want to keep things more generic, keep the base categories you have but just make it a bulleted list instead of worrying about icons (although I did have a fun few moments dreaming up icons that fit my categories). And yes, good instructions for how to make changes.
Kathy