convert FGDC-STD-001-1998 into ISO19139 (ISO19115-1)

[rshewitt]

User Story

In order to continue supporting the harvesting of FGDC-STD-001-1998 documents, datagov wants to convert FGDC-STD-001-1998 documents into ISO19139 (ISO19115-1)

Acceptance Criteria

[ACs should be clearly demoable/verifiable whenever possible. Try specifying them using BDD.]

• GIVEN a FGDC-STD-001-1998 doc
  WHEN a transformation happens
  THEN a ISO19139 (ISO19115-1) document is produced

Background

• we harvest FGDC-STD-001-1998 documents into catalog.
• ISO19115-1 is a metadata schema. ISO19139 is the xml-implementation of that schema.
• mdtranslator supports reading FGDC-STD-001.1-1999 documents . 1998 docs will fail validation using this reader. For example, this doc produced the following warnings:
  • WARNING: FGDC reader: BIO geographic description is missing
  • WARNING: FGDC reader: BIO lineage methodology section is missing
• ^ These warnings are unique to 1999. look up "descgeog" in that doc. that's the required element that's missing in the above doc leading to the first warning. here's where that warning is produced in mdtranslator
• we already transform FGDC-STD-001-1998 into ISO19139

[Any helpful contextual notes or links to artifacts/evidence, if needed]

Security Considerations (required)

[Any security concerns that might be implicated in the change. "None" is OK, just be explicit here!]

Sketch

• use this xslt doc in this processor from this python lib convert FGDC-STD-001-1998 into ISO19139 as a preprocessing step before mdtranslation.
• make sure to register namespaces before reading to avoid placeholder namespace names ( e.g. "ns1", "ns2", "ns3" ) in the output

[jbrown-xentity]

This was a good start of the harvest sources we'll need to talk to the data providers about: #5036 (comment)

You can clearly see the metadata uses the wrong version. see screenshot below. Reaching out to the data providers to mitigate not having to actually pick up this work is more likely the approach.

[btylerburton]

Reaching out to the data providers to mitigate not having to actually pick up this work is more likely the approach.

@hkdctol @tdlowden: let's confer after Monday's regroup. I'm in agreement with James that our first step might be to email data providers.