2 Features

The architecture of EML was designed to serve the needs of the research community, and has benefitted from previous work in other related metadata languages. EML has adopted the strengths of many of these languages, but also addresses a number of shortcomings that have inhibited the automated processing and integration of dataset resources via their metadata.

The following list represents some of the features of EML:

  • Modularity: EML was designed as a collection of modules rather than one large standard to facilitate future growth of the language in both breadth and depth. By implementing EML with an extensible architecture, groups may choose which of the core modules are pertinent to describing their data, literature, and software resources. Also, if EML falls short in a particular area, it may be extended by creating a new module that describes the resource (e.g. a detailed soils metadata profile that extends eml-dataset). The intent is to provide a common set of core modules for information exchange, but to allow for future customizations of the language without the need of going through a lengthy approval process.

  • Detailed Structure: EML strives to balance the tradeoff of too much detail with enough detail to enable advanced services in terms of processing data through the parsing of accompanied metadata. Therefore, a driving question throughout the design was: ‘Will this particular piece of information be machine-processed, just human readable, or both?’ Information was then broken down into more highly structured elements when the answer involved machine processing.

  • Compatibility: EML adopts much of it’s syntax from the other metadata standards that have evolved from the expertise of groups in other disciplines. Whenever possible, EML adopted entire trees of information in order to facilitate conversion of EML documents into other metadata languages. EML was designed with the following standards in mind: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative, the Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata (CSDGM from the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC)), the Biological Profile of the CSDGM (from the National Biological Information Infrastructure), the International Standards Organization’s Geographic Information Standard (ISO 19115), the ISO 8601 Date and Time Standard, the OpenGIS Consortiums’s Geography Markup Language (GML), the Scientific, Technical, and Medical Markup Language (STMML), and the Extensible Scientific Interchange Language (XSIL).

  • Strong Typing: EML is implemented in an Extensible Markup Language (XML) known as XML Schema, which is a language that defines the rules that govern the EML syntax. XML Schema is an internet recommendation from the World Wide Web Consortium, and so a metadata document complies with the syntax of EML will structurally meet the criteria defined in the XML Schema documents for EML. Over and above the structure (what elements can be nested within others, cardinality, etc.), XML Schema provides the ability to use strong data typing within elements. This allows for finer validation of the contents of the element, not just it’s structure. For instance, an element may be of type ‘date’, and so the value that is inserted in the field will be checked against XML Schema’s definition of a date. Traditionally, XML documents (including previous versions of EML) have been validated against Document Type Definitions (DTDs), which do not provide a means to employ strong validation on field values through typing.

  • There is a distinction between the content model (i.e. the concepts behind the structure of a document - which fields go where, cardinality, etc.) and the syntactic implementation of that model (the technology used to express the concepts defined in the content model). The normative sections below define the content model and the XML Schema documents distributed with EML define the syntactic implementation. For the foreseeable future, XML Schema will be the syntactic specification, although it is reasonable to create other syntactic representations of the vocabularly, such as in JSON-LD or RDF.