1.1 本标准实践描述了在开发元数据以支持存档数据管理系统时使用的部分和元素的分层大纲。具体地，该标准建立了要在元数据中使用的元数据元素和复合元素的名称、这些元数据元素和复合元素的定义以及关于要为元数据元素提供的值的建议信息和示例。 1.2 使用本标准开发的元数据包括与信息系统或信息对象相关联的定性和定量数据，用于描述、管理、法律要求、技术功能、使用和使用以及保存。因此，它可以与其他元数据区分，因为它描述并提供对有组织的数据集合的解释，而不是单个数据元素。1.3 本标准旨在供开发、管理或维护存档数据管理系统的人员使用。例如，公共机构可以指定该标准用于开发数据档案的元数据框架。数据收集者和数据处理中介也可以使用该标准创建描述原始收集条件和中间处理步骤的元数据。数据收集者和数据处理中介机构对元数据的开发可以极大地协助数据档案管理者对综合元数据的开发。该标准旨在供各级政府和私营部门使用。 1.4 本标准适用于智能交通系统（ITS）采集并存储在存档数据管理系统中的各类运营数据。类似地，该标准还可以用于在存档数据管理系统中收集和存储的其他类型的历史交通和运输数据。 1.5 什麽样的什麽样的什麽什麽什麽什麽什麽样的什麽什麽样的什麽什麽什样什麽样的什麽什样什麽样此外，该标准并不旨在反映或暗示特定的实现设计。实现设计需要调整标准的结构和形式，以满足特定的应用和环境要求。 1.6 本标准采用联邦地理数据委员会（FGDC）现有的数字地理空间元数据内容标准（FGDC-STD-001-1998），作为存档数据管理系统的推荐元数据框架。选择FGDC元数据标准作为框架是因为它的相关性和在空间数据界的声誉。使用FGDC标准的一个好处是可以广泛获得用于创建、验证和管理元数据的信息资源和软件工具(参见http://www.fgdc.gov/metadata/links/metalinks.html)。本标准中提供了注释和几个示例来说明FGDC标准在ITS领域中的使用。该标准的细节可能看起来令人生畏，但附录中的例子说明了该标准在实施时的相对简单性。 1.7 本标准的用户应该注意，元数据标准的几个部分（即， 附件A3和 附件A4 ）地址空间参考文档，这可能不适用于所有数据档案。如果适用，这些空间引用部分被指定为强制性的，这意味着如果不使用空间引用，这些部分不需要元数据。 附件A6 如果适用，分发信息也被指定为强制性的，因此可能不是必需的。 1.8 本国际标准是根据世界贸易组织技术性贸易壁垒委员会发布的《关于制定国际标准、指南和建议的原则的决定》中确立的国际公认的标准化原则制定的。 ======意义和用途====== 5.1 简而言之，元数据是“关于数据的数据”，通常描述数据的内容、质量、沿袭、组织、可用性和其他特征。元数据通常用于:（ 1 )确定某些数据的可用性(例如，通过搜索数据目录或信息交换所)；( 2 )确定数据对预期用途的适用性；( 3 )确定访问数据的手段；和（ 4 ）通过更好地理解数据收集和处理程序来增强数据分析和解释。 5.2 元数据在存档数据管理系统的当前实现中的使用有限且不统一；事实上，这一不足是这个元数据标准的最初动力。元数据使用有限且不一致有几个可能的原因:（ 1 )自1999年正式纳入国家信息系统架构以来，存档数据管理系统的部署仍处于早期阶段；( 2 ）迄今为止，还没有指定正式的元数据结构（国家ITS架构仅指通用的“数据目录”）；和（ 3 ）编写好的文档（即元数据）通常是开发信息系统的最后一个也是最不受欢迎的方面。 5.3 空间数据界对元数据的使用广泛且相对统一，这主要是由于1994年发布的第12906号行政命令，该命令呼吁建立国家空间数据基础设施（NSDI）。该行政命令授权创建元数据标准，由由19名成员组成的机构间委员会FGDC开发和维护。空间数据社区运营着几个元数据交换所，实际上，这些元数据交换所充当了大量在线空间数据集合的虚拟卡片目录。联邦、州和地方机构已经采用了FGDC元数据标准，并使用它来记录可用的数据集。许多机构投入了大量资源来开发NSDI和支持元素，如FGDC元数据标准。尽管有这些大量资源，但在过去8至10年中，其他机构和实体采用和实施FGDC元数据标准的情况非常显著。 5.4 存档数据管理系统中元数据实施的10年愿景应（至少）类似于空间数据界元数据实施的现状。ADMS元数据的愿景包括以下内容:（ 1 )开发和维护各种元数据标准和支持指南的机构联盟；( 2 )公布可用数据集并充分支持国家信息技术体系结构中定义什麽样的虚拟数据什什维克的运作概念的元数据交换什切克什切克；什切克.什切克和（ 3 )在公共（联邦、州和地方）运输什麽样的运输机构和私营什什麽样的公司什麽样的标准AD什切克什切克元数据结构什切克。 5.5 该元数据标准可以以几种方式实现。一些元数据生产者可能希望实现可以被人类容易地读取的元数据，其可能包括许多不受限制的自由文本条目。其他元数据生产者可能希望实现易于由计算机系统解释的元数据。如果期望元数据的自动计算机解释，则可能必须对某些元数据元素应用更多的特异性以将域值限制在自由文本之外。5.6 什麽样的标准可能看起来很吓人，但什什麽样的标准在实施时什麽样的简单性什麽样的什麽样的标准？什麽样的什麽样什麽样什麽样的什麽样？在基本信息系统中实施这一元数据标准应该需要最少的工作人员时间和精力。

1.1 This standard practice describes a hierarchical outline of sections and elements to be used in developing metadata to support archived data management systems. Specifically, the standard establishes the names of metadata elements and compound elements to be used in the metadata, the definitions of these metadata elements and compound elements, and suggested information about and examples of the values that are to be provided for the metadata elements. 1.2 The metadata to be developed using this standard includes qualitative and quantitative data that is associated with an information system or information object for the purposes of description, administration, legal requirements, technical functionality, use and usage, and preservation. As such, it can be differentiated from other metadata in that it describes and provides an interpretation of an organized collection of data, not a single data element. 1.3 This standard is intended for use by those developing, managing, or maintaining an archived data management system. For example, public agencies can specify that this standard be used in the development of a metadata framework for data archives. Data collectors and data processing intermediaries may also use this standard to create metadata describing the original collection conditions and intermediate processing steps. The development of metadata by data collectors and data processing intermediaries can greatly assist in the development of comprehensive metadata by the data archive manager. The standard is intended for use by all levels of government and the private sector. 1.4 This standard is applicable to various types of operational data collected by intelligent transportation systems (ITS) and stored in an archived data management system. Similarly, the standard can also be used with other types of historical traffic and transportation data collected and stored in an archived data management system. 1.5 This standard does not specify the means by which metadata is to be organized in a computer system or in a data transfer, nor the means by which metadata is to be transmitted, communicated, or presented to the user. Additionally, the standard is not intended to reflect or imply a specific implementation design. An implementation design requires adapting the structure and form of the standard to meet specific application and environment requirements. 1.6 This standard adopts with minimal changes the Federal Geographic Data Committee’s (FGDC’s) existing Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata (FGDC-STD-001-1998) as the recommended metadata framework for archived data management systems. The FGDC metadata standard was chosen as the framework because of its relevance and established reputation among the spatial data community. A benefit of using the FGDC standard is the widespread availability of informational resources and software tools to create, validate, and manage metadata (see http://www.fgdc.gov/metadata/links/metalinks.html). Commentary and several examples are provided in this standard to illustrate the use of the FGDC standard in the ITS domain. The detail of the standard may appear intimidating, but the examples in the appendix illustrate the relative simplicity of the standard when implemented. 1.7 Users of this standard should note that several sections of the metadata standard (that is, Annex A3 and Annex A4 ) address spatial referencing documentation, which may not be applicable to all data archives. These spatial referencing sections are designated as mandatory if applicable, which means that metadata is not required for these sections if spatial referencing is not used. Annex A6 , Distribution Information, is also designated as mandatory if applicable and thus may not be required. 1.8 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee. ====== Significance And Use ====== 5.1 Put simply, metadata is “data about data” and typically describes the content, quality, lineage, organization, availability, and other characteristics of the data. Metadata is typically used to: ( 1 ) determine the availability of certain data (for example, through searches of a data catalog or clearinghouse); ( 2 ) determine the fitness of data for an intended use; ( 3 ) determine the means of accessing data; and ( 4 ) enhance data analysis and interpretation by better understanding the data collection and processing procedures. 5.2 The use of metadata among current implementations of archived data management systems is limited and is not uniform; in fact, this deficiency was the original impetus for this metadata standard. There are several possible reasons for the limited and inconsistent use of metadata: ( 1 ) the deployment of archived data management systems is still in the early stages since its formal inclusion in the National ITS Architecture in 1999; ( 2 ) to date, no formal metadata structure has been designated (the National ITS Architecture only refers to a generic “data catalog”); and ( 3 ) writing good documentation (that is, metadata) is typically the last and least enjoyed aspect of developing information systems. 5.3 The use of metadata among the spatial data community is widespread and relatively uniform, due mostly to Executive Order 12906 issued in 1994 which called for the creation of a National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI). This Executive Order mandated the creation of metadata standards, which were to be developed and maintained by the FGDC, a 19-member interagency committee. The spatial data community operates several metadata clearinghouses that, in effect, serve as virtual card catalogs to vast collections of online spatial data. Federal, State, and local agencies have adopted the FGDC metadata standard and use it to document available data sets. Significant resources from numerous agencies have been placed into the development of the NSDI and supporting elements like the FGDC metadata standard. Notwithstanding these significant resources, the adoption and implementation of the FGDC metadata standard by other agencies and entities in the past 8 to 10 years has been remarkable. 5.4 The 10-year vision for metadata implementation in archived data management systems should resemble (at a minimum) the current state of metadata implementation in the spatial data community. This vision for ADMS metadata includes the following: ( 1 ) a consortium of agencies that develop and maintain various metadata standards and supporting guidance; ( 2 ) metadata clearinghouses that advertise available data sets as well as fully support the operational concept of a virtual data warehouse as defined in the National ITS Architecture; and ( 3 ) widespread adoption and implementation of standardized ADMS metadata structures among public (Federal, State, and local) transportation agencies and private companies. 5.5 This metadata standard may be implemented in several ways. Some metadata producers may desire to implement metadata that can be easily read by humans, which would likely include many unrestricted free text entries. Other metadata producers may wish to implement metadata that is easily interpreted by computer systems. If automated computer interpretation of metadata is desired, more specificity may have to be applied to certain metadata elements to restrict domain values beyond free text. 5.6 The detail of this standard may appear intimidating, but the examples in the appendix illustrate the relative simplicity of the standard when implemented. The existing FGDC standard offers the widespread availability of resources and tools to create, validate, and manage metadata (see http://www.fgdc.gov/metadata/links/metalinks.html). The implementation of this metadata standard in a basic information system should require minimal staff time and effort.