ToR Update of TG Metadata - draft document
|Status:||Resolved||Start date:||13 Aug 2014|
|Priority:||Normal||Due date:||25 Aug 2014|
|Proposed change or action:|
The attached word document is a draft of ToR for the suggested work on update of TG metadata. The document was discussed on the MIG Meeting in Aalborg As a result some issues have been set as outside scope of TG metadata. Also decided was to find a possible release plan so that some issues could be published with higher priority and then let lower prioritized issues be published in a later release.
#2 Updated by Michael Östling about 6 years ago
- File Inspire MIG ToR Update TG Metadata.docx added
Updated ToR. Text is inserted into MIG formal document template with specific sub-group related management issues. Updates based on comments from Martin. Two new issues inserted based on suggestion from Martin (related to Coupled resourecs and Identifiers) The release-schedule is made more relaxed, this have to be dealt with the actual group.
#4 Updated by Michael Lutz about 6 years ago
- File Inspire MIG ToR Update TG Metadata ML.docx added
Dear Michael, all, please find some editorial changes attached. Mainly, I would suggest to move the issues list into an Annex and say a bit more clearly that the task of the group is to address the issues and produce two versions of updated MD TGs. Cheers, Michael
#7 Updated by Michael Östling about 6 years ago
Comment on ticket https://ies-svn.jrc.ec.europa.eu/issues/2204 That relates to Issue F in our ToR Update of TG Metadata - how should we handle ISO19115-1 and ISO19115-3 I have discussed this with the Swedish Standards Institute which is the national ISO focalpoint. Accordíng to them we have no legal obligation to use ISO1915-1 instead of ISO19115. I have seen this response as an indication of that we could in TG Metadata mainly focus on recommendations for how to transform from ISO19115-3 to ISO19139. It would be interesting to hear from other standards-bodies in your countries if they have a different view in this area. Could you in the group come back with some feedback already now? Alex, we have a subtask in Issue F to check the legal status for ISO19115-1. Do you mean that we need to know the outcome on this before the ToR can be decided ? If the result of these investigations show that we must go for ISO19115-1 I think that update is so fundamental so we have to publish the A-release first anyhow (based on ISO19115). Any comments on this ?
#9 Updated by Andrea Perego about 6 years ago
The study on the use of responsible party roles in INSPIRE metadata identifies a number of issues concerning the consistency of how this metadata element is used, and its effective use for discovery and filtering purposes. Member States are already addressing this issue - see, e.g., the "French guidelines":http://inspire-forum.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pg/blog/read/244973/inspire-metadata-for-dummies-the-french-guidelines-for-metadata-are-in-english shared by Marc on the INSPIRE Forum. Should the ToR include also a recommendation about how to use this element?
#10 Updated by Alex Ramage about 6 years ago
Please find the UK comments on the Terms of reference - I have kept this in "track change" so that you can see the changes easily. One issue came to light after reviewing the Terms of reference and discussing the issues with my UK colleague and this was the increase in Scope from the Work that had been agreed by the MIG-T. At the end of the MIG-T workprogramme although not currently pat of the agreed programme of work were some issues that have "crept" into the Terms of Reference. I have no problem that these issues have been added to the Terms of Reference but any worjk on these areas should not delay the dilivery of he lements of the worl that has been agreed to by the MIG-T in the work programme. I feel strongly as my coplleagues in the UK, that the scope of the Terms of Reference should be limited and not extended in anyway without the MIG-T specifically instructing the work to the Work Package. Alex Ramage (UK)
#12 Updated by Michael Östling about 6 years ago
Andrea Perego wrote: > About the work under-way concerning the alignment of INSPIRE metadata with DCAT-AP, should this be included in the ToR? I agree we should not include it in ToR. The relation to Open data are I guess at least two issues. The first is to identify what is actually a Open Data record. That will be solved on national level so that is clearly outside the scope. The other issue which is listed in ToR is on what is needed for Inspire metadata to be possible to be transformed to DCAT. I do agree now that this is outside the scope of ToR for Inspire TG Metadata since that will be solved in other projects. We though get a lot questions on this among producers creating Inspire metadata, afraid they have to recreate metadata now in DCAT. But we should mainly inform on the work done your project Andrea.
#13 Updated by Michael Östling about 6 years ago
Lars Storgaard wrote: > Please find our comments on the ToR. > Best regards Lars (DK). Comments from Michael: I have commented some of the suggestions in doc.
#14 Updated by Michael Östling about 6 years ago
- File Inspire MIG ToR Update TG Metadata.docx added
The document is updated based on comments from UK and DK. A summary of the main updates done are: - Removed of some details on how some issues could be solved. - A more distinct process for how to handle additional issues to avoid delays. - Some changes in priorities (these changes will not change release-dates) - Removed issue on Open data / DCAT - Added some requirements for members that should participate in group. To see a complete update make a diff with the 2014-08-28 version.
#15 Updated by Lars Storgaard about 6 years ago
Thank you for your comments, Michael. Please find our comments on your comments :o)
#16 Updated by Martin Seiler about 6 years ago
Please find attached the document with a few additinal comments from our network in DE (added to the last doc published in the comments).
#17 Updated by Andrea Perego about 6 years ago
Hi, Michael. > The relation to Open data are I guess at least two issues. The first is to identify what is actually a Open Data record. That will be solved on national level so that is clearly outside the scope. Just to note that this point of activity B ("Open Data and DCAT") is strictly related to activity C ("Harmonized expression of licences/restrictions") and to MIWP-17 (see #2139). It would be important to mention this in the ToR. > The other issue which is listed in ToR is on what is needed for Inspire metadata to be possible to be transformed to DCAT. I do agree now that this is outside the scope of ToR for Inspire TG Metadata since that will be solved in other projects. We though get a lot questions on this among producers creating Inspire metadata, afraid they have to recreate metadata now in DCAT. But we should mainly inform on the work done your project Andrea. Thanks for pointing this out, Michael. It is important to give a clear answer, in order to avoid any misunderstanding. I can update the relevant page in the wiki accordingly, but maybe the message should published also elsewhere, to have more visibility.
#18 Updated by Andrea Perego about 6 years ago
About activity L ("Unique Resource Identifier"), it would be important also to recommend best practices for its specification, in order to ensure the consistent use of global identifiers, possibly by using HTTP "URIs":http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986 . This would help solve a number of practical issues - e.g., related to harvesting - that are preventing the effective exploitation of the INSPIRE infrastructure. This activity can also be linked to MIWP-4 (see #2126).
#20 Updated by Alex Ramage about 6 years ago
Michael - some small changes from the UK - In Article 2, we have removed the caveat (subject to the agreement of the Group) because later on in the Annex we say "issues identified by the group can be proposed to the MIG-T; these issues shall be outside the scope of this ToR unless the MIG-T specifically instructs the group to take account of the issue within the original timescales." Alex Ramage
#21 Updated by Michael Lutz almost 6 years ago
From Marc Leobet (I moved his comment from #2130): Dear colleagues, sorry to come so late in this page. I have no remarks on the tasks themselves, but some comments on the Activities : - A : INSPIRE MD are not in line with ISO 19115 since the first day. For that specific point, I think it is a quite impossible task because of the difference between US and European property rights. It is closely linked to the implementation of licences - activity C - and with the PSI directive's implementation : instead of spending years with lawyers to define the "perfect" licence - and the INSPIRE ones is not so bad - we have considered that it is better to quote the legal restriction for public access, as in INSPIRE & PSI. - E1 : we have recommendations on metadata added by interoperability regulations in the FR TG. - E2 : excepted national mapping agencies, no French public authorities are able to use ISO19157. And we know this model since the very beginning of 90'. - F : The French guidelines recommand a way to be compliant with INSPIRE regulation AND ISO19115. But the job would have to be now to build a bridge with ISO19115:2014, isn’t it? I join James' comment to say that ISO19115 has no legal value in INSPIRE, but most of the tools we use are ISO19115 based, and the compliancy with this standard is useful for those who are managing the full range of metadata (and not only the poor INSPIRE abstract). I : the only places where « a language neutral name for computers » is used is when (the value expressed between parenthesis). Please look in the metadata regulation, part D. That is : ressource types, topic categories, SDS type, classification of SDS, degree of conformity, responsible party rôle. M : we are working on coupled-resources in French groups, but the first results are only in French... I think I will ask to be counted as a member of MIWP-8, if you accept. best regards Marc
#22 Updated by Michael Östling almost 6 years ago
We need to go deeper in the discussion for each of these issues when work starts. For each of the issues defined we have now defined tickets in Redmine where we can trace the discussions and keep them together. Lets add your comments to each of the tickets they belong to. The work can start once members of this subgroup have been defined. I do agree that on the Issue F that we primarily should focus on building the bridge to ISO19115-1:2014 (and ISO 19157) for thoose who have started to implement these. For the updates we do for 2015 I think it would be hard to update TG Metadata for these new standards. We need to have a general agreement within the work of Inspire how new standards can be used. The reference to ISO 191157 in the new versions of data specifications is not compatible (as far as I can see) with our current TG Metadata.
#23 Updated by Michael Östling almost 6 years ago
An updated (final version) of based on comments and discussions in this ticket are uploaded to the document area, see: MIWG-8 ToR for Update of TG Metadata . Issues for the coming work are now generated as tickets "see":https://ies-svn.jrc.ec.europa.eu/projects/metadata/issues
#25 Updated by Marc Leobet almost 6 years ago
Following the sentence in ToR "Verify if INSPIRE are legally mandated to handle the ISO 19115-1 when it becomes a CEN standard", I have checked that ISO 19115 is only quoted as a reference for the definition of a “metadata element” and for the list of “topic categories”. I found no reference to CEN in the directive nor in the regulation 1205. I found no reference to ISO 19157 in regulations about interoperability (or in others IR). Note that quality is defined following ISO 19101 in regulation 1205/2008. I don't know if ISO 19157 takes the same wording than 19101.