Task #2309

MIWP-8 (J) Metadata for SDS Point of contact

Added by Ine de Visser over 5 years ago. Updated over 5 years ago.

Status:SubmittedStart date:17 Sep 2014
Priority:NormalDue date:
Assignee:-% Done:

0%

Category:-
Proposed change or action:

Description

Point of contact (TG SDS 4.6.3)

A point of contact for the care and maintenance of the spatial data service shall be provided using the responsible party and responsible party role metadata element as described in [INS MD TG]. The role of the contact point shall be set to "custodian".

Actions:

  1. Update TG MD 2.10.1  responible party
  2. Update TG MD 2.10.2  responible party role
  3. Give examples, explain  ...

 


Related issues

Copied from MIWP-8: Metadata - Task #2306: MIWP-8 (J) Metadata for SDS Specification Submitted 17 Sep 2014
Copied to MIWP-8: Metadata - Task #2310: MIWP-8 (J) Metadata for SDS Contains operation Submitted 17 Sep 2014

History

#1 Updated by Ine de Visser over 5 years ago

proposed change;

Update TG MD 2.10.2 with
 

TG Requirement XX A point of contact for the care and maintenance of the spatial data service shall be provided using the responsible party and responsible party role metadata element.The role of the contact point shall be set to "custodian"

#2 Updated by Michael Östling over 5 years ago

I agree on that using the resourcecontact with role custodian is the simplest solution, maybe also most correct.
I want to lift one issue where though.

We have also in ISO19115 the MD_Distributor.


If I would have started from beginning without having to backwards compatibility constraints I would have used MD_Distributor and the role Custodian here instead.
I would expect most users to believe the a resource contact with the role custodian is the custodian also for the data behind the service.
Anyhow for tight coupled services like WMS.
Using the Custodian on the distributor would make it more clear i think.
But this is just my personal opionion and I don't argue we should change.

Advantages of using distributorTransferOptions

In our national metadataprofile we handle all MD_DigitalTransferOptions  as  distributorTransferOptions and not as  transferOptions.
The reason for this  is that a single resource could be distributed by several distribútors.
But is also help by giving possibility to handle different MD_Formats for different
DigitalTransferOptions  
With this model we can handle one  Distributor/distributorTransferOptions  for eg a WFS and define the format as GML
and then for an other
 Distributor/distributorTransferOptions  we can have a link to AtomFeed where data is in shape and csv.
I see now way to match mutiple URLs and formats using only transferoptions.

 

In the Inspire-portal I think only minor changes have to be done for fetching the gmd:MD_DigitalTransferOptions
When checking for Online resources the xpath for findng these would be

/gmd:MD_Metadata/gmd:distributionInfo/gmd:MD_Distribution//gmd:MD_DigitalTransferOptions
instead of
/gmd:MD_Metadata/gmd:distributionInfo/gmd:MD_Distribution/gmd:transferOptions/gmd:MD_DigitalTransferOptions/gmd:MD_DigitalTransferOptions

 

#3 Updated by James Reid over 5 years ago

Yes the Custodian vs Distributor is relevant in UK too - we explicitly draw a disticntion as not all data producers have the capacity to set up network services and may rely on a 3rd party distributor(s) .

On balance  I think what is proposed is the most expedient .

#4 Updated by Peter Kochmann over 5 years ago

I would not agree to having the distribution structure of ISO for that.

It's clearly named to take the responsible party and what is meant by the role custodian as given in 1205/2008: "Party that accepts accountability and responsibility for the data and ensures appropriate care and maintenance of the resource."

In my understanding this is nothing that fits to distribution information! It concerns the resource itself and I assume this is what was intended for SDS responsible party.

#5 Updated by Michael Östling over 5 years ago

I think I have to revert my opinion.

When reading the COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1312/2014

I see now only

Responsible party
The responsible party set out in Regulation (EC) No 1205/2008 shall at least describe the custodian responsible
organisation, corresponding to the Custodian responsible party role set out in Regulation (EC) No 1205/2008.

 

What I was interpreting was the latest TG for SDS Version 3.1 where text text below is taken from

Even if the documentation of the “ORGANISATIONS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT,
MANAGEMENT, MAINTENANCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF SPATIAL DATA SETS AND SERVICES”
is mandated in [INS MD], the successful invocation of a spatial data service requires specifically this
information to be available for the party responsible for the care and maintenance of the service.

 

Implementation Requirement 11 A point of contact for the care and maintenance of the spatial
data service shall be provided using the responsible party and
responsible party role metadata element as described in [INS
MD TG]. The role of the contact point shall be set to
“custodian”.

 

Then the role is a litte different in my perspective, Here they clearly define it is the care and manitenence of the service that is in focus.
That is not specified in the Regulation.

So I think to use the responsible party as you say is the correct one.

But from a semantic perspective I think the question is interesting on what is the difference
between a distributor with role Custodian and PointOfContact with role custodian.
Are there any clear definitions on this anyone are aware of?
Maybe this is for an other forum ....

 

 

Also available in: Atom PDF