Meeting #2482

Agenda Suggestions for Malmoe-meeting

Added by Michael Östling over 5 years ago. Updated about 5 years ago.

Status:ClosedStart date:17 Aug 2015
Priority:NormalDue date:
Assignee:Michael Östling% Done:


Target version:-


Below are suggestions for Agenda for the two-day Meeting in Malmoe Sept 1st and 2nd.
Please comment on these and add suggestions for additional topics to handle.


Feedback from from MIG-t on draft issues

The feedback will guide us for possible changes in draft.

Management of comments on draft 0.4

Most commets should be handled before meeting. But open issues will be discussed.

Structure of document.

We have now integrated some elements from SDS and described them in same section as they are decribed for other types of resourses.
Examples of this are elements Resource contacts and Resource Locator. For other elements we keep information in separate section like
metadata for Interoperability and Theme Specific metadata. Are these principles ok? Do we need some changes here ?

Rework of requirements
The current requirements are a mixture of requirements from Implementing rules, ISO19115 as well as general interoperability claims.
There is a strong need from validation group (MIWP-5) that these requirements are better structured to aid generation of a clear validation framework

The next steps for the Technical guidelines metadata

In the workplan there are a number of additional issues to be solved during Autumn.
Besides these are also strategic desicions on If we should and if so then when to write also technical guidelines for
ISO 19115-1 and GeoDcat-AP






#1 Updated by Michael Östling over 5 years ago

  • Description updated (diff)

#2 Updated by Peter Kochmann over 5 years ago

Together with issue D it may be reasonable to find a unique way for flagging something als "TG Recommendation". What is worth a recommendation and was is sufficiently flagged as a comment or simple statement only?

#3 Updated by Marc Leobet about 5 years ago

In addition, it is often a source of misunderstood to call "requirement" what is in fact a "recommandation". Could we drop the first word which would have to be used only for regulation'srequirement, and use the second? In that case, what is under "recommandation" flag could get a "good pratice" one.

#4 Updated by Michael Lutz about 5 years ago

  • Status changed from New to Closed

Also available in: Atom PDF