TG Metadata Outline - Inspire or ISO based
|Status:||New||Start date:||06 Nov 2015|
|Assignee:||Michael Östling||% Done:|
The current TG Metadata (v 3.1) is based on the structure of INSPIRE IR Metadata.
Now we have also added a new set of chapters for eg Theme Specific metadata, Metadata for interoperability and other Spatial Data Services.
So sections in ISO 19115 like conformance reports are documented at multiple places.
This ticket is for discussion of advantages and drawbacks of each type of outline.
An alternate outline of the TG Metadata document would be to follow the ISO 19115 structure.
Then each element could technically be described once and each different use within Inspire could be explained in subsection of this.
Eg one section for Quality reports with subsections for Conformance results and Quantitative results
The section of Conformance results could explain the general case for writing a Conformance report and then have subsections describing
how we need to write Conformance reports for
- Conformance to IR for dataset
- Conformance to IR for Services
- Conformance to SDS Category
The Guideline must then also have introductory overview table listing the obligation of each element for each major resource type we document.
#2 Updated by Michael Östling almost 5 years ago
Comment by Peter Kochman
It is a document accompanying INSPIRE implementation. To follow these regulations and see how it is designated to be implemented I think it is quite logical to have it still INSPIRE-based. ISO-basing would in contrast offer some chances to have it strictly ordered and numbered. But for me the INSPIRE context is the more important one. Anyway: The reader of TG metadata won’t be the metadata editor himself in local administration offices in Europe. In fact it will be the implementing companies or national expert groups who are familiar with both ISO and INSPIRE. To look up details will be possible for them with both ways of organising the TG document.
#3 Updated by James Reid almost 5 years ago
I wholeheartedly concur with Peters view on this - this is an INSPIRE documentt not an ISO one and as such should address the INSPIRE community - ideally as succinctly and clealry as possible. ISO whilst obviusly relevant is a foundation as are W3C and network protocols - we wouldnt suggest recasting the document to address those audiences of use so I vote for retaining the existing structure. Also, for existing users of the TG it means we have some form of contiuity with previous versions.