Discussion #2662

Feedback on MIWP-6 meeting at the 18/01/2016

Added by Christian Ansorge over 4 years ago. Updated over 4 years ago.

Status:Closed
Priority:Normal
Assignee:Michael Lutz

Description

Dear colleagues,

 

Thank you very much for all your work. It is clearly a big step forward. Still, during the discussions to day some aspects of the proposals you presented took us by surprise as they hasn’t been discussed in that form earlier. We needed to discuss some of the aspects, you showed, more in detail internally to get a clearer picture for ourselves.

 

Harvesting approach and Metadata on Registry:

We acknowledge that from the very beginning we assumed that in a registry federation there would be two mechanisms of data exchange, harvesting on the one hand and file upload on the other. While there is formally nothing wrong with the harvesting approach and the related suggestion for metadata exchange about registries, we consider this step an optimisation which should be addressed later in the development of the federation. And as said in the last meeting, it might add a level of complexity and vulnerability which isn’t needed. Instead we simply assumed that for the test bed we would go for the simplest way of data exchange, i.e. the upload of exchange files. We would suggest to focus on the exchange file and manual upload for the first stage of the testbed (where we have still enough to work on and test) and continue with harvesting once things are stabilized. If performance becomes a problem at a later stage, then separating the metadata from the data would be a good measure to look into. The underlying assumption here is then that the exchange file only contains the registries to be shared with the federation.

 

Exchange file for Metadata on Registries:

If this approach is to be used, we think that the time of last update should be given for each dataset listed individually in order to make it work. Otherwise the RoR would still have to access each dataset to check for updates on the level of the concepts. Maybe this was the original intention, but it was unclear to us from the example provided.

e.g.

<dcat:dataset rdf:resource="http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/theme"/> .. [add date of last update and status] ..

<dcat:dataset rdf:resource="http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/applicationschema"/> .. [add date of last update and status] ..

As the RoR shall just harvest the metadata about Registries, why do we add individual update frequencies? As file size is not an issue and we do not expect frequent changes anyway, we might just agree on a daily harvest interval as default for the sake of simplicity.

 

Exchange file for Registers:

There are some questions and potential issues we discovered when taking a closer look.

  • We agree with what was said during the meeting that the exchange file should not contain any (external) concepts from the register it aims to extend.
  • We are missing the status of the concept (e.g. valid, retired, …)
  • In the example on https://ies-svn.jrc.ec.europa.eu/issues/2615 under “Section 3: Concepts”, the concept is identified by rdf:about="CurrentUseValue/2", while the actual URI and ID of the concept is described in the dcterms:source element. Is there a specific reason to do so, or can we simplify it further by removing dcterms:source and provide that information in rdf:about instead, as it was initially proposed and discussed?

 

RoR Interface:

In the RoR interface we are missing the publisher information, which would be very useful and is actually delivered in the exchange format.

 

Thank you very much. As I said earlier it is clearly a big step forward, just that we have to agree on the general approach to be used for the test bed.

 

Best regards

Chris & Michael

 

History

#1 Updated by Michael Lutz over 4 years ago

  • Project changed from INSPIRE helpdesk to MIWP-6: Registers

Moved the issue into MIWP-6 project. Note that in #2661 Daniele already started a discussion on the registration process (not yet announced to the group). I think this issue would fit as a comment into that discussion thread. If you agree, please copy it there (so that we only have on discussion thread).

Cheers, Michael

#2 Updated by Christian Ansorge over 4 years ago

  • Status changed from Feedback to Closed

#3 Updated by Christian Ansorge over 4 years ago

Done .. I closed the issue

Also available in: Atom PDF