Express constrains between codelists
While I had yesterday another short discussion about codelist implementation a interesting question come up.
How shall we express constraints between codelists. For example in protected sites are codelists interconnected. Which codelist you have to use is depend on a prior code selection. This mechanism is sufficiently described in the Technical Guidelines. My question is how these constraints and dependencies shall be documented in the case of an extension which is beyond the description in technical guidelines? I added an example which better explaines the case below.
For me there ideas and questions, which I would like to discuss or get feedback on:
- The constraint shall be clearly mentioned or explained (directly or via link to the extention specifications) in the definition of the concept (e.g. "cdda")
- The constraint shall be clearly mentioned or explained (directly or via link to the extention specifications) in the definition of the concept scheme (e.g. CddaExtension:DesignationSchemeValue)
- Is there a way to express this constrain in SKOS?
- Is there a way in SKOS to point to a specification of a concept or concept scheme (e.g. the extention specifications) as the definition might not be ideal place for it?
- To what degree this meta information shall be available on the RoR level?
#3 Updated by Daniele Francioli almost 5 years ago
- Status changed from New to Resolved
- Assignee set to Daniele Francioli
Thank you for your questions; we think that such constraints on the usage of code lists should be expressed in the data models.
We don’t have that kind of information even in the INSPIRE registry: we have the parent/children relation, but no relation indicating the interconnection between codelists or something that could be used for the use case that you are describing.
We think also that this is very application-specific and out of scope for the register federation.
Thanks & best regards,
The JRC Registry Team
#4 Updated by Christian Ansorge almost 5 years ago
I agree that the details should be expressed best in the data specifications. But back to one of the questions, do you see it as good practice to add a reference to the respective data specs when publishing a extention of a codelist?
In some cases this might be over-kill but in some cases this might make sense, like here in the CDDA case.
#5 Updated by Daniele Francioli almost 5 years ago
This reference could be relevant for some codelist but not to all the Registers.
That's why we think that it is up to Register providers to decide whether to publish this information at the local level in their Registers.
Since these additional references are stored in the local registers, and they are also very application-specific, we think that they are out of scope for the register federation.
The JRC Registry Team