Enquiry #2740

Topological consistency (interoperability metadata)

Added by Ilkka Rinne over 4 years ago. Updated over 4 years ago.

Status:NewStart date:29 Mar 2016
Priority:NormalDue date:30 Mar 2016
Assignee:Ilkka Rinne% Done:


Target version:TG2.0 RC1


Please find the current draft version for the ISO 19139 mapping requirements for the topological consistency attached. I'm putting this up as an individual issue because it was rafther difficult for me to understand the way this element was described in the draft version 055 of the technical guidance. The challenging part is providing the descriptive results, as there is no obvious mapping for it in the ISO 19139 XML Schema. Note that the ISO 19157 XML Schema (ISO 19115-3?) has not been published yet, so we cannot use the elements defined in ISO 19157.

I wanted to show this section to you to verify that I've interpreted the ideas of MIWP-8 subgroup correctly regarding this element, especially the part about always declaring the conformance to the INSPIRE Generic Network Model to false regardless of the actual results of the topology consistency checks.

TG_MD_20rc2_topological_consistency_draft_2016-03-29.pdf (110 KB) Ilkka Rinne, 29 Mar 2016 11:05 am


#1 Updated by Peter Kochmann over 4 years ago

Yes Ilkka, you interpreted it the right way! All metadata elements mentioned as “Metadata elements for reporting data Quality” in INSPIRE Data specifications are based on ISO 19157, which provides different ways to report data quality information. ISO 19157 itself works along with metadata structures according to ISO 19115-1 only. For quantitative results there is an equivalent structure in "old" ISO 19115, so the mapping is obvious. For descriptive results there is no element matching directly in "old" ISO 19115. The attempt here was to store the information in an instance of DQ_ConformanceResult instead.

At some points of your draft for section 3.2.4 I would like to propose improvements but unfortunately there's no line numbering:

1) First paragraph after citing the IR 1089/2010: there's a double "the" in the second line

2) In the following paragraph: "... checks done described data set.": I guess it should be "... checks done for the described data set."

3) TG Recom.2.3: last sentence "... gmd:nameOfMeasure should to identify ...": I guess it should be "... gmd:nameOfMeasure should be given to identify ..."

4) section first paragraph: "... gmd:DQ_TopologicalConsistency element be used ...": I guess it should be "... gmd:DQ_TopologicalConsistency element should be used ...".

5) TG Req. 2.8: third paragraph and Example 2.7: is it a matter of the requirement to have a particular pattern for citing the title including "D2.10.1"?

6) sixth paragraph in TG Req. 2.8: "... shall always be in "false" this element ...": I guess it should be "... shall always be in "false" in this element ...".

7) page 65, last note: I think it doesn't depend on ISO 19115-3 only but on providing metadata according to ISO 19115-1 at all. So availability only isn't sufficient. Meanwhile this is given. I propose to give a general hint on a new TG Metadata that is necessary if ISO 19115-3 will be supported basically.

#2 Updated by Antonio Rotundo over 4 years ago

I propose to remove the last note at page 65. As pointed out by Peter, a future revision will affect all the metadata elements (not only those describing data quality) to take into account the new Standard 19115-1, 19115-3 and then 19157. I shared by email a short paragraph on the new ISO Standards to be added in the introduction section. That paragraph could be the general hint Peter refers to.

Also available in: Atom PDF