Support #2881

IT - ESRI: Validation of View service in case of missing codespace in metadata

Added by Gianni Campanile over 3 years ago. Updated over 3 years ago.

Status:FeedbackStart date:02 Dec 2016
Priority:NormalDue date:
Assignee:Angelo Quaglia% Done:

0%

Category:Validation outcome
Target version:-
Submitting Organisation:IT - ESRI Knowledge-Base relevant?:
Proactive:No Keyword #1:
Country:IT - Italy Keyword #2:
Originating UI: Keyword #3:

Description

The validator maps the AuthorityURL and Identifier elements of Capability file respectively to codespace (/gmd:MD_Metadata/*/gmd:identifier/gmd:RS_Identifier/gmd:codeSpace) and code (/gmd:MD_Metadata/*/gmd:identifier/gmd:RS_Identifier/gmd:code) of dataset identifier, but IR allow for a lighter implementation using MD_Identifier and no codespace (/gmd:MD_Metadata/*/gmd:identifier/gmd:MD_Identifier/gmd:code).

In this case it seems that the only way to define AuthorityURL is empty strig:

                <AuthorityURL name="">
                    <OnlineResource xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="http://metadati.partout.it"/>
                </AuthorityURL>
                <Identifier authority="">ID-DATA3</Identifier>

but this causes in any case validation issues because a valid name should be provided.

 

 

History

#1 Updated by Angelo Quaglia over 3 years ago

  • Subject changed from Validation of View service in case of missing codespace in metadata to IT - ESRI: Validation of View service in case of missing codespace in metadata
  • Category set to Validation outcome
  • Status changed from New to Feedback
  • Submitting Organisation changed from Esri Italy to IT - ESRI
  • Country set to IT - Italy

Dear Gianni,

The issue with the INSPIRE View Service Technical Guidelines (INSVSTG) Requirement 38 is a long standing one.

The mapping of a Spatial Data Set/Series Unique Resource Identifier code and namespace to wms:Identifier and wms:AuthorityURL is not well specified in the INSVSTG when it comes to a Unique Resource Identifier with only a code and no namespace because it clashes with WMS 1.3.0 specifications and XML schema rules.

The technical details were documented here long time ago by myself:

http://inspire-geoportal.ec.europa.eu/documentation/ea/ea_html/index.htm?guid={64153834-E50F-4340-A03C-1BA92DE2FB6F}

 

The mapping is actually redundant since it is already implemented by reference via the wms:metadataURL element, so I would have rather preferred to see it removed from the guidelines.

The motivation to keep it is for compatibility with WMS clients.

My understanding of the accepted compromise is that, when comparing a Unique Resource Identifier where the codespace element is missing or holds an empty element value, the validator will only try to match the code with the wms:Identifier, even though, in some cases, this is clearly inaccurate.

Best regards,

Angelo

#2 Updated by Gianni Campanile over 3 years ago

Hi Angelo,

 

your last statement

My understanding of the accepted compromise is that, when comparing a Unique Resource Identifier where the codespace element is missing or holds an empty element value, the validator will only try to match the code with the wms:Identifier

it seems different from what the validator actually does: if there is an AuthorityURL name that has no corresponding codespace element than an error is raised; if the name is empty (i.e. "") then some validation issues are raisde but no fatal error.

I think that your interpretation should be honored and that a correct implementation could be for example:

                <AuthorityURL name="ESRI.IT">
                    <OnlineResource xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="http://www.esriitalia.it/Auth"/>
                </AuthorityURL>
                <Identifier authority="ESRI.IT">esri:dataset3</Identifier>

and:

                    <gmd:identifier>
                        <gmd:MD_Identifier>
                            <gmd:code>
                                <gco:CharacterString>esri:dataset3</gco:CharacterString>
                            </gmd:code>
                        </gmd:MD_Identifier>
                    </gmd:identifier>

The Validator should just check for corresponding Identifier and code, as you wrote.

Gianni

#3 Updated by Angelo Quaglia over 3 years ago

The release of the validator currently in production still honours the documentation I mentioned in my previous comment.

I am currently implementing the change I have just described and that would match your testcase.

Also available in: Atom PDF