Registry change proposal #3008

Missing codelist quality of service criteria

Added by Linda van den Brink almost 3 years ago. Updated about 2 years ago.

Status:Work in progress% Done:

30%

Priority:Normal
Assignee:-
Category:-
Change type:Supersession Item URI:http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/metadata-codelist/QualityOfServiceCriteria/

Description

We spotted another missing codelist: 

http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/metadata-codelist/QualityOfServiceCriteriaCode/

Possible values: 

 

4.1.1. Availability (availability)

It describes the percentage of time the service is available.

4.1.2. Performance (performance)

It describes how fast a request to the spatial data service can be completed.

4.1.3. Capacity (capacity)

It describes the maximum number of simultaneous requests that can be completed with the declared performance.

History

#1 Updated by Michael Lutz almost 3 years ago

  • Status changed from New to Feedback
  • Assignee changed from Michael Lutz to registers-control-body
  • % Done changed from 0 to 30
  • Change type changed from Addition to Supersession
  • Item URI changed from http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/metadata-codelist/QualityOfServiceCriteriaCode/ to http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/metadata-codelist/QualityOfServiceCriteria/

You have spotted an inconsistency in the MD TG v2.0, which indeed refers to a code list with the id http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/metadata-codelist/QualityOfServiceCriteriaCode/ in its requirements, but then lists the code list URI in Annex D.3 as http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/metadata-codelist/QualityOfServiceCriteria/ (without the final "Code"). The code list actually exists in the registry with this latter URI.

There are now two options to fix this issue:

What change is more appropriate depends largely on how many countries have already implemented the new TGs. I would therefore suggest to check the two options with the MIG-T before progressing.

#2 Updated by Michael Lutz almost 3 years ago

  • Assignee changed from registers-control-body to 75

Dear MIG-T colleagues,

we have spotted an inconsistency in the MD TG v2.0, which refers to a code list with the id http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/metadata-codelist/QualityOfServiceCriteriaCode/ in its requirements, but then lists the code list URI in Annex D.3 as http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/metadata-codelist/QualityOfServiceCriteria/ (without the final "Code"). In the INSPIRE registry, the code list has been implemented with this latter URI.

There are now two options to fix this issue:

  1. Change the requirements in the MD TG v2.0 to refer to http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/metadata-codelist/QualityOfServiceCriteria/ and leave the registry as it is.
    • PROS: no change required in the registry; URI would follow the normal naming conventions for code lists
    • CONS: would affect implementations that follow the TGs; several changes in the TGs
  2. Change the URI in Annex D.3 to http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/metadata-codelist/QualityOfServiceCriteriaCode/ and supersede the code list http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/metadata-codelist/QualityOfServiceCriteria/ and its values in the registry with http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/metadata-codelist/QualityOfServiceCriteriaCode/ and corresponding values.
    • PROs: would not affect implementations that follow the TGs; minimal change in the TGs
    • CONS: considerable change in the registry; URI would not follow normal naming conventions

I would propose to go for solution (1), but only if the new TGs have not been implemented using the "wrong" URI (http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/metadata-codelist/QualityOfServiceCriteriaCode/) in (m)any countries.

We would therefore need to understand in which countries there are already implementations of the new TG v2.0, using this URI.

Please provide your feedback as comments to this question. Please also reply if you have not yet implemented the new TG version 2.0.

Thanks,
Michael

#3 Updated by Sulev Õitspuu almost 3 years ago

Hi

Estonia do not use this codelist yet.

Regards
Sulev

#4 Updated by Martin Tuchyna almost 3 years ago

Hi

SK supports solution 1 as there has not yet been executed implementation of this codelist, and it is safer to use normal naming conventions for code lists.

Thanks,

Martin

 

#5 Updated by Henrique Silva almost 3 years ago

Hi,

we go for solution 1, keeping the registry URI pattern is best. Also we don't use it yet in Portugal.

Best regards

Henrique Silva

 

#6 Updated by Uroš Mladenovič almost 3 years ago

In Slovenia, we do not use this code list yet.   

Best regards, Uros

 

#7 Updated by Tamás Palya almost 3 years ago

In Hungary, we do not use code list.   

Best regards, Tamas

#8 Updated by Lenka Rejentova almost 3 years ago

Hi,

We do not use the code list yet in the Czech Republic.

Kind regards

Lenka

#9 Updated by Christine Najar almost 3 years ago

Hi all,

in Switzerland, we don't use the code list.

Therefore, the suggested solution is ok for us.

Kind regards,

Christine Najar

#10 Updated by Ine de Visser almost 3 years ago

In NL we didn't have implemented yet.

We support solution 1,  follow the normal naming conventions for code lists

Best regards Ine

 

#11 Updated by Arvids Ozols almost 3 years ago

Hi, all

We do not use the code list yet in Latvia.
We support solution 1.

Kind regards

Arvids

#12 Updated by Carlo Cipolloni almost 3 years ago

In Italy we don’t use and implemented yet, but we are in progress to integrate next year.

In generally we support solution 1.

Best regards,

Carlo

#13 Updated by Christina Wasström almost 3 years ago

We are working on Swedish TG for Inspire Metadata TG 2.0 and are also implementation this right now.
But we can change the codelist-URL according to option (1) ,  that is not a problem.

#14 Updated by Daniele Francioli over 2 years ago

[Register Manager] Following the comments reported above, we propose to implement the first solution.

We are planning to implement a structured workflow for such changes in accordance with the terms of reference of the Control body.

The Submitting organisations and members of the Control body will have 2 weeks to raise any concerns regarding the proposed resolution. If no feedback is received we will implement the changes proposed.  If feedback is received, it will be discussed in the Control body.

#15 Updated by Nicolas Hagemann over 2 years ago

Germany has no concerns regarding solution 1. The German TG for INSPIRE Metadata TG 2.0 is still in progress. The codelists is not used yet.

Best regards

Nicolas

#16 Updated by Michael Lutz about 2 years ago

[Register manager] We have not received any objections to the proposed resolution during the scrutiny period.

The proposed change in the MD TG will be implemented in a v2.0.2 bugfix release that will be shortly shared with the MIG for scrutiny and then published.

#17 Updated by Michael Lutz about 2 years ago

  • Status changed from Feedback to Work in progress

Also available in: Atom PDF