15th MIWP-6 sub-group meeting¶
- 15th MIWP-6 sub-group meeting
Tuesday, 31 May 2016, 14:30-16:00 CEST
Recording: AdobeConnect player
[14:30-14:45] Welcome, approval of the agenda and minutes of the previous meeting (for discussion and agreement) (Michael Lutz)
[14:45-15:15] Status registry federation testbed
- Feedback from participants
- Next steps
[15:15-15:45] Presentation of the draft "Technical Guidelines & Best Practices for INSPIRE registers and registries" document
- General presentation of the document
- Next steps
Anders Foureaux (SE), Zoé Petty (FR), Christian Ansorge, Michael Noren (EEA), Lorena Hernandez, Daniele Francioli, Michael Lutz (JRC)
Welcome, approval of the agenda and minutes of the previous meeting¶
The agenda was approved as proposed.
The minutes of the minutes of the previous meeting were approved without comments.
Status registry federation testbed¶
Participants give some feedback on the experience they had when using the RoR.
- Michael Noren (MN) entioned that he was expecting to see also the items (details) of the registers in the RoR
- Michael Lutz (ML) and Daniele Francioli (DF) explained that this behaviour was implemented because we had previously agreed that we did not wanted to create central repository of all the items. However, if other participants agree that this an essential feature it could be implemented.
- Zoe Petty (ZP) asked, what could you query in the RoR if the data is not in it?
- ML indicated that the information available is at the register level not the details items inside.
- DF reminds that the purpose of the RoR is to see the links of (national) registers with the European register
- ZP replied that this is quite transparent for the user
- ML showed an example in the RoR prototype to explain the behaviour. When looking for instance at “building” in the search engine, different results appear, you click on the relevant one and you get redirected to the local register
- ZP points out that you are redirected, this remains still transparent for the user
- ML indicates that the behaviour is similar to Google’s search engine
- MN & Christian Ansorge (CA) said that they would prefer to have displayed the list of items contained in a register
- [ACTION] DF to investigate if it is possible to investigate the values from the current schema.
- MN sent some contributions to the RoR. He uploaded a register and got a success message but he misses the number of items to be harvested.
- DF indicated that the items were just indexed to make work the search engine.
- ML said that the question would be whether calling it the “validation report” or “harvesting report”
- [ACTION] Update the name to just “report”
ML invited other members of the sub-group to try out the RoR and provide further feedback.
Presentation of the draft "Technical Guidelines & Best Practices for INSPIRE registers and registries" document¶
A first draft document with the content, which is currently in the wiki, has been uploaded with the purpose of completing, updating and improving it to produce the final Technical Guidelines.
In the discussion, the following changes were suggested:
- produce a document, which is “RoR oriented” (more user oriented)
- include guidance on how to deal with conflicts / with languages
- explain who decides on who can propose registers/registries to ne added to the RoR
- structure the document in 3 parts (addressing different audiences):
- Guidelines for
- setting up national registers
- extending codelist, etc.
- Connect to RoR federation
- How to use RoR to find information
- Guidelines for
Once the document is more mature, it should be presented in a webinar MIWP6 + MIG-T
Next web meeting¶
- Actions on all members
- Provide further feedback on RoR testbed
- Review the updated document
- Doodle: http://doodle.com/poll/ip6xmhhz9c9rza2u