This section has now been locked for editing and a draft version have been moved into the draft document.
See page: https://ies-svn.jrc.ec.europa.eu/projects/metadata/wiki/DraftVersionsMIWP-8
Further discussions and comments should be done on the draft
Article 13 of 1089/2010
Metadata required for Interoperability
The metadata describing a spatial data set shall include the following metadata elements required for interoperability:
1. Coordinate Reference System: Description of the coordinate reference system(s) used in the data set.
See ticket https://ies-svn.jrc.ec.europa.eu/issues/2322
2. Temporal Reference System: Description of the temporal reference system(s) used in the data set.
This element is mandatory only if the spatial data set contains temporal information that does not refer to the default temporal reference system.
3. Encoding: Description of the computer language construct(s) specifying the representation of data objects in a record, file, message, storage device or transmission channel.
4. Topological Consistency: Correctness of the explicitly encoded topological characteristics of the data set as described by the scope.
This element is mandatory only if the data set includes types from the Generic Network Model and does not assure centreline topology (connectivity of centrelines) for the network.
5. Character Encoding: The character encoding used in the dataset.
This element is mandatory only if an encoding is used that is not based on UTF-8.
PLUS from current TG - Spatial representation type- The method used to spatially represent geographic information
******* Q.Spatial representation type is mandatory in the TG but not mentioned in 1089/2010 - are we including it ??? *************
Comment by Michael Östling.
The element is added in Amendment (M2) to 1089 (Commission Regulation (EU) No 1253/2013 of 21 October 2013). So I think we can handle the element as the other 5.
The task is to describe in the TG how to handle these metadata elements.
It is important that these elements are clearly flagged as special type of metadata mainly for machine consumption.
James Reid (Leader)
What problems causes current solution ?¶
The metadata elements for interoperability are mentioned in an informative annex to existing technical guidance. Thereby they will be considered quite poor. Nobody who is building metadata profiles expects additional mandatory elements without those being highlighted in the main body of the technical guidelines and implementing rules.
NB - 3 are mandatory (including Spatial representation type) and 3 are conditionally mandatory
What can be a solution on current problem ?¶
Integration into the main mapping in chapter 2 considering the fact that these rules come from implementing rules concerning interoperability that do only apply data in focus of this implementing rule. Metadata for services are not involved.
Most of the mentioned metadata elements have a precise mapping to ISO 19115-elements that can be found in data specifications. Others can be derived from the given examples. We need to describe an exact mapping of the given metadata "information" to existing ISO 19115-elements. One possible way could be to make use of existing draft mapping tables and to transform these information into Technical Guidance "style".
Comment from Peter Kochmann (DE): Last year I built up a German draft mapping table assuming precise ISO 19115-elements (see attached file). Some of them do not match an element by now but a whole structure.
How does it relate to IR ?¶
IR metadata contains tables of metadata elements for data and services giving a multiplicity as well. In case of data regarding IR interoperability these additional metadata elements have to be considered in IR metadata too.
How will the solution affect existing tools ?¶
How will the solution affect existing metadata ?¶
What other issues in MIWG-8 is related to this change ?¶
It have relations to MIWP-8 (E-1) Integrate Theme specific metadata
The theme specific metadata are though mainly optional but it could maybe idea to handle these element in a common way.
What other groups within MIG-related workgroups could be linked to this issue ?¶