MIWP-8 Comment resolution meeting 2016-03-16

Wednesday, 16 March 2016, 15:00-17:00 CET

Connection details


[15:00-16:30] Discussion of critical issues

  • See #2708

[16:30-17:00] Next steps

  • Comment resolution
  • Drafting the TG update
  • Endorsement procedure



Peter Kochmann (DE), Ilkka Rinne (Spatineo), Alex Ramage, James Reid (UK), Geraldine Nolf (BE), Paul Hasenohr, Christian Ansorge (EEA), Ine de Visser (NL), Pierluigi Cara, Antonio Rotundo (IT), Alejandro Guinea, Javier Nogueras (ES), Christine Brendle (AT), Michael Lutz, Vlado Cetl (JRC)

Discussion of critical issues

  • The proposed new structure was generally welcomed
  • ISO 19115-1 and -3
    • It has been agreed that the mapping to these new ISO versions is out of scope - this should simply be stated in the intro/preface
  • Coupled resource
    • [Action] Peter to provide an additional example to be used in the TG and a proposal for rewording recommendation 3.5
  • Changes from v1.3 to v2.0
    • [Action] Marie to propose a paragraph on the agreed period of 3 years to move to v2.0, which also points out that some of the changes are not backwards-compatible, in particular those related to conditions and access and use/use limitations
    • The introduction or preface should give an overview of the changes between v1.3 and 2.0 and explain why they have been made (incl. to improve the consistency between IR and TG requirements)
    • The requirements mapping table should also indicate where requirements have changed between v1.3 and 2.0
  • Resource language
    • ISO 639-2 code "zxx" should be used to indicate that a data set does not have any textual content
  • xPath descriptions should not include "Characterstring" but a wording that points to a textual elements 
    • a general section should explain how textual elements can be encoded, as CharacterStrings, Anchors or using PT_FreeText (using the wording from the current version of the TG)
  • [Action] Antonio to propose two tables to be included in the Annex that lists all MD elements that need to be provided for data sets / series and for services (similar to those included in the IRs)

Next steps

  • Complete TG draft for MIG-T review: 4 April
    • Further comments should be made as part of MIG-T review
    • Ilkka to circulate intermediate drafts for info
  • Time schedule for MIG-T and MIG-P review to be discussed at the next MIG-T meeting
  • The MIWP-8 activity should be formally closed with a web-conference to say thank you to all who contributed and to look back on what worked and didn't work so well [Action Michael L & Michael Ö]