10th MIWP-5 sub-group meeting (ATS comment resolution #2)¶
- 10th MIWP-5 sub-group meeting (ATS comment resolution #2)
Thursday, 28 April 2016, 15:00-17:00 CEST
Recording: MP4, AdobeConnect player
[15:00-16:45] Comments that require further discussion
[16:45-17:00] Next steps
Actions are highlighted with the keyword [Action] below.
#12: Stable URIs for conformance classes and tests
- Agreed to define persistent URIs for the ATSs in the http://inspire.ec.europa.eu namespace to refer to conformance classes and also test cases, in order to guarantee persistence (if ATSs are moved from GitHub)
- Redirect to the current implementation (pure redirect, no additional metadata)
- Also for INSPIRE Test Cases to be able to link from ETSs
- Potential pattern: http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/ats/<tg-id>/<version>/<cc-id>/<test-case-id>
- [Action] JRC to specify URI pattern and to implement redirects once the CCs are stable.
#16: Structure of the ATSs according to conformance classes; this is the response to Clemens' action from the previous call
- 2 options for representation in GitHub.
- Decision: One repository per ATS
#17: Timeout on requests to Network Services and sleep-mode
- Agreement on consistent timeouts across CCs. Needs to be on a request level as they are different. Some are specified in IR/TG, but not all, e.g. when accessing other remote resources like code list values. Use 30s, if there is nothing stated in the technical guidance.
- Impact of sleep-mode should be "taken into account" in the TG first, if it needs to be taken into account in the tests -> flag as TGCR issue
- No alternative thesaurus should be allowed to be consistent with the current TG. Use the official GEMET resource (apply proposed resolution of #44).
- Need to clarify how to identify the GEMET thesauraus in the metadata as a CI_Citation is used. The geoportal now checks for "gemet" (case-insensitive) in the title. This should be documented in the ATS to be unambiguous.
- [Action] Angelo to document the geoportal approach in one of the issues.
#120: Default temporal reference system
- Change test case for requirement 24 as described in Clemens’ comment to enforce the YYYY-MM-DD pattern when the default reference system is used.
#27: This is a summary issue about testing consistency of metadata with the data set. It will clarify the resolution for a number of other issues
- Agreement with the proposed resolution.
#93: Probably this should be a TGCR issue as well, but that should be discussed.
- Interpretation is that the 19139 XML requirement only relates to the coupled-resource MetadataURL elements, others may be present, too.
- But then how to identify which MetadataURL elements are the coupled-resource MetadataURL elements?
- Make the assumption that all MetadataURL elements are coupled-resource MetadataURL elements, i.e. test all elements for 19139 XML (MD_Metadata or CSW ISO AP GetRecordById response root element).
- Stick to what is strictly in IR13 and IR14.
#110: This was discussed last time, but the "namespace" topic could not be resolved. As we have no new input it is not clear to me that we can make progress on Thursday though.
- Unclear how to resolve the unresolved namespace issue. Needs clarification in the TG.
- Do not test it until this has been clarified.
#15: this depends on issue #39, regarding the advertisement of federated catalogues
- Needs to be labeled with "type:TGCR" as it requires clarification in the TG based on the geoportal experience
- Client cannot determine the scenario from the GetCapabilities
- Table issues and test case(s) until the TG has been clarified
- Is there an agreed way to test this (seperate from the TG): yes, if the scenario option is centralised. Not for federated discovery services.
- Because the Federated Catalogues scenario has been problematic in the past, during implementation with regard to harvesting, nearly all MS are using the centralized approach. -> Also add scenario used by client in the ExtendedCapabilities (information is missing from TG)
#17: to discuss the creation of an INSPIRE "language code register", independent of Metadata TG & Network Services TG
- Already agreed in the meantime.
- Some issues are labeled with feedback:question and need input from metadata experts.
- [Action] Metadata experts in the group should look at these issues and recommend a resolution.
- How to deal with issues that have not seen a discussion? We just have to consider them agreed (with the proposed resolution).
- [Action] Every assignee updates their issues based on the decisions.
- [Action] JRC/PwC/ii discuss updating the ATSs.