Metadata contactInfo: onlineResource as alternative to electronicMailAddress

[danicgc]

Dear all,
The INSPIRE Metadata Implementing Rules requires electronicMailAddress as mandatory (within the contactInfo element), but some organisations provide contact forms (https...) instead of e-mail addresses, probably to avoid spam and/or to improve message management.
The ISO 19115 allows onlineResource as another way to contact the organisation (besides e-mail, postal address, etc.).
We propose to expand the INSPIRE Metadata Implementing Rules to this option, as a possible alternative to the electronicMailAddress for that cases where organisations do not have e-mail but contact forms. This means using electronicMailAddress OR onlineResource in contactInfo.
Thanks,

[heidivanparys]

Adding the exact location in the Metadata Implementing Rules for further reference:

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:02008R1205-20081224#tocId43

9.1. Responsible party

This is the description of the organisation responsible for the establishment, management, maintenance and distribution of the resource.

This description shall include:

— the name of the organisation as free text,

— a contact e-mail address as a character string.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:02008R1205-20081224#tocId46

10.1. Metadata point of contact

This is the description of the organisation responsible for the creation and maintenance of the metadata.

This description shall include:

— the name of the organisation as free text,

— a contact e-mail address as a character string.

[sMorrone]

Dear @danicgc, @heidivanparys
I am moving this issue (indeed a change proposal to Metadata Implementing Rules and, consequently, to MD TG) to the TG repository issue tracker.

[sMorrone]

Subgroup meeting on 13.09.2022:
for the evaluation of this change proposal, the sub-group decided to seek the support of the MIG-T experts, and invites them to provide feedback directly as comments to this GitHub issue.

[fabiovinci]

Subgroup meeting on 17.04.2023:

considering the additional change proposal requesting the same change, the Subgroup approved this change proposal.

[fabiovinci]

Related TG requirements involved:

• TG Requirement C.6: metadata/2.0/req/common/md-point-of-contact

• TG Requirement C.10: metadata/2.0/req/common/responsible-organisation

[fabiovinci]

The INSPIRE MIG-T approved the change proposal during the 74th MIG-T meeting. The proposal will be moved to the MIG for the final endorsement.

A comment was raised by FR related to the use of the onlineResource element for the provision of a URL of an online contact form.
JRC will investigate whether a more specific alternative to onlineResource element exists.

[fabiovinci]

As no objections were raised by MIG members within the two-week window, the proposal is endorsed.

[fabiovinci]

Dear all,

find below the recap of the status of this issue:

• The MIG/MIG-T members approved the proposal to “relax” the IR requirements (which require the e-mail address as mandatory contact information), allowing the provision of a URL of an online contact form as an alternative to the e-mail address.

• This change proposal was approved but it was requested to investigate whether a more specific alternative to the proposed "onlineResource" element exists for the provision of the URL.

• Looking at the relevant data type "CI_Contact", it seems that the "contactInstructions" element is a valid alternative to the "onlineResource" element and more suitable for the scope.

Please provide your feedback.

[danicgc]

Good news the possibility of using an alternative to e-mail addresses, which not always exist.
About the element to use, if the way of contact with the organisation is a web form and/or has a URL, we consider onlineResource the best option instead of contactInstructions, as the first links directly the URL and the second seems to be to provide further information in text format (as could be opening hours...).
Thank you

[PeKoNW]

In terms of the most appropriate use of ISO 19115 elements, I consider onlineResource to be more suitable here, as it contains the familiar CI_OnlineResource structure with the linkage element explicitly intended for URLs. I see this as advantageous for any validation.
The definition of contactInstructions as "supplemental instructions on how or when to contact the individual or organization" also goes in the right direction in terms of content; however, I see the free text field more as containing descriptive or supplementary information.