-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Spatial Data Service sub-category #78
Comments
What is the
Is it We'll assume it isn't the URI |
OK, looking at example 4.2, it should be So we need a new schematron rule that checks that we have either:
or
And possibly a local list of terms to check against |
https://inspire-mif.github.io/technical-guidelines/metadata/metadata-iso19139/metadata-iso19139.html Clause 4.3.3.2 has the SDS category as a Conformity statement, not "just" a keyword |
Linking to the amending regulation for reference: COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1312/2014
|
It's both a keyword (Example 4.2) of https://inspire-mif.github.io/technical-guidelines/metadata/metadata-iso19139/metadata-iso19139.html and also a conformity statement to one of (or at least one of, though one of makes more sense) Invocable|interoperable|harmonised SDS So for validation I assume we could check for the keyword, and if it exists check for a conformity statement |
TG Requirement 3.4 metadata/2.0/req/sds/sds-category states:
"At least one Spatial Data Service category or subcategory for the described service shall be given using the language-neutral keyword values as defined in Part D 4 “Classification of Spatial Data Services” of [Regulation 1205/2008]."
The current 'guidance' for service keywords is too similar to the guidance for dataset keywords. This requirement should be put there, not just in the encoding. And the 'guidance' and 'encoding guidance' sections should be de-duplicated.
The controlled vocabulary for these is at https://inspire.ec.europa.eu/metadata-codelist/SpatialDataServiceCategory
See #29, but this issue is to actually specify the requirement, rather than simply correct the example. I think this one is "breaking", but "just" correcting the example isn't?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: