Changes between Version 18 and Version 19 of ISO2ebRIMIssues


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Mar 22, 2009, 3:31:02 AM (15 years ago)
Author:
heikki
Comment:

--

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified

  • ISO2ebRIMIssues

    v18 v19  
    1010== Introduction ==
    1111
    12 The specification in [http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=20596 OGC 07-038] section F about how to register ISO metadata in a ebRIM registry is rather obscure. Apart from a very loose use of language relating to specific technical concepts like XML 'elements' and 'attributes' (usually anything is called an 'attribute' or a 'property' in that document, regardless), there are more things unclear. This page lists our uncertainties in how to interpret that document.
     12The specification in [http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=20596 OGC 07-038] section F about how to register ISO metadata in a ebRIM registry is rather obscure. Apart from a very loose use of language relating to specific technical concepts, there are more things unclear. This page lists our uncertainties in how to interpret that document and choices we have made.
    1313----
    1414
    1515== the list ==
    1616
    17 General
    1817
    19  - The object type of !DataSet is defined in the Basic Extension package ([http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=27093 OGC 07-144r2]), as being "urn:ogc:def:ebRIM-ObjectType:OGC:Dataset". In the [http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=20596 CIM spec (07-038)], many references are made to !DataSet, but with object type "urn:x-ogc:specification:csw-ebrim-cim:ObjectType:Dataset". This type is not defined in [http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=20596 07-038] (nor anywhere else that we are aware of). So what should we use? For now, I'm asuming the type defined in [http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=27093 07-144r2] is preferred, as it is actually defined, whereas the alternative type in [http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=20596 07-038] is undefined.
     181. Type of !DataSet
    2019
    21 Table F.2 describes the creation of a !ResourceMetadata object.
     20The object type of !DataSet is defined in the Basic Extension package ([http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=27093 OGC 07-144r2]), as being "urn:ogc:def:ebRIM-ObjectType:OGC:Dataset". In the [http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=20596 CIM spec (07-038)], many references are made to !DataSet, but with object type "urn:x-ogc:specification:csw-ebrim-cim:ObjectType:Dataset". This type is not defined in [http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=20596 07-038] (nor anywhere else that we are aware of). So what should we use? For now we have used the type defined in [http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=27093 07-144r2], as it is actually defined whereas the alternative type in [http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=20596 07-038] is undefined.
    2221
    23  - fileIdentifier : the table says it is not mapped, but "see Table F.1". Does this mean the information (already put in a !MetadataInformation in table F.1) must be repeated in this !ResourceMetadata ? In this case I opted for YES.
    24  - language : the table says it is not mapped, but "see Table F.1". Does this mean the information (already put in a !MetadataInformation in table F.1) must be repeated in this !ResourceMetadata ? In this case I opted for YES.
    25  - parentIdentifier : the table says it is not mapped, but "see Table F.1". Does this mean the information (already processed into an extra !MetadataInformation in table F.1) must be repeated ? In this case I opted for NO, as there already is a parent !MetadataInformation as per table F.1.
     222. Repeated filedIdentifier
     23
     24Table F.2 says it is not mapped, but "see Table F.1". Does this mean the information (already put in a !MetadataInformation in table F.1) must be repeated in this !ResourceMetadata ? In this case we chose YES.
     25
     263. Repeated language
     27
     28Table F.2 says it is not mapped, but "see Table F.1". Does this mean the information (already put in a !MetadataInformation in table F.1) must be repeated in this !ResourceMetadata ? In this case we chose YES.
     29
     304. Repeated parentIdentifier
     31
     32Table F.2 says it is not mapped, but "see Table F.1". Does this mean the information (already processed into an extra !MetadataInformation in table F.1) must be repeated ? In this case we opted for NO, as there already is a parent !MetadataInformation created as per table F.1.
    2633
    2734