Changes between Version 18 and Version 19 of ISO2ebRIMIssues
- Timestamp:
- Mar 22, 2009, 3:31:02 AM (15 years ago)
Legend:
- Unmodified
- Added
- Removed
- Modified
-
ISO2ebRIMIssues
v18 v19 10 10 == Introduction == 11 11 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.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, there are more things unclear. This page lists our uncertainties in how to interpret that document and choices we have made. 13 13 ---- 14 14 15 15 == the list == 16 16 17 General18 17 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. 18 1. Type of !DataSet 20 19 21 T able F.2 describes the creation of a !ResourceMetadata object.20 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 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. 22 21 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. 22 2. Repeated filedIdentifier 23 24 Table 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 26 3. Repeated language 27 28 Table 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 30 4. Repeated parentIdentifier 31 32 Table 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. 26 33 27 34