Open idevisser opened 1 year ago
Given https://github.com/INSPIRE-MIF/technical-guidelines/blob/2023.1/metadata/metadata-iso19139/metadata-iso19139.adoc#data-encoding, would something like the following be an option?
<gmd:distributionFormat>
<gmd:MD_Format>
<gmd:name>
<gmx:Anchor xlink:href="https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/geopackage+sqlite3">GeoPackage</gmx:Anchor>
</gmd:name>
<gmd:version>
<gco:CharacterString>1.3.0</gco:CharacterString>
</gmd:version>
<gmd:specification>
<gmx:Anchor xlink:href="https://link/to/specific/encoding/rule">Name of the theme-specific or use-case specific encoding rule</gmx:Anchor>
</gmd:specification>
</gmd:MD_Format>
</gmd:distributionFormat>
This issue seems to be related to https://github.com/INSPIRE-MIF/gp-ogc-api-features/issues/87.
Dear @idevisser , @heidivanparys ,
ISPRA - Geological Survey of Italy is considering using the same option (more specifically, two instances of the <gmd:distributionFormat>
- see below excerpt) in the metadata for geological datasets that are distributed both in GML and alternative GPKG encoding.
We fully support this option.
This is something we could (should?) document in the specification for the GeoPackage encoding of INSPIRE datasets.
What do you think?
<gmd:distributionInfo>
<gmd:MD_Distribution>
<gmd:distributionFormat>
<gmd:MD_Format>
<gmd:name>
<gmx:Anchor xlink:href="http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/gml+xml">gml+xml</gmx:Anchor>
</gmd:name>
<gmd:version>
<gco:CharacterString>3.2.1</gco:CharacterString>
</gmd:version>
</gmd:MD_Format>
</gmd:distributionFormat>
<gmd:distributionFormat>
<gmd:MD_Format>
<gmd:name>
<gmx:Anchor xlink:href="https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/geopackage+sqlite3">geopackage+sqlite3</gmx:Anchor>
</gmd:name>
<gmd:version>
<gco:CharacterString>1.2</gco:CharacterString>
</gmd:version>
<gmd:specification>
<gmx:Anchor xlink:href="https://link/to/GE-GPKG-encoding-rules"></gmx:Anchor>
</gmd:specification>
</gmd:MD_Format>
</gmd:distributionFormat>
I think it belongs more in the TG metadata. Perhaps the example in https://github.com/INSPIRE-MIF/technical-guidelines/blob/main/metadata/metadata-iso19139/metadata-iso19139.adoc#3231-data-encoding should be updated to also included an alternative encoding, not just GML?
But it is probably also a good idea to add some text regarding this metadata element in the good practice for GeoPackage as well, to make the connection clear.
Dear @idevisser, @heidivanparys
find below a proposal for documentation of the END (specifically for the DF1_5 Agglomeration source). This proposal includes documentation of both the distribution format (
What do you think? Could this be an example that we can propose to add to the TG metadata?
<gmd:distributionFormat>
<gmd:MD_Format>
<gmd:name>
<gmx:Anchor xlink:href="https://www.eionet.europa.eu/reportnet/docs/noise/templates/df1_5/agglomerationsource.gpkg/@@download/file/AgglomerationSource.gpkg">END GeoPackage Template DF1_5 AgglomerationSource</gmx:Anchor>
</gmd:name>
<gmd:version>
<gco:CharacterString>1.0</gco:CharacterString>
</gmd:version>
<gmd:specification>
<gmx:Anchor xlink:href="https://www.eionet.europa.eu/reportnet/docs/noise/guidelines/geopackage-encoding-rule-end.pdf>GeoPackage Encoding Rule for Environmental Noise Directive Reporting Data"</gmx:Anchor>
</gmd:specification>
</gmd:MD_Format>
</gmd:distributionFormat>
.....
<gmd:report>
<gmd:DQ_DomainConsistency>
<gmd:evaluationProcedure>
<!-- reference to the procedure information.
Insert here the link to the online document that contains the description of the executable data transformation project and gives access to it. -->
<gmd:CI_Citation>
<gmd:title>
<gmx:Anchor xlink:href="link to the document with the executable GPKG-to-GML transformation project">GPKG-to-GML executable transformation project from DF1_5 Agglomeration Source to INSPIRE AM</gmx:Anchor>
</gmd:title>
<gmd:date>
<gmd:CI_Date>
<gmd:date>
<!-- insert below the reference date(s) of the document -->
<gco:Date>2023-03-04</gco:Date>
</gmd:date>
<gmd:dateType>
<gmd:CI_DateTypeCode codeList="http://standards.iso.org/iso/19139/resources/gmxCodelists.xml#CI_DateTypeCode" codeListValue="publication">Publication</gmd:CI_DateTypeCode>
</gmd:dateType>
</gmd:CI_Date>
</gmd:date>
</gmd:CI_Citation>
</gmd:evaluationProcedure>
<gmd:result>
<gmd:DQ_ConformanceResult>
<gmd:specification>
<gmd:CI_Citation>
<gmd:title>
<gmx:Anchor xlink:href="http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2010/1089">Commission Regulation (EU) No 1089/2010 of 23 November 2010 implementing Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards interoperability of spatial data sets and services</gmx:Anchor>
</gmd:title>
.....
I am uploading a complete INSPIRE metadata example which implements the above proposal for documentation of the END DF1_5 Agglomeration source. END_reporting-DF1_5 Agglomeration-source-dataset_metadata.zip
To ensure that the data published in geopackage format (or an other alternative encoding) is usable in the INSPIRE community, the encoding rules should be published.
Beside that, it is very useful to provide also the transformation to demonstrate that the END GeoPackage template and datasets are compliant with the INSPIRE requirements by developing reverse transformation projects from GeoPackage to INSPIRE GML for INSPIRE schema and validation purpose.
Now the question arises, in which metadata element can we best include this information? Preferably, we all use the same metadata elements for this, so that this information is easy to find and use.
What are your thoughts on this?