Open isotc211 opened 3 years ago
(Received by email from Marie Lambois) 1- (easy and editorial one) documentation in Field_Type are incorrect and have typos. 2- In 19103, type (between field and FieldType) is 0 to 1 whereas in the schema it is 1 to many :
3- When a Record is implemented, the link to the FieldType is in fact encoded twice (once through the RecordType and once through the Field). Should we keep this redundant implementation ? In the example below I have tried not to duplicate. 4- In metadata, Records are often used with Measures (at least in my experience, here in georeferencedParameters). This new implementation makes the declaration of the unit of measure not easy. Should we have guidance ?
(Received by email from Marie Lambois) 1- (easy and editorial one) documentation in Field_Type are incorrect and have typos. 2- In 19103, type (between field and FieldType) is 0 to 1 whereas in the schema it is 1 to many :
3- When a Record is implemented, the link to the FieldType is in fact encoded twice (once through the RecordType and once through the Field). Should we keep this redundant implementation ? In the example below I have tried not to duplicate. 4- In metadata, Records are often used with Measures (at least in my experience, here in georeferencedParameters). This new implementation makes the declaration of the unit of measure not easy. Should we have guidance ?
Record is not present any more in ISO/FDIS 19103, this should be transfered to HMMG (management of the new “common types” package).
Justification: We are facing some difficulties implementing the new ISO 19103 Record. Here are some comments/questions: Proposal: Fix the documentation & modelling errors. Consider how to add e.g. measure to the record / field