what are the URIs for codelist values?

[smrgeoinfo]

RE: https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/975#issuecomment-512044641 "Could the stylesheet CodelistDictionary-v32.xsl be modified to show the gml:id values so that the URIs of the individual entries are visible?"

In the gml encoding of code lists:

<dictionaryEntry>
  <Definition gml:id="_12383_18905">
  <description>party that accepts accountability and responsibility for the resource and ensures appropriate care and maintenance of the resource</description>
  <identifier codeSpace="http://standards.iso.org/iso/19115/-3/cit/1.0">custodian</identifier>
  </Definition>
</dictionaryEntry>

IN the cat encoding:

<cat:codeEntry>
      <cat:CT_CodelistValue id="CI_RoleCode_custodian">
         <cat:identifier>
            <gco:ScopedName codeSpace="http://standards.iso.org/iso/19115/-3/cit/1.0">custodian</gco:ScopedName>
         </cat:identifier>
               .......
      </cat:CT_CodelistValue>
</cat:codeEntry>

It looks to me like the URI for the codelist concept should be codespace + '/' or '#' + the identifier for scopedName element value, e.g.

http://standards.iso.org/iso/19115/-3/cit/1.0/custodian or http://standards.iso.org/iso/19115/-3/cit/1.0#custodian

Has there been a determination by any ISO management group on what these URIs should look like?

see also #115

[ejbleys]

Hi Stephen There is a process to migrate the standards to https://schemas.isotc211.org https://schemas.isotc211.org/ That should be the official address for codeSpace

Cheers Evert Evert Bleys Convenor IST/TC211 XMG Australia +61 (0)2 62811773 +61 (0)411 483 876 ejbleys@gmail.com Skype ejbleijs@gmail.com

On 2019-07-20, at 2:31 am, Stephen Richard notifications@github.com wrote:

In the gml encoding of code lists:

party that accepts accountability and responsibility for the resource and ensures appropriate care and maintenance of the resource custodian

IN the cat encoding:

custodian ....... It looks to me like the URI for the codelist concept should be codespace + '/' or '#' + the identifier for scopedName element value, e.g. http://standards.iso.org/iso/19115/-3/cit/1.0/custodian or http://standards.iso.org/iso/19115/-3/cit/1.0#custodian Has there been a determination by any ISO management group on what these URIs should look like? see also #115 — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub , or mute the thread .

[smrgeoinfo]

would the URI for an individual code value be

https://schemas.isotc211.org/19115/-3/cit/1.0/custodian or https://schemas.isotc211.org/19115/-3/cit/1.0#custodian

or something else?

[ejbleys]

Hi Stephen Surely you also need to identify the file and then the section codeSpace="https://schemas.isotc211.org/19115/-3/cit/1.0/codelists.xml#CI_DateTypeCode https://schemas.isotc211.org/19115/-3/cit/1.0/codelists.xml#CI_DateTypeCode" The value falls within the space, it does not form the space codeValue="custodian" Cheers Evert Evert Bleys Convenor ISO/TC211 XMG Australia +61 (0)2 62811773 +61 (0)411 483 876 ejbleys@gmail.com Skype ejbleijs@gmail.com

On 2019-07-20, at 10:46 am, Evert Bleys ejbleys@gmail.com wrote:

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: Stephen Richard <notifications@github.com mailto:notifications@github.com> Date: 20 July 2019 at 02:31:18 AEST To: ISO-TC211/XML <XML@noreply.github.com mailto:XML@noreply.github.com> Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com mailto:subscribed@noreply.github.com> Subject: [ISO-TC211/XML] what are the URIs for codelist values? (#205) Reply-To: ISO-TC211/XML <reply@reply.github.com mailto:reply@reply.github.com>

In the gml encoding of code lists:

party that accepts accountability and responsibility for the resource and ensures appropriate care and maintenance of the resource custodian

IN the cat encoding:

custodian ....... It looks to me like the URI for the codelist concept should be codespace + '/' or '#' + the identifier for scopedName element value, e.g. http://standards.iso.org/iso/19115/-3/cit/1.0/custodian or http://standards.iso.org/iso/19115/-3/cit/1.0#custodian Has there been a determination by any ISO management group on what these URIs should look like? see also #115 — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub , or mute the thread .

[smrgeoinfo]

This still doesn't give a URI for the individual concept.

[ejbleys]

That’s correct The combination of the two XML attributes ‘codeSpace' & ‘codeValue' provides the concept There has been a push towards using something like ‘CI_RoleCode-custodian’ as the value, but that doesn’t achieve what you are after either To allow for the provision of a concept a different XML attribute would be needed eg concept=“” that could logically replace the two mandatory ‘codeSpace' & ‘codeValue' Cheers

e Evert Bleys Convenor ISO/TC211 XMG Australia

[dr-shorthair]

A single URI-per-concept is best practice for linked data applications.

We stood these copies up 3 yeas ago now: http://registry.it.csiro.au/def/isotc211 Each individual codelist has a dereferenceable URI such as http://registry.it.csiro.au/def/isotc211/MD_ScopeCode and then each code has one which is a child of this such as http://registry.it.csiro.au/def/isotc211/MD_ScopeCode/dataset We only did this because ISO/TC 211 couldn't get its act together to provide it from a canonical URI.

Note that an XML file for the whole codelist, or a HTML rendering of that. does not satisfy the requirement to be able to refer to an individual code in a non-XML context.

[dr-shorthair]

Note that it is not the file that matters here, it is the concept. Best practice is for it to be available in various serializations - try the [Download] tab in the above links.

[ejbleys]

Hi Simon Agreed that it is the concept that matters in a non-XML context AND in a different XML context. In the XML context referred to in the original question (I agree ISO/TC211 does not seem to have tried to address the issue) the system is not designed to provide a URI for the concept Note: The delivery of information about the concept is independent of its usage (possibly why ISO/TC 211 has not moved more swiftly on inclusion of concept URI in the metadata The delivery of the concept with an associated URI for that concepts eg https://schemas.isotc211.org/19115/-3/cit/1.0/codelists.xml#CI_DateTypeCode_creation https://schemas.isotc211.org/19115/-3/cit/1.0/codelists.xml#CI_DateTypeCode_creation That form is already within the code list XML eg as <cat:CT_CodelistValue id=“CI_DateTypeCode_creation"/> I (personally) would prefer the code lists to be in SKOS

Cheers Evert Evert Bleys Convenor ISO/TC211 XMG Australia +61 (0)2 62811773 +61 (0)411 483 876 email: ejbleys@gmail.com Skype:EJBleijs@gmail.com

On 2019-07-21, at 10:46 am, Simon Cox notifications@github.com wrote:

A single URI-per-concept is best practice for linked data applications.

We stood these copies up 3 yeas ago now: http://registry.it.csiro.au/def/isotc211 http://registry.it.csiro.au/def/isotc211 Each individual codelist has a dereferenceable URI such as http://registry.it.csiro.au/def/isotc211/MD_ScopeCode http://registry.it.csiro.au/def/isotc211/MD_ScopeCode and then each code has one which is a child of this such as http://registry.it.csiro.au/def/isotc211/MD_ScopeCode/dataset http://registry.it.csiro.au/def/isotc211/MD_ScopeCode/dataset We only did this because ISO/TC 211 couldn't get its act together to provide it from a canonical URI.

Note that an XML file for the whole codelist, or a HTML rendering of that does not satisfy the requirement to be able to refer to an individual code in a non-XML context.

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ISO-TC211/XML/issues/205?email_source=notifications&email_token=AIBGJZ6LPEUDA3CAW2SSZZ3QAOWWJA5CNFSM4IFH6NAKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD2NYSNA#issuecomment-513509684, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AIBGJZYZJA6EDPXOT2TARALQAOWWJANCNFSM4IFH6NAA.