Closed jensscheerlinck closed 8 years ago
We should mention the specific metadata elements then. In this case I think that it is okay, but we have to be careful that the Download ATS will not become a Metadata ATS too. Then it would be better to define a cross-cutting issue or a metadata ATS issue and refer to that from this test.
In service metadata, the Coupled resource (identificationInfo[1]/*/operatesOn) shall be used for this. However, this element does not necessarily contain a code and namespace element, making testing very hard.
Because the 2nd bullet is more about testing consistency between the ATOM feed and the related metadata document(s), my proposal is to:
I don't think there is a requirement in the implementing regulation to have a dataset identifier code and dataset identifier namespace, this is just one option ~ Spatial Data Set Identifier maps to RS_Identifier. [INS NS] tells us the Spatial Data Set Identifier parameter shall contain the Unique Resource Identifier which does _NOT _ imply an HTTP-URI. The alternative option is that the Spatial Data Set Identifier maps to MD_Identifier, which can be a UUID for example.
Discussed in the call on resolution.
Conclusion:
TODO: Finalize this if the label for flagging cross component consistency is added.
This issue has been extracted from the issue list on:https://ies-svn.jrc.ec.europa.eu/issues/2685
Comment
äthe dataset identifier code and dataset identifier namespace must be present in the metadata document of the service' is too vague. What does äbe present' mean? Included somewhere in the document or in specific elements?
Proposed Change
Clarify.