Übersicht:
Favoritenliste:
Favoritenseiten
| Ihre Favoritenliste enthält derzeit keine Seiten. Sie fügen dieser Liste Seiten hinzu, indem Sie im Menü Extras der angezeigten Seite Favorit selektieren. |
Seitenhistorie
| Info | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
Finale Fassung der Kommentierungstabelle (am 11.03.2016 der EU-KOM übermittelt) |
| Inhalt | ||
|---|---|---|
|
Worum geht es?
Eine temporäre Arbeitsgruppe der MIG-T bearbeitet derzeit das Arbeitspaket MIWP-5 des Arbeitsprogramms der MIG. Ziel des Arbeitspaketes ist es u.a. gemeinsam abgestimmte Konformitätstests zu den Technical Guidance Dokumenten zu entwickeln.
...
| ATS (e.g. download-atom) | Test (e.g. A.01.TGR1) | Type of comment | Severity (minor, medium, critical) | Comments | Proposed change | Resolution | Kommentiert von (nur zur internen Verwendung) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Download Download Service (Atom) | A.15 | CR | critical | The Attribute: type="application/Atom+xml" is required. If this Attribute is part of the link-tag the link does not work in the Internet Explorer! The examples for INSPIRE-Atom-Feed contain the type-Attribute in the link-tag, too. And also it does not work in IE. That not the sense of interoperability. If the type-Attribute will delete the link work in the IE. | Cancel the test Attribute type in the link-tag and Change the requirement. | Dombert Dombert (GDI-LSA) | |
| Metadata (discovery) | A.05.IR14.ds.keyword | CT | medium | What happens if there's no descritiveKeywords block citing INSPIRE GEMET at all? I understand the current description of the test as follows: the test will work for each block and will skip to the next block (without failing) if no reference to INSPIRE GEMET is given. It's allowed to have additional descriptiveKeyword blocks citing nothing or other concepts. | "If at least one descriptiveKeywords block references INSPIRE GEMET or any duplicate (...) and at least one keyword from that source is found in this block, the test succeeds, otherwise it will fail." | Peter Kochmann (GDI-NW) | |
| Metadata (discovery) | A.17.IR22.IR23.ds.temporal | ED | minor | missing word at first bullet at "Test method" | "Is a valid TimePeriod given and ..." | Peter Kochmann (GDI-NW) | |
| Metadata (discovery) | A.17.IR22.IR23.ds.temporal | CT | medium | I think it has to be the other way round: The test regarding TG Req. 23 will be passed only if at least one of the three date-checks is valid. Otherwise (as I read the documented tests by now) the test could fail e.g. because of a missing revision date though there is a valid creation date. | "The test will | Peter Kochmann (GDI-NW) | |
| Metadata (discovery) | A.19.IR28.ds.conformity A.20.IR29.ds.specification | GE / CT | critical | TG Requirement 28 demands a conformity statement regarding a certain specification: IR interoperability (1089/2010 and amendments). This has not been considered in these tests. A test method aiming at the particular content of element specification is necessary. | improve A.19.IR28.ds.conformity concerning this issue | Peter Kochmann (GDI-NW) | |
| Metadata (discovery) | A.20.IR29.ds.specification | GE / CT | medium | TG Requirement 29 demands the conformity statement to be formed as DQ_DomainConsistency. This has not been considered in this test. | improve A.20.IR29.ds.specification concerning this issue | Peter Kochmann (GDI-NW) | |
| Metadata (discovery) | A.26.IR38.md.contact.role | ED | minor | redundant and missing word at first bullet at "Open questions" | "Is | Peter Kochmann (GDI-NW) | |
| Metadata (interoperability) | <all> | GE | minor | All regulations on "Metadata for interoperability" (see following issues) aim at datasets and series and only when applying to IR 1089/2010. How to define that? Conformity statement citing IR 1089/2010 with pass= TRUE? Or are these regulations relevant for all INSPIRE metadata regardless the level of fulfilling IR 1089/2010? | ? | Peter Kochmann (GDI-NW) | |
| Metadata (interoperability) | A.1 Coordinate Reference System | GE | medium | Coordinate Reference System is one of the mandatory elements in "Metadata for interoperability" for datasets and series. | There should be at least a test on pure existence for datasets and series if the resource is already in focus of IR 1089/2010. | Peter Kochmann (GDI-NW) | |
| Metadata (interoperability) | A.3 Encoding | GE | medium | Encoding is one of the mandatory elements in "Metadata for interoperability" for datasets and series. | There should be at least a test on pure existence for datasets and series if the resource is already in focus of IR 1089/2010. | Peter Kochmann (GDI-NW) | |
| Metadata (interoperability) | A.5 Character Encoding | GE | medium | Character Encoding is one of the mandatory elements in "Metadata for interoperability" for datasets and series. | There should be at least a test on pure existence for datasets and series if the resource is already in focus of IR 1089/2010. | Peter Kochmann (GDI-NW) | |
| Metadata (interoperability) | Open issues | CT | critical | The objective of ATS and testing is to ensure INSPIRE compliant datasets. Therefore, only the requirements should be tested not the recommendations, too. If a recommendation is considered crucial for interoperability it should be upgraded to a requirement. Then you can add a corresponding ATS to this issue. | Do not add recommendations to ATS if not really necessary for acieving interoperble datasets. | Markus Seifert (GDI-BY) | |
| Metadata (interoperability) | Open issues | GE | medium | Testing should only cover a test if the required metadata elements are correctly provided. This can be done automatically. Further test methods aiming the feasibiluty of the thematic content seem to be too advanced. | Keep the testing cases on the level of correctly given elements. | Markus Seifert | |
| Metadata (interoperability) | A.1 Coordinate Reference System | ED | medium | The test purpose is to evaluate the RS_Identifier and not the description of the CRS. | Test purpose should be changed in order to reflect what is actually tested, e.g. 'Qualified URL in the given RS_Identifier' | Markus Seifert (GDI-BY) | |
| Metadata (interoperability) | A.1 Coordinate Reference System | CT | medium | It is not clear how a grabed CRS can be validated against the advertised system. Additionally, this is not covered by the test purpose which only check the existence of a qualified URL. | Remove this sentence | Markus Seifert (GDI-BY) | |
| Metadata (interoperability) | A.2, A.3... | ED | minor | Use 'ISO' for ISO standards, not 'iso' | change | Markus Seifert (GDI-BY) | |
| Metadata (interoperability) | A.4 Topological Consitency | GE | medium | Not the correctness is tested as written in the purpose, but the existence of a topological consistence matadata element. | correct the purpose | Markus Seifert (GDI-BY) | |
| Metadata (interoperability) | A.5 Topological Consitency | ED | minor | It is not clear what metadata element is meant by 'CharEnc' | Use only terms and abbreviations according to the IR and TG. | Markus Seifert (GDI-BY) | |
| Metadata (interoperability) | A.6 Spatial Representation Type | CT | minor | The test should be limited to the check if an appropriate value of the codelist has been chosen. A dataset should be considered INSPIRE conformant if such an element is provided. | Skip the test on validation of the matching of the given with the advertised representation since this is considerd out of scope of conformance testing. | Markus Seifert (GDI-BY) | |
| Metadata (discovery) | Open issues | GE | critical | We think that it is not necessary to check the pure existence of a mandatory element. The ATS should cover those tests which are not already testable by a schema validation. | Consider if elements which are mandatory according to ISO need to be tested by an ATS or if the validation against the schema is already sufficient. | Markus Seifert (GDI-BY) | |
| Metadata (discovery) | A.01.validate | ED | minor | '...against ISO 19139 version 2005-DIS with...' is not a correct reference | correct the refernce | Markus Seifert (GDI-BY) | |
| Metadata (discovery) | A.01.validate | CR | medium | For validation only ISO/TS 19139:2007 with GML 3.2.1 should be used. In order to achieve interoperability only one encoding should be used, and this should be the final TS, not the draft. | Change the ATS and the TG MD accordingly | Markus Seifert (GDI-BY) | |
| Metadata (discovery) | A.05.IR14.ds.keyword | ED | minor | The reference should be 2.4 and not 2.2.3 | check and change | Markus Seifert (GDI-BY) | |
| Metadata (discovery) | A.06.IR15.srv.keyword | ED | minor | The reference should be 2.4 and not 2.2.3 | check and change | Markus Seifert (GDI-BY) | |
| Metadata (discovery) | A.07.IR05.IR06.ds.identification | GE | medium | The test method should only include the actual requirments. A reference to an ongoing discussion on how to match MD_Identifier against a namespace-identifier is not applicable here. | Change the test method accordingly | Markus Seifert (GDI-BY) | |
| Metadata (discovery) | A.08.IR03.ds.linkage and A.09.IR04.srv.linkage | ED | minor | Test method, second paragraph: If one or more are provided: | Change the '.' to ':' | Markus Seifert (GDI-BY) | |
| Metadata (discovery) | A.15.IR19.kws-in-vocab | ED | minor | Reference: TG MD 2.4.2, Req 19 | Add correct reference | Markus Seifert (GDI-BY) | |
| Metadata (discovery) | A.16.IR20.IR21.ds.bounds | CT | medium | How can you sufficiantly test a bounding box which should be as small as possible if there is no clear definition of what that means? Additionally, this is not considered as crucial for interoperability. | Remove IR 20 and use only IR 21 | Markus Seifert (GDI-BY) | |
| Metadata (discovery) | A.17.IR22.IR23.ds.temporal | GE | medium | What happens when only TimePeriod is provided? According the requirement formulated in purpose and in the first sentence of the test method, the test will pass. According to the last sentence in the test method, the test will fail. INSPIRE compliance should be more important than ISO compliance required by Req 23. | Clarify and possibly remove Req. 23 from the TG | Markus Seifert (GDI-BY) | |
| Metadata (discovery) | A.19.IR22.ds.conformity | ED | minor | The reference should be 2.8 and not 2.8.1 | check and change | Markus Seifert (GDI-BY) | |
| Metadata (discovery) | A.20.IR29.ds.specification | ED | minor | The reference should be 2.8 and not 2.8.2 | check and change | Markus Seifert (GDI-BY) | |
| Metadata (discovery) | A.21.IR30.IR31.ds.public.access | ED | minor | The title contains IR31 twice | remove one of the double mentioned IR31 | Markus Seifert (GDI-BY) | |
| Metadata (discovery) | A.26.IR38.md.contact.role | ED | minor | The reference should be 2.11.1 and not 2.11.2 | check and change | Markus Seifert (GDI-BY) | |
| Metadata (discovery) | A.30.IR27.ds.spatial resolution | ED | minor | Reference: TG MD 2.7.2, Req 27 | Add correct reference | Markus Seifert (GDI-BY) | |
| Pre-defined WFS Download Service | All Tests | GE | minor | Consider if the prerequisites should be mention in each test since they have to be tested anyway. | Remove the references to the OGC test or add them also to the other ATS (e.g. WMS, WMTS). In any case, do it in the same way for all ATS | Markus Seifert(GDI-BY) | |
| Pre-defined WFS Download Service | A.04 an the following | ED | minor | Prerequisits: A.01 already contains the both mentioned OGC WFS tests | Remove the redundant test cases | Markus Seifert(GDI-BY) | |
| View Service | A.02.IR04 | ED | minor | The test method should be specified in the same was as the some test in the WFS Download Service, meaning that the rerfences to the relevant schema should be added | Add the schema reference | Markus Seifert(GDI-BY) | |
| View Service | A.36.IR40.etrs89 | GE | medium | What about the INSPIRE relevant CRS (EPSG 4258, 3034)? Should they be mantioned here as well? | Add the INSPIRE CRS applicable for WMS | Markus Seifert(GDI-BY) | |
| WMTS | IR 89 | GE | medium | Add a test covering the ETRS based CRS in the same way as in WMS. Consider to add here the CRS here as well. | Add an additional test or reference the test from WMS ATS | Markus Seifert(GDI-BY) | |
| WMTS | Tile Matrix | GE | medium | Consider to add a requirement for a tile matrix system, since a commonly used tile matrix is crucial for interoperable cross-border WMTS. | Add a commonly used tile System (e.g. Pseudo-Wercator or InspireCRS84Quad) as requirement and a corresponding test case | Markus Seifert(GDI-BY) | |
| Metadata (discovery) | Open questions | GE | medium | The link to A.28.md.creation.date doesn't work and there's no chapter named like that | repair link | Peter Kochmann (GDI-NW) |
Überblick
Inhalte
Aktivität