Regeln für Teilnehmer:
Ich bin mit den Regeln einverstanden

Übersicht:

Favoritenliste:

Favourite Pages

There are currently no pages on your favourites list. You can add pages to this list by selecting Favourite from the Tools menu on the page you're viewing.
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Kommentierungszeitraum ist abgelaufen, bitte nicht mehr kommentieren!

Finale Fassung der Kommentierungstabelle (am 11.03.2016 der EU-KOM übermittelt)

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.

In einem ersten Schritt wurden Abstract Test Suites (ATS) für die folgenden Technical Guidance Dokumente entworfen, die nun mit den Mitgliedstaaten abgestimmt werden sollen:

  • Metadata (for discovery)
  • Metadata (for interoperability)
  • Discovery services
  • View services (WMS, WMTS)
  • Download services (Atom, WFS)

Die ATS Dokumente spezifizieren dabei so konkret wie möglich, wie die Anforderungen aus den Technical Guidance Dokumenten getestet werden sollen und stellen damit die gemeinsam abgestimmte Grundlage für die Entwicklung von INSPIRE Validierungs-Tools dar.

Für die sich derzeit in der Fortschreibung befindlichen Technical Guidance Dokumente zu Metadaten und Geodatendiensten werden nach Veröffentlichung der neuen Versionen weitere ATS entwickelt, die zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt mit den Mitgliedstaaten abgestimmt werden.

Wer sollte sich an der Kommentierung beteiligen?

Die Konsultation richtet sich insbesondere an Experten in den Mitgliedstaaten, die in die Entwicklung von INSPIRE Validierungs-Tools eingebunden waren bzw. sind.

In Deutschland werden insbesondere der AK Metadaten und der AK Geodienste beteiligt.  

Relevante Verordnungen und Technical Guidance Dokumente? 

Metadaten

Netzdienste

Interoperabilität von Datensätzen und -diensten

Kommentierungszeitraum?

Kommentare können bis zum 08.03.2016 über diese Seite abgegeben werden.

Zu prüfende Dokumente?

Kommentierungstabelle

Bitte in der nachfolgenden Tabelle Ihre Kommentare eintragen (möglichst in englischer Sprache). 

Bitte die Kommentare klassifizieren (Type of comment) nach

  • GE = general
  • ED = editorial
  • AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) 
  • CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)
  • CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)

Bei Fragen wenden Sie sich bitte an Sven Boehme oder Markus Seifert.

ATS (e.g. download-atom)Test (e.g. A.01.TGR1)Type of commentSeverity (minor, medium, critical)CommentsProposed changeResolutionKommentiert von (nur zur internen Verwendung)
Download Service (Atom) A.15 CR criticalThe 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 (GDI-LSA)
Metadata (discovery)A.05.IR14.ds.keywordCTmediumWhat 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.temporalEDminormissing word at first bullet at "Test method""Is a valid TimePeriod given and ..." Peter Kochmann (GDI-NW)
Metadata (discovery)A.17.IR22.IR23.ds.temporalCTmedium

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 fail be passed if and only if at least one check among date of publication, date of last revision or date of creation doesn’t evaluates to true." Peter Kochmann (GDI-NW)
Metadata (discovery)

A.19.IR28.ds.conformity

A.20.IR29.ds.specification

GE / CTcriticalTG 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.specificationGE / CTmediumTG 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.roleEDminorredundant and missing word at first bullet at "Open questions""Is The the codeList URL ..." Peter Kochmann (GDI-NW)
Metadata (interoperability)<all>GEminor

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 SystemGEmedium

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 EncodingGEmediumEncoding 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 EncodingGEmediumCharacter 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 issuesCTcriticalThe 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 issuesGEmediumTesting 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
(GDI-BY)

Metadata (interoperability)A.1 Coordinate Reference SystemEDmediumThe 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 SystemCTmediumIt 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...EDminorUse 'ISO' for ISO standards, not 'iso'change 

Markus Seifert

(GDI-BY)
Metadata (interoperability)A.4 Topological ConsitencyGEmediumNot 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 ConsitencyEDminorIt 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 TypeCTminorThe 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 issuesGEcriticalWe 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.validateEDminor'...against ISO 19139 version 2005-DIS with...' is not a correct referencecorrect the refernce 

Markus Seifert

(GDI-BY)
Metadata (discovery)A.01.validateCRmediumFor 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.keywordEDminorThe reference should be 2.4 and not 2.2.3check and change 

Markus Seifert

(GDI-BY)
Metadata (discovery)A.06.IR15.srv.keywordEDminorThe reference should be 2.4 and not 2.2.3check and change 

Markus Seifert

(GDI-BY)
Metadata (discovery)A.07.IR05.IR06.ds.identificationGEmediumThe 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

EDminorTest method, second paragraph: If one or more are provided:Change the '.' to ':' 

Markus Seifert

(GDI-BY)
Metadata (discovery)A.15.IR19.kws-in-vocabEDminorReference: TG MD 2.4.2, Req 19Add correct reference 

Markus Seifert

(GDI-BY)
Metadata (discovery)A.16.IR20.IR21.ds.boundsCTmediumHow 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.temporalGEmedium

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.conformityEDminorThe reference should be 2.8 and not 2.8.1check and change 

Markus Seifert

(GDI-BY)
Metadata (discovery)A.20.IR29.ds.specificationEDminorThe reference should be 2.8 and not 2.8.2check and change 

Markus Seifert

(GDI-BY)
Metadata (discovery)A.21.IR30.IR31.ds.public.accessEDminorThe title contains IR31 twiceremove one of the double mentioned IR31 

Markus Seifert

(GDI-BY)
Metadata (discovery)A.26.IR38.md.contact.roleEDminorThe reference should be 2.11.1 and not 2.11.2check and change 

Markus Seifert

(GDI-BY)
Metadata (discovery)A.30.IR27.ds.spatial resolutionEDminorReference: TG MD 2.7.2, Req 27Add correct reference 

Markus Seifert

(GDI-BY)
Pre-defined WFS Download Service All Tests GEminor 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 followingEDminorPrerequisits: A.01 already contains the both mentioned OGC WFS tests Remove the redundant test cases   Markus Seifert(GDI-BY)
View ServiceA.02.IR04 ED minorThe 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 ServiceA.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)  
WMTSIR 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 questionsGEmediumThe link to A.28.md.creation.date doesn't work and there's no chapter named like thatrepair link Peter Kochmann (GDI-NW)