No subject

Sun Oct 20 16:01:18 UTC 2013

cardinality
constraints) than eden, but not much more than that.

It's likely that iso19139 doesn't cover iso19119 indeed, but it would be
interesting to know whether it's the official ISO XSD or not.=20
ISO 19139 is somewhere referred to (also in the CKAN documentation, if =
I'm
not wrong) as an INSPIRE compliant profile, but this covers iso19115 and
iso19119, but not iso19115-2
I have read somewhere that also gemini2 profile is often associated to
inspire validation, but I haven't found anything more on that.

What is constraints instead?=20

In our project some partner have defined XSD rules for inspire =
validation,
then we can try to include them in our CKAN test installation.=20
I guess it is sufficient to extend this branch of the spatial extension. =
Am
I correct?

Kind regards,
-Elena =20

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ckan-dev-bounces at lists.okfn.org [mailto:ckan-dev-
> bounces at lists.okfn.org] On Behalf Of Adri=E0 Mercader
> Sent: mercoled=EC 16 ottobre 2013 16:43
> To: CKAN Development Discussions
> Subject: Re: [ckan-dev] differences in ISO19139 profiles
>=20
> Hi Elena,
>=20
> On 16 October 2013 10:12, Elena Camossi
> <elena.camossi at ext.jrc.ec.europa.eu> wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > What are the differences in the spatial validation profiles =
supported
> > by the CKAN spatial extension: iso19139, iso19139eden, iso19139ngdc?
> The validation profile basically point to different XSD validation =
rules
for ISO
> 19139 provided by different organizations.
>=20
> iso19139eden uses the rules defined by the EDEN team
> http://eden.ign.fr/xsd/isotc211
>=20
> iso19139ngdc uses the rules defined by the NGDC team in the US (I =
can't
find
> any working URL as all are down due to the US government
> shutdown)
>=20
> To be completely honest, I don't know where the "iso19139" one comes
> from.
>=20
> A while ago I compiled the differences between them on this gist, in =
case
> someone is interested:
>=20
> https://gist.github.com/amercader/3937828
>=20
> > Does it make sense to specify in the configuration file more than =
one
> > profile, like
> >
> > ckan.spatial.validator.profiles =3D =
iso19139,iso19139eden,iso19139ngdc
> It probably doesn't make much sense to validate against multiple
validators
> for the same level. You can combine different validators for different
levels,
> for instance data.gov.uk uses ckan.spatial.validator.profiles =3D
> iso19139eden,gemini2,constraints to add the extra validation of the UK
> Gemini profile.
>=20
> > Another doubt is on harvested APIs metadata (services). Is there any
> > validation profile for that, such as ISO 19119?
> If the previous one don't include it no, but it could be added if =
there is
an xsd
> or schematron available for it.
>=20
> Adri=E0
>=20
>=20
> > Thanks in advance.
> > Kind regards,
> > -Elena
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ckan-dev mailing list
> > ckan-dev at lists.okfn.org
> > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/ckan-dev
> > Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/ckan-dev
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> ckan-dev mailing list
> ckan-dev at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/ckan-dev
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/ckan-dev