[ckan-dev] differences in ISO19139 profiles

[Adrià Mercader]

Hi Elena,

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.

iso19139eden uses the rules defined by the EDEN team
http://eden.ign.fr/xsd/isotc211

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)

To be completely honest, I don't know where the "iso19139" one comes from.

A while ago I compiled the differences between them on this gist, in
case someone is interested:

https://gist.github.com/amercader/3937828

> Does it make sense to specify in the configuration file more than one
> profile, like
>
> ckan.spatial.validator.profiles = 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 = iso19139eden,gemini2,constraints
to add the extra validation of the UK Gemini profile.

> 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.

Adrià


> 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