[geo-discuss] Fw: Re: Consultation in INSPIRE metadata
pg.cipriano at gmail.com
Mon Dec 17 09:25:10 UTC 2007
Jo Walsh ha scritto:
> How can that be done outside the ISO system?
Jo, I guess these modifications (if adopted) will bring CEN TC 287 to
profile existing EN-ISO-19115 and EN-ISO-19119 normes (and also 19139 ??).
So NOT outside the ISO system.
Here parts of minutes from the last CENTC 287 "WG5" meeting (november):
Resolution 124  write scenario's for supporteing the INSPIRE Implementing
Once EC approves IR's we should consider standardization a.s.a.p.
We already have a 19115, we cannot have two different standards saying
different things. So we may need a European annex to 19115.
MMI DC has made CWA's . CEN/TC 287 could take the DC documents that have
geographic information in and make them into a CEN TR.
 CEN TC 287 - june 2007
2007/12/16, Jo Walsh <jo at frot.org>:
> Original got caught by mailman, didn't see it in geo-discuss moderate
> Interesting, though maybe more so for the dedicated standards-wankers
> than the gonzo lobbyists among us. Circling on...
> ----- Forwarded message from "andre at openstandards.de" <
> andre at openstandards.de> -----
> The metadata consultation uses an Microsoft excel form that ressembles
> those common by the international standards organisation. Some of you
> may object that file format but it is the only one they accept.
> Compatibility with ISO 26300:2006 could be sought in that matter if felt
> I was confused by the consideration of the existing standard ISO 19115
> that the inspire metadata project aims to "revise".
> How can that be done outside the ISO system? See also section 2.4: "The
> European Commission shall establish, in collaboration with stakeholders
> and relevant standardisation organisations, detailed guidelines and
> instructions for implementation to ensure interoperability of metadata.
> These will include instructions on how the European standards EN ISO
> 19115 and EN ISO 19119 shall be used to disseminate INSPIRE metadata,
> should one chose to use these standards." -- Of course ISO standards
> are international standards, not European ones. So why not just apply
> ISO 19115?
> I had a closer look at the Inspire metadata spec today, some quick
> a) ed: no destinction between normative and informative sections of the
> spec or between spec and annex, annex should be merged.
> b) use of dublin core?
> c) references to standard requirements in the annex without proper
> d) "limitations" - fields are mandatory, 2.2.9
> e) no explicit EIF 1.0 framework compatibility reference which should be
> considered to get added to section 2.4.
> f) no support chains of CC licensing models
> g) access fee does not belong in the document, only associated
> permissions or rights conferred
> h) ed: p.1. "EU-Commission" as publisher, source is too general and
> i) tech: the spec mentions "free text", char sets are not specified. It
> is recommended to apply UTF8
> j) Drafters in some parts refer to ISO 8601, in other parts they do not
> or aim to develop their own format. See also *EN 28601:1992*
> k) gen: consider to take ISO 14721:2003 (OAIS) into account.
> l) gen: open questions about the maintenance regime
> Jo Walsh schrieb:
> >I don't see any contact details, or any background as to how the
> >members of the workgroup identified a range of standards as "fake".
> Actually there are right now two different efforts to address the topic
> of open standardization.
> One is the working group, another one is Digital Standard (digistan), a
> new organisation
> we set up. The main concern is openness of the standard process and
> addressing the issue of
> vendor capture, not particular standards. We are also involved with DIS
> 29500 discussions.
> >I'm also surprised to see so many ISO standards clearly identified as
> >"open" and "inclusive", and to see the FFII offering this
> >justification of the ISO's pay-to-play policy: [[ But specification
> >itself could cost a fair amount of money (ie. 100-400Eur per copy as
> >in ISO because copyright and publication of the document itself).]]
> Usually it is no real problem. However, some of us considered cc
> licensing models as criteria
> which would exclude certain standards. "Free spec" is really a totally
> different demand and not
> the crucial one. The underlying issue is how to finance the standard
> process. Fees are limitations
> on the disseminationof the standard and should be kept to the bare
> minimum. But spec costs are
> less crucial than limitations on the use of the spec. Our main concern
> is the market neutrality of
> the standard.
> ----- End forwarded message -----
> geo-discuss mailing list
> geo-discuss at lists.okfn.org
pg.cipriano at gmail.com
("perchè la terra dei cachi è la terra dei cachi ..!")
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the geo-discuss