Scenary 2: Avoiding Service Metadata files and use <inspire_common:Conformity>
Closed this issue · 2 comments
Hello,
Last meeting we were talking about avoiding service metadata files for Network Services.
We (the National Centre of Geographical Information - CNIG) agree on that, applying the scenario 2 described in the document TG_ViewServices_v3.11.pdf.
In our opinion the <inspire_vs:ExtendedCapabilities> is useful and, as you can see in the TG_ViewServices_v3.11.pdf, we can express the conformity with Regulation (EU) No 976/2009 using the element <inspire_common:Conformity> within the <inspire_vs:ExtendedCapabilities> and calculate the NSi4-indicators . The idea of using the element gmd:applicationProfile ( within the dataset metadata file) to express the conformity with the Regulation is not very precise and it implies some new unnecessary changes in the dataset metadata files.
Dear @LauraAlemany
from my point of view, your suggestion is perfectly fine.
We agree that, at the moment, the current expression of the conformity in the ExtendedCapabilities is the perfect place and we should keep that.
On the other side, we should also re-evaluate and try to reduce the amount of required information in the ExtendedCapabilities, since it seems that many NCP indicates this commitment as difficult to do for different reasons (eg. lack of sw support for some services and impossibility to move to a different sw implementation)
More about that, please have a look here #13, especially on the Conformity declaration and ExtendedCapabilities paragraphs and why we should keep it: #13
Extended capabilities will still be an acceptable scenraio. Issue can be closed.