Fw: Re: Consultation in INSPIRE metadata

[Jo Walsh]

Original got caught by mailman, didn't see it in geo-discuss moderate list.
Interesting, though maybe more so for the dedicated standards-wankers
than the gonzo lobbyists among us. Circling on...
 
----- Forwarded message from "andre@..." <andre@...> -----

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
important.

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
observations:
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
references
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
misleading.
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.

//Andre


----- End forwarded message -----

--

_______________________________________________
geo-discuss mailing list
geo-discuss@...
http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/geo-discuss

[pgc]

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 [1] write scenario's for supporteing the INSPIRE Implementing rules.
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 [2]. CEN/TC 287 could take the DC documents that have geographic information in and make them into a CEN TR.

[1] CEN TC 287 - june 2007
[2] ftp://ftp.cenorm.be/PUBLIC/CWAs/e-Europe/MMI-DC/cwa14857-00-2003-Nov.pdf

pg

2007/12/16, Jo Walsh <jo@...>:

Original got caught by mailman, didn't see it in geo-discuss moderate list.
Interesting, though maybe more so for the dedicated standards-wankers
than the gonzo lobbyists among us. Circling on...

----- Forwarded message from " andre@..." <andre@...> -----

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
important.

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
observations:
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
references
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
misleading.
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.

//Andre


----- End forwarded message -----

--

_______________________________________________
geo-discuss mailing list
geo-discuss@...
http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/geo-discuss

--
Piergiorgio Cipriano
pg.cipriano@...

("perchè la terra dei cachi è la terra dei cachi ..!")
_______________________________________________
geo-discuss mailing list
geo-discuss@...
http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/geo-discuss