Example: the metadata “essential” The Directive and the Implementing Rules do not leave much room for flexibility on the particular provisions relating to metadata. The legally required metadata elements for spatial data sets and services are clearly set out in Implementing Regulation No. 1205/2008. Also, the definitions and descriptions are clear and leave little room for interpretation. They are very similar but not identical to the ISO Metadata standard 19115. Hence, the level for “essential” metadata can be verified mainly by checking whether the respective metadata elements in table 1 and 2 have been included for each spatial dataset. Having said this, if not all these elements are fully respected, it is worth verifying whether the metadata for a particular spatial dataset or service are sufficient to “making it possible to Should this be the case, a more flexible attitude could be discover, inventory and use them”. justified bearing in mind that there few objective criteria to establish the user-driven argumentation. Example: the metadata “advanced” The (informal) Technical Guidelines for metadata have been recently updated. They present ONE, but not the only way, to implement the metadata provisions. [to be completed] Alternative approach in defining the "maturity levels" Level Data sharing Metadata Network services Data interoperability Spatial data are … basic available on the documented with available as shared is” (i.e. … … … …. “as web, under metadata using well data set” not harmonised conditions that do established download (e.g. Atom) according to the not unduly restrict standards, e.g. ISO and/or through an INSPIRE data models) (INSPIRE their extensive use, 19139, Dublin Core, off-the-shelf OGC principles & ideally under an open DCAT-AP service without core SDI licence specific INSPIRE standards) extensions (e.g. WMS, WFS, SOS, WCS)
Example: the “essential” metadata The Directive and the Implementing Rules do not leave much room for flexibility on the particular provisions relating to metadata. The legally required metadata elements for spatial data sets and services are clearly set out in Implementing Regulation No. 1205/2008. Also, the definitions and descriptions are clear and leave little room for interpretation. They are very similar but not identical to the ISO Metadata standard 19115. Hence, the “essential” level for metadata can be verified mainly by checking whether the respective metadata elements in table 1 and 2 have been included for each spatial dataset. Having said this, if not all these elements are fully respected, it is worth verifying whether the metadata for a particular spatial dataset or service are sufficient to “making it possible to discover, inventory and use them”. Should this be the case, a more flexible attitude could be justified bearing in mind that there few objective criteria to establish the user-driven argumentation. Example: the “advanced” metadata The (informal) Technical Guidelines for metadata have been recently updated. They present ONE, but not the only way, to implement the metadata provisions. [to be completed] Alternative approach in defining the "maturity levels" Level Data sharing Metadata Network services Data interoperability Spatial data are … basic (INSPIRE principles & core SDI standards) … available on the web, under conditions that do not unduly restrict their extensive use, ideally under an open licence … documented with metadata using well established standards, e.g. ISO 19139, Dublin Core, DCAT-AP … available as data set” download (e.g. Atom) and/or through an off-the-shelf OGC service without specific INSPIRE extensions (e.g. WMS, WFS, SOS, WCS) …. shared “as is” (i.e. not harmonised according to the INSPIRE data models)
2016.1%20Fitness%20for%20purpose%20Annex%20III%20-%20draft%20v2.2%20-%2028.4_TrackChanges%20reflection%20group%2011052017%20v1.docx