Hi Andrea,
Please see my comments below:
Thanks.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: geonetwork-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net
[mailto:geonetwork-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net] On
Behalf Of Andrea Carboni
Sent: Saturday, 20 May 2006 12:32 AM
To: geonetwork-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Geonetwork-devel] Validation of XML against ISO
19139 XSDs and other ISO 19115 rulesHi John,
here are my answers and comments.
> Discussion item 2:
> ==================
>
> GeoNetwork will need to be configurable to allow the
profiles that meet
> different countries', organisations' or communities of
practices' needs. ISO
> 19115 profiles should consist of: XSDs that are clones or
import and extend
> the ISO 19139 XSDs, code lists that implement those in ISO
19115, XSLs that
> translate the profile's XML format into the ISO 19139 XML format for
> validation to prove compliance to ISO 19139, namespaces to
allow others to
> access the profile's XSDs and validate the XML document
instances against
> these XSDs, registration with an ISO approved registrar to
prove acceptance
> of the profile by ISO.
>
> Can GeoNetwork provide this flexibility to implement
profiles using Jeeves or
> is there a need to use some other technology like Xforms to
provide these
> user requirements?I don't have a deep knowledge on the several iso profiles.
IMHO, there should
be only one standard (19139) to follow without
changes/customizations to
suit a particular country. Anyway, I know that there are some
countries for
which the standard is not enough and that want to change some
parts (for
example France). I think this is the scenario you have in mind.
Yes. There are many cases for ISO 19115 profiles. The rules are documented
in Annex F of ISO 19115. In summary, a profile can add extra elements, more
strictly define existing elements or remove elements from the excising ISO
19115 structure. Some example Australian profiles are:
ANZLIC ISO Metadata Profile: is the same as the ISO 19115 standard but make
the 'fileIdentfier' element mandatory for implementation reasons.
Marine Profile: removes some ISO 19115 elements and adds a couple of extra
elements. EG. metadata revision date.
Australia Defence Profile: identifies some key ISO 19115 optional elements
and makes them mandatory.
Geoscience Australia Metadata Profile: extends the ANZLIC ISO Metadata
Profile by adding in the Marine Profile additional elements because GA must
comply with both profiles.
I agree that the ISO 19139 format is the best for transferring metadata.
This can be achieved by an XSL that translates the profile's format into the
ISO 19139 format. The same two parse validation process can be used to check
that the resulting XML is ISO 19139 valid. Each profile will have to provide
this XSL as part of the profile.
After some investigation into different XML technologies it would seem to me
one of the best ways for a Metadata Entry Tool to allow flexibility for
different profiles is to use Xforms and/or CHIBA. Xforms allows one to
identify the "type" of HTML forms to generate for different elements. For
example, the dataTypes available from W3C XML Schemas can be made available
to Xforms by using the xsd:schema namespace. These dataTypes can be related
to HTML form types. Eg. 'dates' can be related to two pick lists of day and
month and the four character input text type HTML form item. Similarly code
lists can be input select lists or input multiple select lists.
Once the different types of Xforms are identified then one can use an XML
file to map these types to the different elements. I don't intend on doing a
tutorial on Xforms here but a good URL to learn about them is
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/2006/xforms-for-html-authors-part2.html
If this is the case, geonetwork can manage all iso dialects
but as different
standards, the same way it handles DC and FGDC. The
possibility to have
a basic 19139 schema and to allow several profiles has not be
taken into
account. This flexibility is not even simple to add.
I don't know if GeoNetwork lends itself to allow Xforms and CHIBA but these
are a very flexible way to present and obtain content for different profiles.
If GeoNetwork did allow Xforms and CHIBA then it would be easy to add by
using XML configuration files for each of the profiles. People could then
copy these configuration files and change them to create another profile
suitable for their organisation's needs.
I'm not suggesting that you should use Xforms and CHIBA. I'm just suggesting
that flexibility can be obtained by using them.
It will help for sure.
Cheers,
Andrea