[GeoNetwork-devel] [geo-discuss] INSPIRE Draft Implementing Rules for Discovery and View Services

GeoNetwork GeoNetwork Developer
1

dear all,

Please see below for the draft Implementing Rules for Discovery and
View services through INSPIRE, the European SDI Directive. All
software which wants to be used by GI providers in Europe will have to
legally comply with these rules, within 2 or 3 years.

I expect the draft will change in the future to become a lot less
"informative" and more concise and "normative", as happened with
metadata. Right now it suggests the ISO 19115 profile of CSW2 as a
"reference specification" but it is not mandated.

This makes me want to give up and grow organic vegetables for a
living, to be honest, but i will plug ahead with an
Opensearch/Atom/DublinCore implementation of the same thing, because
i believe *that will actually help solve the problem this is supposed
to be addressing* - finding geodata, not complying with law and
selling standards to government. Cheez, even the military is getting
cynical about the utility of ISO standards these days, and they started it.

Deep breath, engagement without attachment, etc. I started these two
pages on the wiki to explain the semi-private comments process::
http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/FOSS_SDIC
http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/Response_to_INSPIRE_Discovery_and_View_Draft

----- Forwarded message from Piergiorgio Cipriano <pg.cipriano@anonymised.com> -----

To: geo-discuss@anonymised.com

From INSPIRE web site:

*INSPIRE Draft Implementing Rules for Discovery and View Services * [1] is
now available for public view and for comments from SDICs and LMOs.
With the Implementing Rules, comes the first draft of the INSPIRE Network
Services Architecture [2] defining the overall technical framework for each
of the Network Service Implementing Rules.

The deadline for submission of comments is 18 February 2008 24:00 CET.

[1]
http://inspire.jrc.it/reports/ImplementingRules/network/D3.7_Draft_IR_Discovery_and_View_Services_v2.0.pdf
[2]
http://inspire.jrc.it/reports/ImplementingRules/network/D3%205_INSPIRE_NS_Architecture_v2.0.pdf

pg

2

Hi Jo,

Thank you for the information.

My 50 cents at after a first glance on it: These rules mandate SOAP but propose CSW? This seems to me like a contradiction because CSW is half-way RESTful. I’d prefer that there is no preference of SOAP overr REST and I’d propose to leave the (technical) doors open to 100% RESTful protocols.

– Stefan

2007/12/18, Jo Walsh <jo@anonymised.com>:

dear all,

Please see below for the draft Implementing Rules for Discovery and
View services through INSPIRE, the European SDI Directive. All
software which wants to be used by GI providers in Europe will have to
legally comply with these rules, within 2 or 3 years.

I expect the draft will change in the future to become a lot less
“informative” and more concise and “normative”, as happened with
metadata. Right now it suggests the ISO 19115 profile of CSW2 as a
“reference specification” but it is not mandated.

This makes me want to give up and grow organic vegetables for a
living, to be honest, but i will plug ahead with an
Opensearch/Atom/DublinCore implementation of the same thing, because
i believe that will actually help solve the problem this is supposed
to be addressing - finding geodata, not complying with law and
selling standards to government. Cheez, even the military is getting
cynical about the utility of ISO standards these days, and they started it.

Deep breath, engagement without attachment, etc. I started these two
pages on the wiki to explain the semi-private comments process::
http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/FOSS_SDIC
http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/Response_to_INSPIRE_Discovery_and_View_Draft

----- Forwarded message from Piergiorgio Cipriano <pg.cipriano@anonymised.com> -----

To: geo-discuss@anonymised.com

From INSPIRE web site:

*INSPIRE Draft Implementing Rules for Discovery and View Services * [1] is
now available for public view and for comments from SDICs and LMOs.
With the Implementing Rules, comes the first draft of the INSPIRE Network
Services Architecture [2] defining the overall technical framework for each
of the Network Service Implementing Rules.

The deadline for submission of comments is 18 February 2008 24:00 CET.

[1]
http://inspire.jrc.it/reports/ImplementingRules/network/D3.7_Draft_IR_Discovery_and_View_Services_v2.0.pdf
[2]
http://inspire.jrc.it/reports/ImplementingRules/network/D3%205_INSPIRE_NS_Architecture_v2.0.pdf

pg

3

dear Stefan,
On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 07:28:08AM +0100, Stefan Keller wrote:

My 50 cents at after a first glance on it: These rules mandate SOAP but
propose CSW? This seems to me like a contradiction because CSW is half-way
RESTful. I'd prefer that there is no preference of SOAP overr REST and I'd
propose to leave the (technical) doors open to 100% RESTful protocols.

The SOAP question is set out in more detail in the "D3.5Network Services
Architecture" draft document which is *not* legally binding.
The draft IR says that "One of the requirements specified" in the
Architecture "is the use of SOAP bindings for all INSPIRE network services"
(Section 6, protocol bindings, Discovery and View)

But the Architecture document says no such thing. It says that SOAP is
favoured, gives some "arguments" in its favour, states that the
Commission is undertaking a study to evaluate SOAP/WSDL for geoweb
services, and solicits "reports and comments" from Spatial Data
Interest Communities.

*Nowhere* does D3.5 Network Services Architecture state that
SOAP is mandated, so i am confused by the fact the IR draft claims
that it does, and bases its justification for mandatory SOAP bindings
on this "fact" (and on the fact that "web services, as defined by the
w3c" in 2003 are SOAP-based).

http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/SOAP has more detail on the specific
claims being made. If anyone here has detailed comments or reports
(benchmarks, usage stats, porting and interop experience) and is not a
member of an SDIC registered to comment on the INSPIRE process, all
are welcomed to use the FOSS SDIC as a means of assisting the
Commission in assessing the viability of expert recommendations.
http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/FOSS_SDIC

cheers,

jo

4

Jo Walsh ha scritto:

This makes me want to give up and grow organic vegetables for a
living

Jo, have you already started with organic vegetables?
:slight_smile:

Deadline (18 feb) for Discovery&View service draft is imminent, we should collect and populate the page you prepared:
http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/Response_to_INSPIRE_Discovery_and_View_Draft

I’ve updated it, re-formatting existing comments in a “Inspire-like” table.

Actually, I’d like to collect your comments on SOAP and other issues and forward them to CEN TC 287 WG5 (i’m involved in): this WG is the only active at CEN level, and it is responsible for acceptance/refusal of ISO19100 standards at EN level.

WG5 2008-2009 activities are:

  • prEN 19128, 19131, 19137 votes (next week)
  • votes on other ISO docs (in april: DIS19115-2)
  • update TR15449 (Geographic information - Standards, specifications, technical reports and guidelines, required to implement Spatial Data Infrastructure)
  • profiling EN-ISO19100 standards and supporting Inspire DTs

pg

2007/12/18, Jo Walsh <jo@anonymised.com>:

dear all,

Please see below for the draft Implementing Rules for Discovery and
View services through INSPIRE, the European SDI Directive. All
software which wants to be used by GI providers in Europe will have to
legally comply with these rules, within 2 or 3 years.

I expect the draft will change in the future to become a lot less
“informative” and more concise and “normative”, as happened with
metadata. Right now it suggests the ISO 19115 profile of CSW2 as a
“reference specification” but it is not mandated.

This makes me want to give up and grow organic vegetables for a
living, to be honest, but i will plug ahead with an
Opensearch/Atom/DublinCore implementation of the same thing, because
i believe that will actually help solve the problem this is supposed
to be addressing - finding geodata, not complying with law and
selling standards to government. Cheez, even the military is getting
cynical about the utility of ISO standards these days, and they started it.

Deep breath, engagement without attachment, etc. I started these two
pages on the wiki to explain the semi-private comments process::
http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/FOSS_SDIC
http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/Response_to_INSPIRE_Discovery_and_View_Draft

----- Forwarded message from Piergiorgio Cipriano <pg.cipriano@anonymised.com> -----

To: geo-discuss@anonymised.com

From INSPIRE web site:

*INSPIRE Draft Implementing Rules for Discovery and View Services * [1] is
now available for public view and for comments from SDICs and LMOs.
With the Implementing Rules, comes the first draft of the INSPIRE Network
Services Architecture [2] defining the overall technical framework for each
of the Network Service Implementing Rules.

The deadline for submission of comments is 18 February 2008 24:00 CET.

[1]
http://inspire.jrc.it/reports/ImplementingRules/network/D3.7_Draft_IR_Discovery_and_View_Services_v2.0.pdf
[2]
http://inspire.jrc.it/reports/ImplementingRules/network/D3%205_INSPIRE_NS_Architecture_v2.0.pdf

pg

–

Piergiorgio Cipriano
pg.cipriano@anonymised.com

(“perchè la terra dei cachi è la terra dei cachi …!”)

5

On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 01:53:48PM +0100, Piergiorgio Cipriano wrote:

   Jo, have you already started with organic vegetables?

:slight_smile: No, instead I spent a day or two reading everything on the blogosphere
about the scandal over the DIS2950/OOXML vote, wrote a long rant
http://frot.org/on_standards/ and let myself forget about it for a while.

   http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/Response_to_INSPIRE_Discovery_and_View_Draft
   I've updated it, re-formatting existing comments in a "Inspire-like"
   table.

Thankyou! I've been writing an OpenSearch-based alternative interface
for an INSPIRE discovery service and have some notes backed up.
I will try to make sure i contribute anything i have to the Response
by the 14th.

   Actually, I'd like to collect your comments on SOAP and other issues and
   forward them to CEN TC 287 WG5 (i'm involved in): this WG is the only
   active at CEN level, and it is responsible for acceptance/refusal of
   ISO19100 standards at EN level.

I have nothing worth saying about SOAP/REST for OGC web services.
The GeoServer community has held off from implementing SOAP in the past.
A couple of posts to the bigger OSGeo lists haven't gathered much
feedback on the subject of SOAP interfaces to 'view services' on
client and server. (WFS, WMS). It might be worth emailing project
maintainers / PSCs personally to find strong opinions or usage data
that it would be helpful to share with the Commission and CEN.
I would be quite happy to ping the relevant PSC chairs and ask.

Arnulf is a lot more au fait with "The State Of..." than me, i think.

   WG5 2008-2009 activities are:
   - prEN 19128, 19131, 19137 votes (next week)
   - votes on other ISO docs (in april: DIS19115-2)
   - update TR15449 (Geographic information - Standards, specifications,
   technical reports and guidelines, required to implement Spatial Data
   Infrastructure)
   - profiling EN-ISO19100 standards and supporting Inspire DTs

Thanks for keeping us updated, and good luck!

jo

6

Jo (+ all),
have you ever had a look at the following reports:

Spatial Data Instrastructure Unit - Scientific Reports
http://ies.jrc.cec.eu.int/367.html

1)
Services State of Play - Compliance Testing and Interoperability
Checking - EUR 23049
http://ies.jrc.cec.eu.int/fileadmin/Documentation/Reports/Spatial_Data_infrastructures/EUR_2006-2007/EUR_23049_EN.pdf

2)
Metadata State of Play - Compliance Testing and Interoperability
Checking - EUR 23036
http://ies.jrc.cec.eu.int/fileadmin/Documentation/Reports/Spatial_Data_infrastructures/EUR_2006-2007/EUR_23036_EN.pdf

3)
Software For Distributed Metadata Catalogue Services to Support The EU
Portal - EUR 22337
http://ies.jrc.cec.eu.int/fileadmin/Documentation/Reports/Spatial_Data_infrastructures/EUR_2006-2007/EUR_22337_EN.pdf

pg

2008/1/30, jo@anonymised.com <jo@anonymised.com>:

On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 01:53:48PM +0100, Piergiorgio Cipriano wrote:
> Jo, have you already started with organic vegetables?

:slight_smile: No, instead I spent a day or two reading everything on the blogosphere
about the scandal over the DIS2950/OOXML vote, wrote a long rant
http://frot.org/on_standards/ and let myself forget about it for a while.

> http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/Response_to_INSPIRE_Discovery_and_View_Draft
> I've updated it, re-formatting existing comments in a "Inspire-like"
> table.

Thankyou! I've been writing an OpenSearch-based alternative interface
for an INSPIRE discovery service and have some notes backed up.
I will try to make sure i contribute anything i have to the Response
by the 14th.

> Actually, I'd like to collect your comments on SOAP and other issues and
> forward them to CEN TC 287 WG5 (i'm involved in): this WG is the only
> active at CEN level, and it is responsible for acceptance/refusal of
> ISO19100 standards at EN level.

I have nothing worth saying about SOAP/REST for OGC web services.
The GeoServer community has held off from implementing SOAP in the past.
A couple of posts to the bigger OSGeo lists haven't gathered much
feedback on the subject of SOAP interfaces to 'view services' on
client and server. (WFS, WMS). It might be worth emailing project
maintainers / PSCs personally to find strong opinions or usage data
that it would be helpful to share with the Commission and CEN.
I would be quite happy to ping the relevant PSC chairs and ask.

Arnulf is a lot more au fait with "The State Of..." than me, i think.

> WG5 2008-2009 activities are:
> - prEN 19128, 19131, 19137 votes (next week)
> - votes on other ISO docs (in april: DIS19115-2)
> - update TR15449 (Geographic information - Standards, specifications,
> technical reports and guidelines, required to implement Spatial Data
> Infrastructure)
> - profiling EN-ISO19100 standards and supporting Inspire DTs

Thanks for keeping us updated, and good luck!

jo

--

Piergiorgio Cipriano
pg.cipriano@anonymised.com

("perchè la terra dei cachi è la terra dei cachi ..!")

7

I placed a rant onto your wiki page that may or may not be useful.
Jody
Jo Walsh wrote:

dear all,

Please see below for the draft Implementing Rules for Discovery and
View services through INSPIRE, the European SDI Directive. All
software which wants to be used by GI providers in Europe will have to
legally comply with these rules, within 2 or 3 years.

I expect the draft will change in the future to become a lot less
"informative" and more concise and "normative", as happened with
metadata. Right now it suggests the ISO 19115 profile of CSW2 as a
"reference specification" but it is not mandated.

This makes me want to give up and grow organic vegetables for a
living, to be honest, but i will plug ahead with an
Opensearch/Atom/DublinCore implementation of the same thing, because
i believe *that will actually help solve the problem this is supposed
to be addressing* - finding geodata, not complying with law and
selling standards to government. Cheez, even the military is getting
cynical about the utility of ISO standards these days, and they started it.

Deep breath, engagement without attachment, etc. I started these two
pages on the wiki to explain the semi-private comments process::
http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/FOSS_SDIC
http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/Response_to_INSPIRE_Discovery_and_View_Draft

----- Forwarded message from Piergiorgio Cipriano <pg.cipriano@anonymised.com> -----

To: geo-discuss@anonymised.com

>From INSPIRE web site:

*INSPIRE Draft Implementing Rules for Discovery and View Services * [1] is
now available for public view and for comments from SDICs and LMOs.
With the Implementing Rules, comes the first draft of the INSPIRE Network
Services Architecture [2] defining the overall technical framework for each
of the Network Service Implementing Rules.

The deadline for submission of comments is 18 February 2008 24:00 CET.

[1]
http://inspire.jrc.it/reports/ImplementingRules/network/D3.7_Draft_IR_Discovery_and_View_Services_v2.0.pdf
[2]
http://inspire.jrc.it/reports/ImplementingRules/network/D3%205_INSPIRE_NS_Architecture_v2.0.pdf

pg

_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
Standards@anonymised.com
Standards Info Page
  

8

Jo, all,
please have a look at this report:
INSPIRE Metadata Survey Results - EUR 22488
http://ies.jrc.cec.eu.int/fileadmin/Documentation/Reports/Spatial_Data_infrastructures/EUR_2006-2007/EUR_22488_EN.pdf

Thes report seems to be the "basis" of many assumptions in INSPIRE
Draft Implementing Rules for Discovery.

The draft IR states (7.3.5 - Summary and conclusion):
"The OGC Catalogue Service for Web specification is the MOST widely
adopted standard for INSPIRE SDICs and LMOs".

Now, let's back to 7.3.3.2 subclause (Deployment of catalogue
standards in the EU): Figure 3 shows just 39% of metadata holdings
(120 in Craglia research) already implements OGC Catalogue Service.
This does not mean "MOST widely" !!!
44% of forms collected have no answer and 6% have not sufficient information.

I'm wondering why this uncertainty brings DTs Network Services experts
telling us OGC CSW2 AP ISO is widely adopted.

Perhaps one good reason can be found in "Software For Distributed
Metadata Catalogue Services to Support The EU Portal" research [1].
At page 14 the report states:
"Because the Catalogue Service Broker implements CSW 2.0.0
ISO19115/19119 Application Profile (DE-Profile 1.0.1) ..."
And the Catalogue Service Broker for the EU Portal already exists, and
is provided by co terra SDI's suite.

pg

[1] http://ies.jrc.cec.eu.int/fileadmin/Documentation/Reports/Spatial_Data_infrastructures/EUR_2006-2007/EUR_22337_EN.pdf

2008/2/4, Piergiorgio Cipriano <pg.cipriano@anonymised.com>:

Jo (+ all),
have you ever had a look at the following reports:

Spatial Data Instrastructure Unit - Scientific Reports
http://ies.jrc.cec.eu.int/367.html

1)
Services State of Play - Compliance Testing and Interoperability
Checking - EUR 23049
http://ies.jrc.cec.eu.int/fileadmin/Documentation/Reports/Spatial_Data_infrastructures/EUR_2006-2007/EUR_23049_EN.pdf

2)
Metadata State of Play - Compliance Testing and Interoperability
Checking - EUR 23036
http://ies.jrc.cec.eu.int/fileadmin/Documentation/Reports/Spatial_Data_infrastructures/EUR_2006-2007/EUR_23036_EN.pdf

3)
Software For Distributed Metadata Catalogue Services to Support The EU
Portal - EUR 22337
http://ies.jrc.cec.eu.int/fileadmin/Documentation/Reports/Spatial_Data_infrastructures/EUR_2006-2007/EUR_22337_EN.pdf

pg

2008/1/30, jo@anonymised.com <jo@anonymised.com>:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 01:53:48PM +0100, Piergiorgio Cipriano wrote:
> > Jo, have you already started with organic vegetables?
>
> :slight_smile: No, instead I spent a day or two reading everything on the blogosphere
> about the scandal over the DIS2950/OOXML vote, wrote a long rant
> http://frot.org/on_standards/ and let myself forget about it for a while.
>
> > http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/Response_to_INSPIRE_Discovery_and_View_Draft
> > I've updated it, re-formatting existing comments in a "Inspire-like"
> > table.
>
> Thankyou! I've been writing an OpenSearch-based alternative interface
> for an INSPIRE discovery service and have some notes backed up.
> I will try to make sure i contribute anything i have to the Response
> by the 14th.
>
> > Actually, I'd like to collect your comments on SOAP and other issues and
> > forward them to CEN TC 287 WG5 (i'm involved in): this WG is the only
> > active at CEN level, and it is responsible for acceptance/refusal of
> > ISO19100 standards at EN level.
>
> I have nothing worth saying about SOAP/REST for OGC web services.
> The GeoServer community has held off from implementing SOAP in the past.
> A couple of posts to the bigger OSGeo lists haven't gathered much
> feedback on the subject of SOAP interfaces to 'view services' on
> client and server. (WFS, WMS). It might be worth emailing project
> maintainers / PSCs personally to find strong opinions or usage data
> that it would be helpful to share with the Commission and CEN.
> I would be quite happy to ping the relevant PSC chairs and ask.
>
> Arnulf is a lot more au fait with "The State Of..." than me, i think.
>
> > WG5 2008-2009 activities are:
> > - prEN 19128, 19131, 19137 votes (next week)
> > - votes on other ISO docs (in april: DIS19115-2)
> > - update TR15449 (Geographic information - Standards, specifications,
> > technical reports and guidelines, required to implement Spatial Data
> > Infrastructure)
> > - profiling EN-ISO19100 standards and supporting Inspire DTs
>
> Thanks for keeping us updated, and good luck!
>
>
> jo
>
>

--

Piergiorgio Cipriano
pg.cipriano@anonymised.com

("perchè la terra dei cachi è la terra dei cachi ..!")

--

Piergiorgio Cipriano
pg.cipriano@anonymised.com

("perchè la terra dei cachi è la terra dei cachi ..!")

9

Hi Piergiorgio,

Thank you for the tip. I quickly looked at the three documents you have pointed to:

  1. Services State of Play - Compliance Testing and Interoperability Checking - EUR 23049
  2. Metadata State of Play - Compliance Testing and Interoperability Checking - EUR 23036
  3. Software For Distributed Metadata Catalogue Services to Support The EU Portal - EUR 22337

… and I agree with you probably on all the points you made.

To be diplomatic in judging, I actually have to say that I enjoyed reading “Software For Distributed Metadata Catalogue Services” whereas I can’t say this about the other two documents

From the first one I liked especially the conclusions - and of course con terra’s suite is hopefully only treated as a testbed. The latter two seem to be simply influenced by marketing talk. I hope EU can balance out and weight these expertises.

Stefan

2008/2/5, Piergiorgio Cipriano <pg.cipriano@anonymised.com>:

Jo, all,
please have a look at this report:
INSPIRE Metadata Survey Results - EUR 22488
http://ies.jrc.cec.eu.int/fileadmin/Documentation/Reports/Spatial_Data_infrastructures/EUR_2006-2007/EUR_22488_EN.pdf

Thes report seems to be the “basis” of many assumptions in INSPIRE
Draft Implementing Rules for Discovery.

The draft IR states (7.3.5 - Summary and conclusion):
“The OGC Catalogue Service for Web specification is the MOST widely
adopted standard for INSPIRE SDICs and LMOs”.

Now, let’s back to 7.3.3.2 subclause (Deployment of catalogue
standards in the EU): Figure 3 shows just 39% of metadata holdings
(120 in Craglia research) already implements OGC Catalogue Service.
This does not mean “MOST widely” !!!
44% of forms collected have no answer and 6% have not sufficient information.

I’m wondering why this uncertainty brings DTs Network Services experts
telling us OGC CSW2 AP ISO is widely adopted.

Perhaps one good reason can be found in “Software For Distributed
Metadata Catalogue Services to Support The EU Portal” research [1].
At page 14 the report states:
“Because the Catalogue Service Broker implements CSW 2.0.0
ISO19115/19119 Application Profile (DE-Profile 1.0.1) …”
And the Catalogue Service Broker for the EU Portal already exists, and
is provided by co terra SDI’s suite.

pg

[1] http://ies.jrc.cec.eu.int/fileadmin/Documentation/Reports/Spatial_Data_infrastructures/EUR_2006-2007/EUR_22337_EN.pdf

2008/2/4, Piergiorgio Cipriano <pg.cipriano@anonymised.com>:

Jo (+ all),
have you ever had a look at the following reports:

Spatial Data Instrastructure Unit - Scientific Reports
http://ies.jrc.cec.eu.int/367.html

Services State of Play - Compliance Testing and Interoperability
Checking - EUR 23049
http://ies.jrc.cec.eu.int/fileadmin/Documentation/Reports/Spatial_Data_infrastructures/EUR_2006-2007/EUR_23049_EN.pdf

Metadata State of Play - Compliance Testing and Interoperability
Checking - EUR 23036
http://ies.jrc.cec.eu.int/fileadmin/Documentation/Reports/Spatial_Data_infrastructures/EUR_2006-2007/EUR_23036_EN.pdf

Software For Distributed Metadata Catalogue Services to Support The EU
Portal - EUR 22337
http://ies.jrc.cec.eu.int/fileadmin/Documentation/Reports/Spatial_Data_infrastructures/EUR_2006-2007/EUR_22337_EN.pdf

pg

2008/1/30, jo@anonymised.com <jo@anonymised.com160…>:

On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 01:53:48PM +0100, Piergiorgio Cipriano wrote:

Jo, have you already started with organic vegetables?

:slight_smile: No, instead I spent a day or two reading everything on the blogosphere
about the scandal over the DIS2950/OOXML vote, wrote a long rant
http://frot.org/on_standards/ and let myself forget about it for a while.

http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/Response_to_INSPIRE_Discovery_and_View_Draft
I’ve updated it, re-formatting existing comments in a “Inspire-like”
table.

Thankyou! I’ve been writing an OpenSearch-based alternative interface
for an INSPIRE discovery service and have some notes backed up.
I will try to make sure i contribute anything i have to the Response
by the 14th.

Actually, I’d like to collect your comments on SOAP and other issues and
forward them to CEN TC 287 WG5 (i’m involved in): this WG is the only
active at CEN level, and it is responsible for acceptance/refusal of
ISO19100 standards at EN level.

I have nothing worth saying about SOAP/REST for OGC web services.
The GeoServer community has held off from implementing SOAP in the past.
A couple of posts to the bigger OSGeo lists haven’t gathered much
feedback on the subject of SOAP interfaces to ‘view services’ on
client and server. (WFS, WMS). It might be worth emailing project
maintainers / PSCs personally to find strong opinions or usage data
that it would be helpful to share with the Commission and CEN.
I would be quite happy to ping the relevant PSC chairs and ask.

Arnulf is a lot more au fait with “The State Of…” than me, i think.

WG5 2008-2009 activities are:

  • prEN 19128, 19131, 19137 votes (next week)
  • votes on other ISO docs (in april: DIS19115-2)
  • update TR15449 (Geographic information - Standards, specifications,
    technical reports and guidelines, required to implement Spatial Data
    Infrastructure)
  • profiling EN-ISO19100 standards and supporting Inspire DTs

Thanks for keeping us updated, and good luck!

jo

–

Piergiorgio Cipriano
pg.cipriano@anonymised.com

(“perchè la terra dei cachi è la terra dei cachi …!”)

–

Piergiorgio Cipriano
pg.cipriano@anonymised.com

(“perchè la terra dei cachi è la terra dei cachi …!”)