In another thread titled “what is the effect of the selection geonet:child[…]”, I came to know about the geonet:child elements being added to metadocument according to the schema definition.
With further study, I observed that they are added only if the corresponding element is missing from the record. for e.g. if gmd:title is missing from record, a <geonet:child name=“title” prefix=“gmd” … > is added to metadocument but if it is present in the record, geonet:child for it is not added.
But for gmd:hierarchyLevel, even if it is present in the record, still a <geonet:child name=“hierarchyLevel” prefix=“gmd” …> is added to the metadocument below it.
I think this is a bug in the creation of metadocument for ISO19139, as far as gmd:hierarchyLevel is concerned (I didn’t test for all elements in the schema so don’t know if any other element has has similar bug).
Can anyone confirm this bug (if it is not, shed some light on it)? If it is, does it needs a bug report filed?
In another thread titled "what is the effect of the selection
geonet:child[...]", I came to know about the geonet:child elements being
added to metadocument according to the schema definition.
With further study, I observed that they are added only if the
corresponding element is missing from the record. for e.g. if <gmd:title>
is missing from record, a <geonet:child name="title" prefix="gmd" .... > is
added to metadocument but if it is present in the record, geonet:child for
it is not added.
I think it depends on the cardinality of the element. gmd:title cardinality
is 1..1 so you don't need to advertise the geonet:child when gmd:title is
already set - no new element of this kind could be added.
Cheers.
Francois
But for <gmd:hierarchyLevel>, even if it is present in the record, still a
<geonet:child name="hierarchyLevel" prefix="gmd" ...> is added to the
metadocument below it.
I think this is a bug in the creation of metadocument for ISO19139, as far
as <gmd:hierarchyLevel> is concerned (I didn't test for all elements in the
schema so don't know if any other element has has similar bug).
Can anyone confirm this bug (if it is not, shed some light on it)? If it
is, does it needs a bug report filed?