[GeoNetwork-users] CSW differences 2.6 vs 2.8

Terry_Rankine · April 16, 2013, 3:46am

Hi Guys

We have a CSW client working fine against the 2.6.3/4 series but on a recent
upgrade to 2.8, nothing seems to work.

Can you please let us know what has changed on the API and where the
migration document is?

Regards,
Terry Rankine

--
View this message in context: http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/CSW-differences-2-6-vs-2-8-tp5047128.html
Sent from the GeoNetwork users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

josh.vote · April 16, 2013, 4:49am

I've also discovered a few differences, the major ones:

* What happened to the typeName csw:IsoRecord? I can see csw:Record but that appears to be for a Dublin core metadata record
* Is HTTP POST still supported? I can only seem to get responses using a HTTP GET now.

Regards,
Josh Vote

-----Original Message-----
From: Terry Rankine [mailto:terry.rankine@anonymised.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 16 April 2013 11:47 AM
To: geonetwork-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: [ExternalEmail] [GeoNetwork-users] CSW differences 2.6 vs 2.8

Hi Guys

We have a CSW client working fine against the 2.6.3/4 series but on a recent upgrade to 2.8, nothing seems to work.

Can you please let us know what has changed on the API and where the migration document is?

Regards,
Terry Rankine

--
View this message in context: http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/CSW-differences-2-6-vs-2-8-tp5047128.html
Sent from the GeoNetwork users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Precog is a next-generation analytics platform capable of advanced analytics on semi-structured data. The platform includes APIs for building apps and a phenomenal toolset for data science. Developers can use our toolset for easy data analysis & visualization. Get a free account!
http://www2.precog.com/precogplatform/slashdotnewsletter
_______________________________________________
GeoNetwork-users mailing list
GeoNetwork-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geonetwork-users
GeoNetwork OpenSource is maintained at http://sourceforge.net/projects/geonetwork

josh.vote · April 16, 2013, 5:55am

Please disregard my earlier email, it appears my CSW request was faulty but the earlier GN versions were tolerant of the errors. I've since updated my parameters to read:

typeNames= gmd:MD_Metadata
outputSchema= csw:IsoRecord

And the CSW request issues have since been alleviated.

Josh

-----Original Message-----
From: Josh.Vote@anonymised.com [mailto:Josh.Vote@anonymised.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 16 April 2013 12:50 PM
To: geonetwork-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [GeoNetwork-users] [ExternalEmail] CSW differences 2.6 vs 2.8

I've also discovered a few differences, the major ones:

* What happened to the typeName csw:IsoRecord? I can see csw:Record but that appears to be for a Dublin core metadata record
* Is HTTP POST still supported? I can only seem to get responses using a HTTP GET now.

Regards,
Josh Vote

-----Original Message-----
From: Terry Rankine [mailto:terry.rankine@anonymised.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 16 April 2013 11:47 AM
To: geonetwork-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: [ExternalEmail] [GeoNetwork-users] CSW differences 2.6 vs 2.8

Hi Guys

We have a CSW client working fine against the 2.6.3/4 series but on a recent upgrade to 2.8, nothing seems to work.

Can you please let us know what has changed on the API and where the migration document is?

Regards,
Terry Rankine

--
View this message in context: http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/CSW-differences-2-6-vs-2-8-tp5047128.html
Sent from the GeoNetwork users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Precog is a next-generation analytics platform capable of advanced analytics on semi-structured data. The platform includes APIs for building apps and a phenomenal toolset for data science. Developers can use our toolset for easy data analysis & visualization. Get a free account!
http://www2.precog.com/precogplatform/slashdotnewsletter
_______________________________________________
GeoNetwork-users mailing list
GeoNetwork-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geonetwork-users
GeoNetwork OpenSource is maintained at http://sourceforge.net/projects/geonetwork

Terry_Rankine · April 16, 2013, 6:00am

Ahh - where did you get those keywords from? Can you share the post body you
are using?

I had a look at the testCSW client built into geonetwork and there is an
example there.

http://example.org/geonetwork/srv/eng/test.csw

is this the example you are using?

It turns out that I was not setting a few of the parameters (although 2.6
never really minded for some reason...)

Terry

--
View this message in context: http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/CSW-differences-2-6-vs-2-8-tp5047128p5047146.html
Sent from the GeoNetwork users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Heikki_Doeleman · April 24, 2013, 1:27pm

hi,

I realize the handling of CSW requests can be somewhat confusing, due to
vagueness or inconsistency in the specifications, choices made by
GeoNetwork in those cases, and certain GeoNetwork-specific implementations.
In general I would advice to compose CSW request as much as possible
according to the specs in OGC 07-006 and OGC 07-045.

I'll try to describe how things are :

about typeNames:
-------------------------------------
see http://trac.osgeo.org/geonetwork/ticket/724 for some description on the
changes to handling of typeNames in combination with ElementName.

The value of typeNames should be either csw:Record or gmd:MD_Metadata
(though the namespace prefix can be different if you mapped it differently).

This is conform OGC 07-045 8.2.2.1.1: "Mandatory: Must support *one* of
“csw:Record” or “gmd:MD_Metadata” in a query. Default value is
“csw:Record”."

Note how OGC 07-045 mixes up a mandatory parameter that has a default value
! GeoNetwork goes for the more permissive default value option, rather than
the mandatory-ness. So: if typeNames is not present or empty, "csw:Record"
is used.

If the request does not contain exactly one (or both, comma-separated) of
these values specified in OGC 07-045, an exception is thrown. If both are
present "gmd:MD_Metadata" is preferred.

about outputSchema:
------------------------------------------
the value of outputSchema can be:

missing -- treated as Record ;

csw:Record -- treated as Record
csw:IsoRecord -- treated as IsoRecord

(according to me those two values above are invalid and should actually be
rejected, to comply with the specifications)

http://www.opengis.net/cat/csw/2.0.2 -- treated as Record
http://www.isotc211.org/2005/gmd -- treated as IsoRecord

Any other value causes the request to be rejected.

See OGC 07-006 10.8.4.5 and OGC 07-045 for specifications.

additional note about ElementNames:
--------------------------------------------------------

In case you use ElementNames (note the plural -- not ElementName), there
are the following options:

     * For ElementNames, several strategies are implemented. Clients can
determine the behaviour by sending attribute
     * "elementnameStrategy" with one of the following values:
     *
     * csw202
     * relaxed
     * context
     * geonetwork26
     *
     * The default is 'relaxed'. The strategies cause the following
behaviour:
     *
     * csw202 -- compliant to the CSW2.0.2 specification. In particular
this means that complete metadata are returned
     * that match the requested ElementNames, only if they are
valid for their XSD. This is because
     * GeoNetwork only supports OutputFormat=application/xml,
which mandates that valid documents are
     * returned. Because possibly not many of the catalog's
metadata are valid, this is not the default.
     *
     * relaxed -- like csw202, but dropped the requirement to only include
valid metadata. So this returns complete
     * metadata that match the requested ElementNames. This is
the default strategy.
     *
     * context -- does not return complete metadata but only the elements
matching the request, in their context (i.e.
     * all ancestor elements up to the root of the document are
retained). This strategy is similar to
     * geonetwork26 but the context allows clients to determine
which of the elements returned corresponds to
     * which of the elements requested (in case they have the
same name).
     *
     * geonetwork26 -- behaviour as in GeoNetwork 2.6. Just return the
requested elements, stripped of any context. This
     * can make it impossible for the client to determine
which of the elements returned corresponds to
     * which of the elements requested; for example if the
client asks for gmd:title, the response may
     * contain various gmd:title elements taken from
different locations in the metadata document.

See OGC 07-006 10.8.4.8, OGC 07-045 8.2.2.1.1, and OGC 07-006 10.8.4.9 for
specifications.

I hope this helps,
kind regards
Heikki Doeleman

On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 8:00 AM, Terry Rankine <terry.rankine@anonymised.com>wrote:

Ahh - where did you get those keywords from? Can you share the post body
you
are using?

I had a look at the testCSW client built into geonetwork and there is an
example there.

http://example.org/geonetwork/srv/eng/test.csw

is this the example you are using?

It turns out that I was not setting a few of the parameters (although 2.6
never really minded for some reason...)

Terry

--
View this message in context:
http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/CSW-differences-2-6-vs-2-8-tp5047128p5047146.html
Sent from the GeoNetwork users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Precog is a next-generation analytics platform capable of advanced
analytics on semi-structured data. The platform includes APIs for building
apps and a phenomenal toolset for data science. Developers can use
our toolset for easy data analysis & visualization. Get a free account!
http://www2.precog.com/precogplatform/slashdotnewsletter
_______________________________________________
GeoNetwork-users mailing list
GeoNetwork-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geonetwork-users
GeoNetwork OpenSource is maintained at
http://sourceforge.net/projects/geonetwork