INSPIRE Best Practices / Guidelines for registers & register federation

13 Feb 2018

Dear colleagues,

I just came across this group and, reading the charter proposal, I think the best practices and guidelines developed for INSPIRE (the Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe) for registers (= vocabularies), registries (= vocabulary services) and register federation could be useful: https://inspire.ec.europa.eu/id/document/tg/registers-and-register-feder...

This document describes best practices for setting up registers for INSPIRE, including for code list extensions. It also includes technical guidance for sharing national or community registers in the INSPIRE register federation and for using the federation’s access point (the “register of registers”) to search and browse through the registers included in the federation.

If you have questions or comments, I would be happy to hear them.

Best regards,
Michael

  • Simon Cox's picture

    Author: Simon Cox

    Date: 14 Feb, 2018

    Mike – RDA VSSIG discussions are mostly happening on Slack – I’ve just sent you an invitation. – Simon
    - Show quoted text -From: michael.lutz=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of michael.lutz
    Sent: Wednesday, 14 February, 2018 02:08
    To: Vocabulary Services Interest Group <***@***.***-groups.org>
    Subject: [vocabulary_services] INSPIRE Best Practices / Guidelines for registers & register federation
    Dear colleagues,
    I just came across this group and, reading the charter proposal, I think the best practices and guidelines developed for INSPIRE (the Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe) for registers (= vocabularies), registries (= vocabulary services) and register federation could be useful: https://inspire.ec.europa.eu/id/document/tg/registers-and-register-feder...
    This document describes best practices for setting up registers for INSPIRE, including for code list extensions. It also includes technical guidance for sharing national or community registers in the INSPIRE register federation and for using the federation’s access point (the “register of registers”) to search and browse through the registers included in the federation.
    If you have questions or comments, I would be happy to hear them.
    Best regards,
    Michael
    --
    Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/vocabulary-services-interest-group/pos...
    Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/58903

  • Rob Atkinson's picture

    Author: Rob Atkinson

    Date: 14 Feb, 2018

    I'd like to pull together a few threads here and fix on an appropriate
    practice for the OGC Definitions Service.
    We follow the broad principles outlined in this INSPIRE paper, which leaves
    us withthe practical question of attaching appropriate metadata to the
    artefacts we publish, particularly around Registry governance roles.
    We are happy to use ISO 19135 as a basis - so we need a canonical form to
    publish these definitions, so that can be included in the Linked Data
    environment that exposes OGC knowledge moving forward.
    The Australian Government Linked Data Working Group has raised similar
    concerns.
    We note the resource at:
    https://github.com/ukgovld/registry-core/blob/master/src/main/vocabs/reg...
    (and its resolvable canonical address at
    http://purl.org/linked-data/registry#>
    This is very close to what we want - but not quite ideal and reusable for
    the following reasons:
    1) Is not governed by an International Standards Development Organisation
    OGC has a formal liasion with.
    2) Does not provide a Linked Data resource using content negotiation as per
    BP
    3) does not provide resolution at the level of a specific term (# based
    uris preclude servers responding directly)
    4) does not fit the OGC model of delivering definitons via a SKOS view,
    using governance (register management) for skos:ConceptSchemes
    5) mixes class and instance - status codes are embedded, whereas OGC has a
    set of status codes at http://www.opengis.net/def/status/ - and as per
    INSPIRE BP is governed as its own register
    alternatively the ISO model (possibly at
    https://github.com/ISO-TC211/GOM/blob/master/isotc211_GOM_harmonizedOnto...
    appropriate
    priveleges?)
    does not meet publication criteria.
    So my best guess is to derive a SKOS representation from one of the
    available OWL resources, and link it to these so that others could
    potentially reason over it even if they cared more about the source model
    than OGC :-)
    the target namespace I am considering is
    http://www.opengis.net/def/metamodel/registry/
    so questions are:
    1) have i missed a different resource we can use in-situ?
    2) what equivalence predicates should i use (owl:sameAs, skos:exactMatch)
    3) what definition properties (skos:definition) shoukld i entail from the
    soruces
    4) what citation properties should I entail?
    5) what have I missed?
    Cheers
    Rob Atkinson

submit a comment