European Commission logo
INSPIRE Community Forum

Should GeoNetwork support both TG1.3 as well as TG 2 records alongside?

Paul van Genuchten
By Paul van Genuchten Replies (1)

This is a duplicate of issue at https://github.com/geonetwork/core-geonetwork/issues/4191

This question can be answered from 2 aspects, records imported by harvesters which are only viewed (not modified in GN editor) can be imported as TG1.3 or TG2.

Other aspect that  TG1.3 as well as TG2 records could need to be modified concurrently in GN editor. This is a challenging case, we currently not foresee it supported. In stead we suggest to move records to the TG2 when being opened in the editor.

There are various initiatives to manage an automated conversion from TG 1.3 to TG2. The process could run as a suggest (case Netherlands), as a process on all records of a catalogue (case EEA), at harvest time or at CSW-expose time (case Sweden) or pre-validate-time (case Wallonia). In the CSW case you can set up 2 csw endpoints, one exposing 1.3 records and the other exposing the same record as 2.0.

I hope to gather some experiences and view points from geonetwork maintainers, to be able to decide about a generic TG2 implementation in GeoNetwork. 

  • Paul van Genuchten

    By Paul van Genuchten

    There are various scenario's to consider:

    - A national/regional catalogue importing records from various smaller organisations

    - A local catalogue exposing records from a single organisation

    From a legal perspective, in the migration period of version 1.3 to 2.0, records in either profile are valid. We're currently at the end of the migration period, so this question will become less relevant soon. However there is the aspect of archiving. Would you update records to the new profile if it is already archived, or would you keep that on TG1.3.