Dear Marco,

Many thanks for this good news and congrats for the progress!

Jordi

Dear Marco,

Thanks for sharing this! Re WCS I see that mostly http protocol and metadata services are being assessed currently. Would it make sense to take a shortcut and simply require that a INSPIRE WCS server passes the OGC test suite? Could save a lot of work potentially and also avoid duplicate effort.

Curious about your thoughts.

best regards,

Peter

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.

Hi Jordi, I duplicated your issue to https://github.com/geonetwork/core-geonetwork/issues/4182 so also other developers are aware. The issue you mention has come to existence over time. In previous iterations the inspire keyword didn't always have a thesaurus, that's probably why any keyword is indexed as potential inspire theme. Also consider the generic discovery case, if you're looking for geology data, also non inspire datasets could be relevant to you. In that case the inspire theme is more used as a categorisation.

If you want to make the discovery of datasets by theme more strict, you can alter how keywords are indexed in https://github.com/geonetwork/core-geonetwork/blob/fd44c1fa14d818e6272e97b90f085fa98370fbe1/schemas/iso19139/src/main/plugin/iso19139/index-fields/default.xsl#L318. From that code my impression is that in more recent versions of geonetwork the situation has already improved.

Hope this helps to find a solution

Hi Paul,

Many thanks for your response.

We would like to apply (in the short term) some improvements / restrictions on the fields that out SDI catalogue is indexing, so will probably check the code you are pointing me at - This helps a lot.

Regarding the generic discovery case, I can see your point. However, my view is that INSPIRE theme classification often leads users of the catalogue to think about "INSPIRE Conformant data sets", which most of times is not the case.

This brings to the discussion a related aspect - The topicCategory classification from ISO 19115 - which should satisfy this generic classification needs for the discovery case - is usually not clear enough for classifying geospatial data sets.

What do you think?

Jordi

Dear All,

Anyone else has experienced similar behavior in the most recent versions of GeoNetwork?

Good to have more feedback and experiences on this.

Jordi

GeoNetwork 3.8 has some improvements related to TG2, like selecting a keyword-from-inspire-thesaurus for use in anchors at various locations in the metadata. This functionality is really usefull considering the TG2 requirements. However mind that we're still in the process of optimising and documenting GeoNetwork to create fully compliant TG2 metadata.

I have not seen the type of challenges you mentioned with the operatesOn element in recent geonetwork editions.

HI again Paul,

Many thanks for your input.

From your words I understand that GeoNetwork 3.8 is a good option to update to.

Regarding the anchors topic, I think it would deserve a separate discussion topic.

All the best,

Jordi