Jo Walsh ha scritto: > How can that be done outside the ISO system? Jo, I guess these modifications (if adopted) will bring CEN TC 287 to profile existing EN-ISO-19115 and EN-ISO-19119 normes (and also 19139 ??). So NOT outside the ISO system.
Here parts of minutes from the last CENTC 287 "WG5" meeting (november): Resolution 124 [1] write scenario's for supporteing the INSPIRE Implementing rules. Once EC approves IR's we should consider standardization a.s.a.p. We already have a 19115, we cannot have two different standards saying different things. So we may need a European annex to 19115. MMI DC has made CWA's [2]. CEN/TC 287 could take the DC documents that have geographic information in and make them into a CEN TR. [1] CEN TC 287 - june 2007 [2] ftp://ftp.cenorm.be/PUBLIC/CWAs/e-Europe/MMI-DC/cwa14857-00-2003-Nov.pdf pg 2007/12/16, Jo Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Original got caught by mailman, didn't see it in geo-discuss moderate > list. > Interesting, though maybe more so for the dedicated standards-wankers > than the gonzo lobbyists among us. Circling on... > > ----- Forwarded message from "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> ----- > > The metadata consultation uses an Microsoft excel form that ressembles > those common by the international standards organisation. Some of you > may object that file format but it is the only one they accept. > Compatibility with ISO 26300:2006 could be sought in that matter if felt > important. > > I was confused by the consideration of the existing standard ISO 19115 > that the inspire metadata project aims to "revise". > How can that be done outside the ISO system? See also section 2.4: "The > European Commission shall establish, in collaboration with stakeholders > and relevant standardisation organisations, detailed guidelines and > instructions for implementation to ensure interoperability of metadata. > These will include instructions on how the European standards EN ISO > 19115 and EN ISO 19119 shall be used to disseminate INSPIRE metadata, > should one chose to use these standards." -- Of course ISO standards > are international standards, not European ones. So why not just apply > ISO 19115? > > I had a closer look at the Inspire metadata spec today, some quick > observations: > a) ed: no destinction between normative and informative sections of the > spec or between spec and annex, annex should be merged. > b) use of dublin core? > c) references to standard requirements in the annex without proper > references > d) "limitations" - fields are mandatory, 2.2.9 > e) no explicit EIF 1.0 framework compatibility reference which should be > considered to get added to section 2.4. > f) no support chains of CC licensing models > g) access fee does not belong in the document, only associated > permissions or rights conferred > h) ed: p.1. "EU-Commission" as publisher, source is too general and > misleading. > i) tech: the spec mentions "free text", char sets are not specified. It > is recommended to apply UTF8 > j) Drafters in some parts refer to ISO 8601, in other parts they do not > or aim to develop their own format. See also *EN 28601:1992* > k) gen: consider to take ISO 14721:2003 (OAIS) into account. > l) gen: open questions about the maintenance regime > > Jo Walsh schrieb: > >I don't see any contact details, or any background as to how the > >members of the workgroup identified a range of standards as "fake". > > > Actually there are right now two different efforts to address the topic > of open standardization. > One is the working group, another one is Digital Standard (digistan), a > new organisation > we set up. The main concern is openness of the standard process and > addressing the issue of > vendor capture, not particular standards. We are also involved with DIS > 29500 discussions. > >I'm also surprised to see so many ISO standards clearly identified as > >"open" and "inclusive", and to see the FFII offering this > >justification of the ISO's pay-to-play policy: [[ But specification > >itself could cost a fair amount of money (ie. 100-400Eur per copy as > >in ISO because copyright and publication of the document itself).]] > > > Usually it is no real problem. However, some of us considered cc > licensing models as criteria > which would exclude certain standards. "Free spec" is really a totally > different demand and not > the crucial one. The underlying issue is how to finance the standard > process. Fees are limitations > on the disseminationof the standard and should be kept to the bare > minimum. But spec costs are > less crucial than limitations on the use of the spec. Our main concern > is the market neutrality of > the standard. > > //Andre > > > ----- End forwarded message ----- > > -- > > _______________________________________________ > geo-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/geo-discuss > -- Piergiorgio Cipriano [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("perchè la terra dei cachi è la terra dei cachi ..!")
_______________________________________________ geo-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/geo-discuss
