ies-svn.jrc.ec. Web view ... (extra word and letter) ... one per language. However, at the time of

MS Chapter/ Section(e.g. 3.1)

Paragraph/ Figure/ Table/(e.g. Table 1)

Type of comment1

Comments Proposed change Resolution

DK-01a

all all ge General comments from The Danish Digitization Agency:The document on best practices for registries and registers appears very well written and it contains a great amount of recommendations and requirements that to us appear sound and relevant. Further development of registers and registries in Denmark will have to take note of this document. The document does at times seem uncertain as to whether it describes the abstract architectural components Register and Registry or the realised INSPIRE components. The title, to start with, seem to have this dichotomy, and comparing the Introduction with chapter 5 reveals a narrowing scope: The former describes registers as being able to manage resources such as code lists, themes, coordinate systems and application schemas, whereas the latter states that "In general" registers are useful because they can exchange codes for free text.

The scope of the document and the different sections is clearly described in several places in the document.

DK-01b

all all te When chapter 6 suggests describing item as skos:Concepts, it suggests that only code lists are considered. Maybe the document could be more explicit on the differences between internally and externally defined items and how the RoR architecture permits access to items across the federation.

The distinction between externally and internally defined items has been clarified in section 6, and also definitions for these terms have been added.

DK-01c

all all te In our opinion, it is not a good choice to illustrate the requirement only in RDF/XML - often a UML-diagram would have conveyed the intent in a more accessible manner (and to some, Turtle is more accessible than RDF/XML).

Clearly there are different preferences for the representation of examples. Since there were no other comments suggesting a different representation, we prefer to keep the examples in RDF/XML. Note that the examples are purely informative.

DK-01d

all all te This may reveal our limited understanding of RDF/XML: There is a seemingly inconsistent modelling of

Both RDF modelling patterns are semantically equivalent. The proposed pattern is to consistently use <rdf:Description> to

1 Type of comment: ge = general te = technical ed = editorial page 1 of 17



Type of comment1


objects in the examples - whenever a DCAT-object is used, it is clearly stated as e.g. <dcat:dataset>, followed by its properties, however SKOS-objects are stated as a <rdf:Description>, followed by the declaration of its type, using the property rdf:type.

represent entities, because this allows to assign different types to them (e.g. an entity could be both a "Concept" and an "INSPIRE theme"). <dcat:dataset> refers to a relationship (between a "dcat:Catalog" and other entities), not an entity itself.

DK-02

all Figures ge When reading the document it seems like the Figure numbering not always match the reference in the text.

Check if all the figure numbering matches the figure reference.

Updated

UK Executive summary and Introduction sections

ge could make the scope of resources to be included in registers more explicit by giving examples of the kinds of INSPIRE resources with URIs that would not be included in a register.

Not accepted. The executive summary and introduction already give some examples of the resources in scope. The document is deliberately open to including different types of resources in national registers and also in the INSPIRE register federation. It will be ultimately up to the national or European control bodies to accept or reject proposals for inclusions of registers.

NL Foreword 5 Ed Typo: will improved ‘will improve’ Updated

NL 1 1 Ed Typo ‘should reused’ > ‘should re-use’ Updated

NL 1 5 Ed Missing verb ‘Within the MIWP 2014-2016, an action and sub-group1 (MIWP-6) was therefore set up to develop technical guidelines and best practices for setting up register and registries and to work out how European, national or community registers and the links between them can be published in and accessed through a register federation.’

Reworded to "… for setting up register and registries and for publishing and accessing European, national or community registers and the links between them through a register federation."

NL 1 7 Ed Broken reference to chapter 6 Fix reference Updated

NL 1 7 Ed Broken reference to annex C Fix reference Updated

NL 2 Ge Ref to W3C DWBP should not reference the editor’s draft. Editor’s drafts are just the publicly available working version of W3C documents and are continually changing until

Either make this an undated reference, or reference the Candidate Recommendation of 30 August 2016.

The date has been updated (15 December 2016). The document is now. W3C Proposed Recommendation.

1 See https://ies-svn.jrc.ec.europa.eu/projects/inspire-registry 1 Type of comment: ge = general te = technical ed = editorial

page 2 of 17

https://ies-svn.jrc.ec.europa.eu/projects/inspire-registry



Type of comment1


the document is complete. The URL provided in the Normative Reference is the correct one, which links to the latest stable version of the document.

NL 2 2 Ge Prefix ‘voaf’ is used but not defined Add reference to voaf vocabulary. The reference has been added

NL 2 2 Ed ‘the information are’ ‘the information is’ Updated

DK-03

2 ISO 19115-1 te In the rest of INSPIRE ISO 19115:2005 is used to describe metadata. However, in this document ISO 19115-1:2014 is used. This might cause problems when using one version of the metadata standard here and another version in the rest of INSPIRE. The same issue is relevant when it comes to quality standard.

Consider the implication of using two different versions of the metadata and quality standard within INSPIRE.

Accepted.The definition has been revised to refer to the 2005 version of ISO 19115.

DK-05

3.1 (10) te The distinction between item and resource may not be entirely clear. For instance; if a register contains identifiers of items, many of these items will also be resources??

Not accepted.The definitions are taken from the relevant ISO standards.

DK-04

3.1 (5) te The definition provided in the note is not correct. The definition in the document originates from ISO 19115:2005 and not at stated from ISO 19115-1.

Here are two options:1. Corrects the reference to ISO 19115

and include the standard in clause 2. 2. Change the ISO definition so it align

with the content of the ISO 19115-1 definition, i.e. change to “information about a resource”.

If option 2 is chosen there could be problems with other documents used in INSPIRE.

Accepted.The definition has been revised to refer to the 2005 version of ISO 19115.

DE 3.2 all ed Addition of an abbreviation API…application programming interface Added

DK-06

3.2 ge In the document the abbreviation RDF, JSON, ATOM and CSV, TG, XML, MIWP-6 and RoR is used without being mentioned in clause 3.2

Add RDF, JSON, ATOM and CSV, TG, XML, MIWP-6 and RoR to the list of used abbreviations.

Updated

FR 4 te It is explained in this part that register can be hierarchical but it is not clear in the other sections what it implies in terms of requirements.

Please precise what are the requirements for hierarchical registers.

There are no additional requirements. There is already the definition of hierarchical register and an example.




Type of comment1


UK 4 ge The document uses the Conformance Class, Requirements and Recommendations format common in a number of INSPIRE technical guidance documents. Section 4 doesn't have any requirements so we guess it can't have any meaningful conformance classes, however, it is strange having one recommendation (TG Recommendation 1) but a series of 8 Best Practices that aren't highlighted as TG Recommendations. So if someone summarised the requirements and recommendations of the document they would completely miss out the Best Practices.

Accepted.The difference between Best Practices and Technical Guidance and the notation used for both are now clarified in section 3.3. TG recommendations and requirements are now only included in section 6.

NL 4 Figure 1 Ed When printed in black & white, the text at the arrows is hard to read (too light).

Darken Updated

DE 4 4.2.46.57.2ANNEX B

Paragraph 4Paragraph 6Paragraph 2Paragraph 2Paragraph 1

ed Missing text reference to figure Add a text reference to:the figure 1the figure 2the figure 7the figure 14the figure 15

Updated

UK 4 Para 4 Ed Replace sentence starting Register with A Register can be Updated

IT 4 4.4.2 The best practice 2 offers some options, but it not explains, what happen if in some MS there are some URI and Namespace already set-up in different way. What a Register manager must consider it, if they want include?

Add some example to explain if it’s possible or not to include in the registry also other persistent URI.

The best practices in section 4 are meant as guidelines for implementers of national registers and registries, not as requirements for joining the register federation. If a country already has a URI strategy in place, all the better.

DK-07

4 Para 2 and 4 ed It is stated that a “registry can be set up…”. This can implies that there are other possibilities. Where are they described?The comment is actually also valid in para 4

Reconsider the use of the word “can”. Accepted with modifications. Reworded to:A registry is an information system on which registers are maintained [ISO 19135-1]. In an infrastructure, a registry serves as a central access point where labels, descriptions and other metadata for reference codes can be easily maintained, checked by humans or retrieved by machines. (…)




Type of comment1


Registers can be hierarchical. Hierarchical registers consist of items that are themselves registers, i.e. they are structured sets of registers composed of a principal register and several sub-registers.

DK-09

4.1 Grey box (4) te What about empty code lists? Where is the values supposed be stored and made available? In a national register or directly in the INSPIRE Register?

Please interpret and explain on how to handle empty code lists.

Accepted.An explanation on how the requirements in Art.6(1) map to the extensibility property used in the central INSPIRE code list register has been added.

DK-08

4.1 Para 1 ed “following requirements related to code lists” Except nr. 6 which concerns enumerations. Accepted. Reworded to "… related to code lists, enumerations and their possible extensions by data providers."

DE 4.2.x all ed/ge Best Practice - the term "General principle" might be better in many cases, because the proposed things are far more than just "best practice" to me.

Use the term “General principle” instead of “Best practice” where it is appropriate - e.g. 4.2.5 is quite essential in this case

Not accepted.The term "Best Practice" has been adopted from the W3C best practices document on "Data on the Web".

DK-10

4.2 Para “Note” ed Who is “our”? Replace with MIG-T or WP6-subgoup Replaced with MIWP-6

NL 4.2 List of best practices

Ed Start BP1 name with a verb ‘Use well defined roles … ‘ Updated

UK 4.2 list Ed “resolvable” is the term used here. In section 3.1 (10) the term used is “dereferenceable”. We think these are equivalent but maybe a definition is worthwhile?

The definition of dereferenceable has been added in section 3.1

DE 4.2 Paragraph 1 ed ... through a simple document... Updated

UK 4.2 Para 1 Ed Replace “While based on the definition of a register from [ISO 19135-1], a basic register could already be created through a simply document (e.g. a text document or spreadsheet) that contains a list of items, each of which is mapped to an identifier.” with

Based on the definition of a register from [ISO 19135-1], a basic register could be created through a simple document (e.g. a text document or spreadsheet) that contains a list of items, each of which is mapped to an identifier.

Updated

UK 4.2 2nd Ed Odd phrasing Change “The W3C Data on the Web Best Practices document [W3C DWBP]. Where relevant, we therefore include references to the corresponding best practices in this

Updated with the suggested phrase




Type of comment1


document.” to “The W3C has published a Data on the Web Best Practices document [W3C DWBP]. Where relevant, we therefore include references to the corresponding best practices in this document.”

NL 4.2 Note 3 Ge The first stable draft version of the DWBP was published in February 2015, so I expect it was already available at the time of writing of this TG.

See earlier comment & remove this note. Note removed

UK 4.2 5th Ed Typo (singular/plural clash) Change “list present some” to “list presents some”

Updated

NL 4.2.1 Ge For simple registers this BP is not essential. In a setting where there are only a few parties involved (or perhaps only one), it is not necessary to clearly document the roles.

Make this clear in the BP description This is a Best Practice, not a requirement. It is up to the register owner to decide whether it is appropriate to follow it or not. However, in the context of a European register federation, it is important to know at least the owner of a register. If you want to encourage reuse of register content, it is also relevant to understand how a register is being managed.

UK 4.2.1 Ed In bullet list Replace “control body… with A Control body… Updated

DE 4.2.1 Paragraph 1 ed Clearly documented roles... The intention of that verb is a suggestion: to document roles and …

DE 4.3 Paragraph 1 ed Incorrect name of the text reference Figure 3 Updated

DK-11

4.2.1 Para 1 ed Unclear sentence. “It” refers to “a register”. The same for para 3 “Intended Outcome”

Consider to end the sentence after “registry”. It is referring to the register: replaced with a register

NL 4.3 1 Ed Ref to figure 3 is in the wrong place, between the two parts of the figure.

Move the figure below the text. Updated

UK 4.3 TG Recommendation 1

ge This seems to be just a definition of the term profile rather than an actual recommendation to do anything?

Accepted. The recommendation has been moved into section 6.3.2.

DK-12

4.2.1 Para 2 ”Why” ed Delete “system” because a registry is previously defined as a system.

Deleted

NL 4.3 Figure 3 Ed Figure 3 is present 2 times. Remove one of them. Updated

DK- 4.2.2 Title te It should be clearly stated, that the identifier Added “HTTP-URIs” to the title




Type of comment1


13 must be a HTTP-URI.

UK 4.2.2 See also… Ed BP 10 and 11 Are now BP 9 and 10 in [W3C DWBP] Updated

DK-20

4.3.1 Para 1 te It is stated that harvesting should be regular. But where is regular harvesting described, or can it be assumed that all readers/users understand what regular harvesting means?

If it not can be assumed that all readers/users know what regular harvesting means then there need to be either a reference to a document describing that or it must be described here.

Accepted. Sections 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 have been slightly redrafted to clarify the possible approaches, including the following:"In this scenario, the elements coming from the original register are repeated in the extension register. This can be achieved e.g. by regularly retrieving (or "harvesting") the relevant values and their descriptions from the original register and storing them in the extended register."

NL 4.3.1 1 Ed ‘the element coming from’ ‘the elements coming from’ Updated

DK-14

4.2.2 Para 6 ed “data publisher” What is that? Consider to replace with “data provider” or “service provider”

Replaced with “data provider”

DK-15

4.2.2 Para 6 Te “manage a URI space”? An URI space? Please explain This text has been taken from the W3C BP. We have added "to manage a URI space (under a certain domain)" to make the concept more clear.

DE 4.2.3 all ge We cannot understand, what is "properties" in this context.

Please give an example for "properties" in this context.

A property in this context can also be called attribute. This is now clarified in the text.

NL 4.2.3 Possible approach section

Ed Typo ‘Each of this group’ > ‘Each group’ Updated

NL 4.2.3 Why section Ed Typo ‘A register could contain items with different sets of properties’

Updated

NL 4.3.2 1 Ed ‘the element coming from’ ‘the elements coming from’ Updated

NL 4.3.2 3 Te The details of the referenced item could be acquired from the extended register when rendering the page, provided the extended register follows BP 6.

Add this to the Reference scenario. For an example, see http://imgeo.geostandaarden.nl/def/imgeo-object/wegdeel/ov-baan - the definition (text under ‘definitie’ is collected from a different register using javascript at runtime.

The cons of the reference scenario have been reworded as follows:Cons: the extension register will not store any details of the referenced item except for the URI; any additional information (e.g. label, description) needs to be retrieved on the fly by the registry application providing the extension register or is only available to users after retrieving the resource provided at the given


http://imgeo.geostandaarden.nl/def/imgeo-object/wegdeel/ov-baan

http://imgeo.geostandaarden.nl/def/imgeo-object/wegdeel/ov-baan



Type of comment1


URI.

UK 4.2.4 2nd example Te I think the UKGovLD status example is confusing. This is because it uses values from the old ISO 19135, which had “not valid” – now replaced by “submitted”.

Drop the entire second example. Dropped

NL 4.2.5 Example section

Ed Wrong use of plural ‘still have’ > ‘still has’ Updated

NL 4.2.5 Ge It would be more logical if this BP comes before the previous one about statuses. The need for statuses is related to the decision of never deleting an item.

Move BP to before the previous one. Not accepted.BP 5 makes reference to the statuses retired or invalid, so it should come after BP 4.

UK 4.2.5 ge The recommended best practice here is different from that in the [W3C DWBP] BP 27 that it refers to. This document recommends flagging items that should no longer be used as invalid/superseded etc. The [W3C DWPB] BP 27 paragraph recommends using 410 gone response for removed data sets. We think the difference makes sense as this document is for resources that are definitional in nature (terms plus descriptions) whereas the [W3C DWBP] BP 27 is considering datasets but, as it is included as a reference, the reason for the difference in recommendation could be given?

Not accepted.The reference to the BPs in [W3C DWPB] is purely informative ("see also"). The BP in this document related rather to the option where information has been archived, not where is is deleted entirely.For this case, the W3C BP recommends to "redirect requests to a Web page giving information about the archive that holds the data and how a potential user can access it."

DE 4.2.5 Paragraph 1 ed Once the elements are entered in a registry/register,...

Updated

DK-17

4.2.6 Para “Example”

Ed/te In the example there is a reference to ISO 19135. However, in chapter 2 there is a reference to ISO 19135-1 and ISO 19135 does not appear in the reference chapter.

Either adjust the text so it follows the content of ISO 19135-1 or add ISO 19135 to the reference chapter.

Updated to ISO 19135-1

NL 4.2.6 Example section

Ed ‘provides register in multiple formats’ ‘provides multiple formats’ Updated

DK-16

4.2.6 Para 1 Ed Last sentence lists up some recommendations. Consider to put them in a dashed box “Recommendation X”

Maybe there should be three recommendations here:1: provide different formats2: Provide machine-readable formats

Not accepted.In this chapter, we only include Best Practices, not TG Recommendations.To us, the 3 BPs mentioned go hand-in-hand.




Type of comment1


3: Use standard vocabularies whenever possible

E.g. it does not make too much sense to provide several human-readable and no machine-readable format.

NL 4.2.6 1 Ed Missing word ‘should be provided for human consumption’ Updated

DK-18

4.2.7 Para Why Ed Last sentence is a recommendation – see comment above

Consider to put it in a dashed box “Recommendation X”

This is not a TG recommendations, it is just a best practice

NL 4.2.7 Why section Ge The description in the Why section is a bit unclear and it describes what is possible, not the reasons why.Perhaps it belongs in the possible approach section of BP6 instead of being a separate BP.

Describe the reasons for using content negotiation. Explain what content negotiation is. Alternatively, move the section on content negotiation to the possible approach of BP6.

BP7 is related to the method of accessing the resource, whereas 6 is related to the formats, so they should be kept separate.We have included a reference to BP 6 to provide different formats in BP 7 and added a short definition of "content negotiation" in a footnote.

UK 4.2.7 The example below…

Te This isn’t actually what a call would look like. Confusing for someone who doesn’t already know anyway.

JUST Delete the example call and replace the sentence above it by:

"Different representations of the items can be served according to the content type specified in the Accept: header of the HTTP Request."

Sentence replaced.The example has been improved with a snippet of a real HTTP call because it can be useful to see a real example call

UK 4.2.7 Example, paragraph 1

Ed Typos (extra word and letter) Delete “the” in “supports the content”; Delete d from “and in API” should be “an API”

Deleted

DK-19

4.2.7 Para 2 below “Possible Approach to Implementation”

te “The specific format of the resource's representation can be accessed by the URI or by the Content-type of the HTTP Request.” – it is unclear what to prefer

Is one of the solutions to prefer? Please indicate.

They are the same, no preferred choice.

DK-21

5 ge We miss the description of the proposed governance structure to manage these federated registers as well as a description of the roles connected with a federated registers.

As it was discussed and agreed at the MIG-T meeting – consider to add the concluded governance-structure.

In the meantime, the proposed governance structure (control body and submitting organisations) for the central INSPIRE registry and the register federation have been proposed and endorsed by the MIG in its meeting on 30/11-1/12. We prefer to keep the terms of reference for these groups separate, in order to be more flexible to update them, if needed.




Type of comment1


NL 4.2.8 Why section Ed Typo ‘availability of all the language’ > ‘availability of all the languages’

Updated

NL 4.2.8 Why section Ed Typo ‘the English’ > ‘English’ Updated

UK 4.2.8 Example Ed Missing word Add “a” to give “example of a registry” Updated

UK 4.2.8 Why Ed Typo (singular / plural clash) Change “the language used” to “the languages used”

Updated

UK 5 ge We think it might be helpful to put a link to the current register federation testbed (http://inspire-regadmin.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ror/help.jsp) near the start of Section 5?

The reference has been added as a foot note

DE 4.2.8 Paragraph 2 ed ... used language such as English, will Updated

NL 5 2 Ed ‘a country that have to’ ‘a country that has to’ updated

NL 5.2 List Ge Use the terms register and registry consistently, always choose one. In this case, the proper term is ‘register’ – it does not make sense to register the registry system.

Use the terms register(s) consistently in 5.2. The RoR architecture needs to firstly register the registry system with the use of the “registry descriptor”. This descriptor contains then the list of registers.

DK-22

5.2 Para 3 te “The architecture of the federation and the interaction with the RoR can be broken down into three basic steps” - architectures cannot be broken down into steps…Parts perhaps?

Please reformulate. Reformulated using “parts”

NL 5.3 List Ge Why are the registries one of the main components? This seems unnecessary. The registry is just the information system, i.e. the software facilitating a register. The register itself is what is important to users. Distinguishing it in the data model from the registry seems overly complex; most of the attributes of registry and register are the same and users might easily get confused and not understand the distinction.

Remove registry as a component of the RoR data model.

The RoR architecture needs to firstly register the registry system with the use of the “registry descriptor”. This descriptor contains then the list of registers.The registry can be seen as a container for the registers in the RoR context.

DK-23

5.3 Table 1+2 te Regarding table 1 there are some questions:1. Why is the information regarding the

publisher optional? – We would assume this kind of information is important for the

1: Clarify2: Clarify3: Add cardinality

1: We have removed the information whether an attribute is mandatory or optional from these table, since they describe only the internal DB structure and this information is


http://inspire-regadmin.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ror/help.jsp

http://inspire-regadmin.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ror/help.jsp



Type of comment1


user of a register.2. Regarding the name of the publisher. Is it

the name of the organization or the actual person? – If the latter is the case then we would suggest changing to the organization. This is also the case for the email.

3. Cardinality for the attributes might also be helpful. This will especially be the case for the name and email.

relevant only for the data to be exchanged (i.e. in the description of the descriptor formats)2: It is the Organization3: See (1)

DK-25

6 Last bullet te “SKOS”. SKOS is too narrow for the entire range of items (anything that can be described and considered separately). SKOS concepts represent “an idea or notion; a unit of thought.” Many items are real things - like data.

While registers can in theory be used for any kind of data, they will in practice be used to store relatively simple representations, abstractions or conceptualisations of real-world entities. Therefore we consider the use of SKOS to represent items and collections of items (=registers) appropriate. Furthermore, it is currently the de facto standard for comparable information systems.Also note that also other vocabularies (e.g. DCAT) are used, where SKOS is not sufficient.If needed, registers can use further vocabularies to express custom attributes.

FR 6 Tables ed In most cases the Notes column is not filled. Should be filled with human readable names of the properties or/and short descriptions. In most cases the XML example already contains such description in the comments.

Notes to each row have been added.

NL 6 Ge Use ‘register’ not ‘registry’. See comment above.

DK-24

6 Para 3 te “The other two conformance classes are optional”. It seems a wee bit inconsistent, that the optional requirements may contain a mix of requirements – for instance the optional req 16, where certain properties are required and others are optional. What is the difference between required and optional properties when the requirement is optional?

Please explain the difference. The difference is that if you decide to be compliant with a class, you must specify all the required field for that class.This has been clarified in a note.

DK- 6.1 Box ed Please be aware that TG Recommendation 1 Reference updated




Type of comment1


26 is on page 21.

NL 6.1 Ed Broken references to requirements and recommendations

Fix Updated

DK-33

6.1.1. Table – note to dct:format

te Is this an example or a specification of the required format?

Please explain It is a specification of the required format. This is now clarified in the notes.


Fix Updated

UK 6.1.1 Note: Ed Change “If the system will check if the Register descriptor is available at the given URI through an HTTP GET request to the URI with the HTTP Accept header set to "application/x-ror-rdf+xml". Otherwise it will ask for the resource using the standard HTTP GET request.” to

The system will check the Register descriptor is available at the given URI through an HTTP GET request to the URI with the HTTP Accept header set to "application/x-ror-rdf+xml". Otherwise it will ask for the resource using the standard HTTP GET request without an Accept header.

Text changed

DK-27

6.1.1 TG Req. 1 te “an http URI”. This may require specification. The address of the document – where to find it – is by it’s nature an URL. But it reasonable to let the address of the document be identical to the HTTP-URI identifier of the document.

Updated to HTTp-URI

DK-37

6.2 Para 1 te “automatically harvested”. So publishing the accrual period is all it takes to become automatically harvestable?

Please explain. Yes, the frequency of the harvesting it is the only information required

NL 6.1.1 Req 1 Ge By stating it must be an http URI, https is prohibited. Consider allowing https.

‘http(s) URI’ Accepted

DK-29

6.1.1 Tg Recommendation 2

te “well-defined”. What does that mean? Who defines? Where is it described?

Please consider to add clarification/definition. The examples are provided below in the text

DK-30

6.1.1 Tg Recommendation 2

ed (example URI: http://publications.europa.eu/resource/authority/corporate-body/JRC) is not dereferentiable at time being

The publication office is shortly going to make it dereferenceable.

NL 6.1.1 Rec 2 Ge Not the URI of the foaf:Agent class, but the URI of the foaf:Agent individual should be provided

Remove ‘class’. Updated

UK 6.1.1 TG Recommend

ge Not clear what "well-defined URI pattern" means here. Same comment for 6.1.2 TG

Accepted. Reworded to:

TG Recommendation 1 The URI of the


http://publications.europa.eu/resource/authority/corporate-body/JRC




Type of comment1


ation 2 Recommendation 3 foaf:Agent should be taken from an organisation register or provided using a URI well-defined URI pattern.

EXAMPLE Some examples are provided below:• URI identifying the "European Commission, Joint Research Centre" in the EU Publications Office's corporate body register : http://publications.europa.eu/resource/authority/corporate-body/JRC • URI identifying National Geographic Institute Belgium in DBpedia: http://dbpedia.org/resource/National_Geographic_Institute_(Belgium)

UK 6.1.1 TG Requirement 5

geNote that with. TG Req 10 it is important to have consistency between the forward and backward links from registry to register and register to registry. Will the harvester reject submissions where they are inconsistent?

While harvesting the registry information, the harvester will check the URL of the register descriptors provided in the Registry descriptor. If it is not resolvable, it is not imported.On the other hand, while importing the registers information, if the reference to the registry is wrong, it is not imported.

DK-31

6.1.1 Note below TG Req 6

ed “If the system will check if”… Difficult to understand many “if´s” (Too many conditions…)

Please consider to reformulate Updated

DK-32

6.1.1 Note below TG Req 6

ed A question: We thought that the media type is bound to a controlled vocabulary (http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml#application) We may be wrong?

This is a custom media type, set up following the guideline used by IANA.It will be added to the new INSPIRE media type register currently being tested.

DE 6.1.16.1.2

TG Requirement 3,4TG Requirement 9

ed Generalization of the TG Requirements Remove „mandatory/optional“ from TG Requirements

To be discussed

DK-28

6.1.1 Table page 30

ed Notes would be appreciated – especially for properties not mentioned in the text; e.g.

Please consider to add. Notes added


http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml#application

http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml#application

http://dbpedia.org/resource/National_Geographic_Institute_(Belgium)

http://dbpedia.org/resource/National_Geographic_Institute_(Belgium)





Type of comment1


foaf:mbox

DK-35

6.1.2 Table – property “skos:prefLabel”

te Make note, that there can be only one skos:prefLabel for each language.

The RoR currently does not support multilinguality. We have added the following footnote:It is possible to specify more than one skos:prefLabel element, one per language. However, at the time of writing, the RoR does not support multilinguality. Therefore, if available, the English skos:prefLabel element (xml:lang="en"), or else the first skos:prefLabel element, will be used. If requirements emerge for multilingual support, this can be added at a later stage.

DK-36

6.1.2 Table te Voaf:realiesOn cardinality 0..1: No more than one?

Only one dependency is currently supported by the RoR. We have added the following footnote:At the time of writing, the RoR only supports dependencies on one register. If requirements emerge to relax this requirement, support for dependencies on multiple registers can be added at a later stage.


Fix Updated

UK 6.2.1 Notes Ed Missing part of URI?Same at 6.2.2 example& in the examples in A.2.1, A.2.2, …

The example given doesn’t include the “/mdr” part – but actually the register there isn’t structured in such a way that the URIs are dereferencable (e.g. DAILY isn’t individually retrievable) – so perhaps these example URIs aren’t meant to be URLs – the pre-existing registers don’t follow the guidelines in this document.

Add /mdr, and get the EC to make it’s periodicity register to conform.

The official URI specified in the SKOS file (http://publications.europa.eu/mdr/resource/authority/frequency/skos/frequencies-skos.rdf) is without the “/mdr”.The URIs are currently not resolvable but the publication office is working on making them resolvable in the near future.

UK 6.2.1 Notes in table

Ed “The minimum frequency is “daily” “change to The most frequent frequency is “DAILY” Updated

NL 6.1.2 Rec 3 Ge Not the URI of the foaf:Agent class, but the Remove ‘class’. Updated


http://publications.europa.eu/mdr/resource/authority/frequency/skos/frequencies-skos.rdf

http://publications.europa.eu/mdr/resource/authority/frequency/skos/frequencies-skos.rdf



Type of comment1


URI of the foaf:Agent individual should be provided

DK-34

6.1.2 TG Req 7 te “an http URI”. This may require specification. The address of the document – where to find it – is by it’s nature an URL. But it reasonable to let the address of the document be identical to the HTTP-URI identifier of the document.

Updated with HTTP-URI

NL 6.1.2 Req 7 Ge By stating it must be an http URI, https is prohibited. Consider allowing https.

‘http(s) URI’ Accepted

DK-38

6.3.1 Table – property “dct:description”

te It is not clear what should have this property (its inherent domain is rather broad) – it does not appear in the following example. Thus, it is unclear what it describes, and what the quality of the description should be.

Please explain. A note has been added

UK 6.2.2 Notes in table

Ed “The minimum frequency is “daily” “change to The most frequent frequency is “DAILY” Updated

NL 6.4 2,3 Ed XSL should be XSLT Replace with ‘XSLT’ Updated

DK-40

6.3.2 Table te Cardinality “0..1”: As part of Req 16, this property is already optional… or?

This comment is unclear.

NL 6.3.2 Table Ge Prefix ‘adms’ is used but not defined Add reference to vocabulary. Added

UK 6.3.2 ge The main difference between TG 16 for internally defined items and TG 17 for externally defined items is that the prefLabel is mandatory for internal ones. Confusingly TG16 lists optional properties with 0..1 cardinality but TG17 doesn't list these at all although from the example it is still permissible to have them. The TG 17 note about subsets is repetitive and not particularly helpful here. It would be better if the example showed how an external item might be different from internal one. This section would be clearer if it just said that the prefLabel is mandatory for internal items but optional for external items.

The example for the external values has been updated removing the label and definition.The text included in the note has been left because it explain a real case of usage of an external value.

DK-41

6.5 Para 1 ed Needs a more descripted start. Consider to include a sentence like “The registration of descriptors in the RoR is a

Sentence added




Type of comment1


manual process, assisted by the RoR GUI…”

DK-42

6.5 Para 2 ed “resolvable URI” Replace with “URL” Replaced

DK-43

6.5 Para 4 ed “by hand”. Replace with “manually” Replaced

DK-44

6.5 Para 5 ed “to check” Replace with “inspection of” Replaced

DK-45

6.5 Para 5 te “error occurs before”: Or during? Please consider clarification There are some errors that can be fired also before the validation process. An example is a non-well formed XML document or a problem in the HTTP call.

DK-46

6.5 Figure 9 ed The figure shows a validation success but a validation failure would maybe also be an interesting example?

Please consider to add this example. Failure example added

DK-39

6.3.2 TG Req. 16 ed Internally (nor externally) defined item is not defined in the text.

Consider to include this definition Accepted.

DK-47

7.1 ed “Each of them”. Please replace “of them” with “register” Not only the register, also the relation and registry page have a detail page.

DK-48

7.1.1 Parenthesis te “if available”. Is Register descriptor not mandatory?

Please make clear. You can firstly register your registry without registers, and then add registers.

NL 7.1.1 Ge Related to previous comments about registries and registers. Looking at the example (figure 11), each code list is a register. But is a code list not a register item?

Reconsider the distinction between registry / register.

See answer above.

UK 7.1.1 Figure references

Ed Should be 10 and 11 not 8 and 9? Carries through all section 7 figure references

Will be resolved at final document Updated

DK-49

7.2 Para 1 ed “the overall catalogue”. What is that? Please explain. An explanation has been added.

DK-50

7.2 Para 2 ed “allows to use”. Please replace with “incorporating the operators”

Updated

UK 5.2 AND 5.3

References to Figures 3 and 4 (twice)

Ed References to figure may be wrong? At final version of document Figure references will be resolved (wrong refs to 3 4 (should be 4 and 5 and 4? And 4 in 5.3 to 6?)

Updated




Type of comment1


DE 5.2 until 7.3

Figure 4 until14

ge, ed After figure 3 the text references do not refer to the correct figures and the names of the text references are incorrect.

Check the names and the links of the text references

Updated

DK-51

Annex C Te/ge Prior to sending the document out for commenting and acceptance we would suggest that this annex is populated with the right text. So we are looking forward to that later in the process

Either delete the annex and adjust the text accordingly or populate the annex with the correct text and not just a placeholder.

Annex C has been completed.

IT ANNEX C

The description is generic and it references to the potential external example or document, but it could be unstable.

Add the example to the text rather than use a external link.

Accepted. An example has been added

SE ANNEX D

Another example can be added in ANNEX D The DataDictionary http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/ is another open source solution to help managing and sharing reference codes, code lists and other items. The solution is based on different open source software and has been developed by the European Environment Agency (EEA).

The example has been added


Documents

ies-svn.jrc.ec. Web view ... (extra word and letter) ... one per language. However, at the time of