TG Metadata 2.0.1 - more use of standard ISO 19115 values in AccessConstraints & LegalConstraints

[PeterParslow]

Change proposal description

In both INSPIRE "Conditions for Access and Use" and "Limitations on Public Access" we require the RestrictionCode to be otherRestrictions.

In many cases, other values of ISO 19115:2003 RestrictionCode are more appropriate, such as "license" or "intellectualPropertyRights". Allowing these (and the other) values would make the resulting record "more standard".

We can still use the otherConstraints element to provide more information, including the Anchor link to the more detailed INSPIRE controlled lists.

Addressed TG

TG Metadata 2.0.1

Location

TG Requirement C.17, third paragraph (and associated footnote 25)
TG Requirement C.18, second paragraph (and associated footnote 27)
C.2.21, 2nd table, "INSPIRE obligation/condition" row

I can only find the two TG Requirement ones in metadata-iso19139.adoc, not the footnotes or table that I see in the PDF.

Issue faced

When the restriction is due to e.g. intellectualPropertyRights, it is harder for the reader of the metadata to find that out - INSPIRE's use of ISO 19115 is "not standard".

Proposed solution

Changes as described above & in the pull request.

Pull request

Additional information

I can only find the two TG Requirement ones in metadata-iso19139.adoc, not the footnotes or table that I see in the PDF.

Relevant legislation

Impact on IR

None

• IR metadata

Impact on INSPIRE validator

Would require changes at https://github.com/inspire-eu-validation/metadata/blob/2.0/common/limitations-on-public-access.md, https://github.com/inspire-eu-validation/metadata/blob/2.0/common/conditions-for-access-and-use.md, and the related tests.

Linked issue

Impact on INSPIRE XML schemas

None

Linked issue

Impact on INSPIRE code lists

None

Linked issue

Change proposer

Peter Parslow

References

[heidivanparys]

I can only find the two TG Requirement ones in metadata-iso19139.adoc, not the footnotes or table that I see in the PDF.

The footnotes were removed in release 2.1.0, see the release notes at https://github.com/INSPIRE-MIF/technical-guidelines/releases/tag/2022.1 and at https://inspire.ec.europa.eu/id/document/tg/metadata-iso19139, and see #8 and #21 in particular.

[heidivanparys]

Would the proposal be ISO-compliant? According to ISO 19115:2003, clause 6.3.2.3 (highlighting is mine):

The otherConstraint element of MD_LegalConstraints shall be non-zero (used) only if accessConstraints and/or useConstraints elements have a value of "otherRestrictions", which is found in the MD_RestrictionCode codelist.

Figure A.3 : Constraint information and table B.2.3 state a different constraint

So the model says:

accessConstraints or useConstraints = "otherRestrictions" ⇒ otherConstraints is present.

The text in the standard says:

accessConstraints or useConstraints = "otherRestrictions" ⇔ otherConstraints is present

[PeterParslow]

Oh dear. I missed that - in my defence, that's because I was looking for "otherConstraints", but I don't think I can hide behind a typo in the published standard - the text of 6.3.2.3 obviously meant the otherConstraints" element, even though it names the non-existent "otherConstraint" element :).

The official ISO rule is that it is the text of the standard which is normative; the figure's illustrate the text.

For info: ISO 19115-1:2014 gets round this by having text which says "The full package is specified in Figure 8" - which I guess makes the figure normative. They (we?) also deleted the sentence that contradicts the diagram/model. But the constraint in the figure includes this "otherConstraints only documented if accessConstraints or useConstraints = "otherRestrictions".

I withdraw this suggestion - I'll make a similar one on the TC211 Standards Tracker.

ISO-TC211/StandardsTracker#435