The role of the Priority dataset code list

[hallinpihlatie]

I decided to raise this issue here as this issue is related to the Priority datasets code list and how to refer and remap to legislations on a general level in metadata in the future.

In the ongoing GeoDCAT-AP pilot and the Good Practise proposal we have discussed how to add the ELI-code to the High Value Dataset regulation, see INSPIRE-MIF/GeoDCAT-AP-pilot#2. The conclusion seems to be that an existing thesaurus won't be used, but instead one will refer to the ELI-code directly with a recommendation to use certain free key word, agreed by the community. This because in this way the ELI-code can be directly remapped to the legislationapplication element in the HVD and the GeoDCAT-AP metadata profile.

For environmental legislations the ELI-codes are included in the Priority dataset code list. For example:
https://inspire.ec.europa.eu/metadata-codelist/PriorityDataset/dir-1999-31
where the Legislation URIs or ELI-code is http://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/1999/31/oj (official URI http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/1999/31/oj, I suppose)
A lot of effort was made to add the references to these legislations and the fixed keywords.

In many cases datasets are related to several legislations, for example INSPIRE, other environmental legislations (a now maintained in the Priority dataset code list) or HVD. Is there a need to be able to search for datasets related to a certain kind of legislation in the future? Only for reporting purposes or do you see other use cases?

How should the rest of the environmental legislations be handled when mapping to GeoDCAT-AP and other DCAT profiles? Is there a need to add also key word and the ELI-code related to INSPIRE in our metadata?

I'm raising this now as I wonder if you have any thoughts about this that can be fed into the ISO TC/211 community, which is working on mapping the present ISO metadata standard to DCAT at the moment?

[jescriu]

Dear @hallinpihlatie,
We acknowledge receipt of the request to discuss this topic further. I think the next MIWP Sub-group meeting would be a good opportunity. Hope you may join to the next meeting of this group. Selected for discussion by the MIWP Sub-group.

[hogredan]

Dear @hallinpihlatie an all,

unfortunately I was not able to attend the sub-group meeting yesterday, but I would like to add a comment from our national expert group on metadata:

INSPIRE covers a large number of European and national regulations that cannot and must not be referenced individually in a metadata set. INSPIRE is a desirable way of technical provision, far away from the domain-specific requirements. Rather, INSPIRE is aimed at the provision of a specific group of data, that is, the provision of spatial data.

A reporting obligation, e.g. data on a year's harvest estimate, is based exactly on one legal regulation (and its amendments) that can be specifically referenced via an ELI. It is a contribution that this domain makes to data providers in order to provide data across all administrative levels and administrative boundaries on a specific topic in a standardized way. In the metadata, reference can therefore be made in the data description to such a reporting obligation resulting from a specific law via a code list containing the ELI.

This is the key difference between INSPIRE and a reporting obligation and therefore the two should not be mixed up.

INSPIRE is an agglomeration of various legal and legal-like harmonization requirements, each of which is hardly worth anything on its own and only realizes its true potential when seen in context. Although INSPIRE requires certain data models for thematic data, this requirement is always rudimentary and needs to be extended by the domain-specific communities, as the data usually remains incomprehensible or incomplete if only the INSPIRE data model is used. INSPIRE is therefore freely designed from a technical point of view and relies on the domain-specific communities to further extend and complete the rudimentary INSPIRE data model in their own way. In the end, it is just a method of making data accessible in a standardized way. It is the basic framework for making data findable, usable and further processable. Nothing more. That is why it cannot be referenced via one ELI. That would also be legally wrong, because INSPIRE is an agglomerate of legal regulations from different legislative bodies plus relevant norms and standards.

A reporting obligation, on the other hand, is a specific legal task for a responsible group of data providers. It is used to make specific data available within the framework of a "report" (reporting) in order to achieve or assess and further develop politically expressed goals ("No one should ever go hungry in Europe again!") with a specific background.

In our view, this means that the reporting obligation is referenced via the ELI code list, while INSPIRE is not.

[hallinpihlatie]

I was asked to share the slides that I showed before the discussion in the sub-group yesterday.
PriorityDataset.pdf

Yesterday we noticed, that in some cases the ELI code (Legislation URI) are indicated in the Priority dataset code list and sometimes it is the eur-lex page that the code list is referring to. This shuold be a quick fix.

As the Priority datasets code list works today you are not referring to the legislations with the ELI code values, but with values such as
https://inspire.ec.europa.eu/metadata-codelist/PriorityDataset/dir-1999-31 or "Directive 1999/31/EC" only, if encoded in CharString.

Mapping to ELI may be possible, but not straightforward as the information isn't included in the XML structure itself.

Thanks for sharing your view @hogredan. To help us to come up with a proposal on how to proceed, I'd like to ask:

• Do you think that the information included in the XMLs today on e-reporting is enough?
• Do you mean that you'd want the ELI-code of these e-reporting obligations to show up in the GeoDCAT-AP metadata as a legislationApplication property?

[hogredan]

Dear @hallinpihlatie ,

it is difficult for me/us to answer these questions. Basically, the use case is unclear and we were wondering, who needs this information in the metadata in order to do what? Therefore, I cannot say whether the current information in the metadata is sufficient for e-reporting or not. This should be answered by the potential user who wants to find e-reporting data.