MIWP-4a: Persistent identifiers
Dear colleagues
Here are some comments to the actions discussed during the last webex meeting, as described in INSPIRE_MIG_ToR_PID_Annex_v4.docx and INSPIRE_MIG_ToR_PID_v1.docx.
First of all I would like to inform that I have not been part of any prior discussion in INSPIRE context on this issue. I understand from MIG-T web site that this issue has been discussed over a longer period.
MIWP –Action#2126 has the title "Managing and using http for URIs for INSPIRE identifiers", while the current ToR has widened this to a much broader scope on persistent identifiers. So I realize that there are obvious reasons to extend the scope, but I am unfamiliar with these reasons.
From my point of view we should focus on the obstacles on implementations. One of these obstacles is obviously a URI pattern and governance for INSPIRE identifiers.
The INSPIRE Generic Conceptual Model (GCM) details the directive and the implementing rules in such a way that the technical solutions enable interoperability. GCM includes as you know a model for identifiers (INSPIRE ID). It also gives examples on implementations, like URI, which is a good starting point. During the drafting of GCM investigations on the directive and the implementing rules has already been done, and is a good starting point for the further work.
GCM does not say that the ID's shall be implemented as URI, this is only one option. But it is an important options for those member nations that have a strong eGoverment policy and influence, and where URI's (http) are instrumental for enabling eGovernment services including Linked (open) data, also to geographic information.
At same time, in some nations (like Norway) there are existing eGovernment projects standardizing URI pattern for public information, including geographic information. There is a challenge to influence the national URI pattern's in such a way that there will be no conflict with the proposed technical solutions for INSPIRE. Which means, at least in the Norwegian context, that there is a need for immediate actions.
Taking into consideration the previous discussions in the community leading from a pure URI-pattern action to a more general PID investigation, evaluation and consideration action,we will strongly encourage a new package B1 (if the number is a priority sequence) with the following content:
Package: INSPIRE Object identifier
B1. Guidelines for managing and using URIs (http) for INSPIRE identifiers.
This work should be based upon:
· INSPIRE Generic Conceptual Model
· ARE3NA PID Governance
· ISA publication " D7.1.3 - Study on persistent URIs, with identification of best practices and recommendations on the topic for the MSs and the EC"
· Others???
The ISA publication is important to bridge the gap between sector specific approaches (like INSPIRE) and eGovernment, which is a more generic approach.
This package should start immediately.
The other activities should go on in parallel.
Comments to the packages:
Package A : Scope and role of PID in INSPIRE.
A1 to A3 could be merged into one action, they are all investigations of the legislation and technical documents, focusing on inconsistencies, clarification and use cases.
Package B : INSPIRE Object identifier.
In general OK this package is fine. There are generic guidelines and governance rules, but there may also be guidelines and rules that are technology dependent.
- We recommend these deliverables;
- a) Generic guidelines and governance rules for PID's in general (ref: Are3na project report)
- b)Technology specific guidelines and governance rules for URI (http)
- c) Guidelines and rules for other technologies / patterns that are identified in the project.
Package C: Operational systems and tools.
I agree that tools are important. But tools, at least some tools, are technology dependent (like PURL for URI). And could easily be part of Package B.
- We recommend that the tool activities are being brought into Package B
My understanding is that C1 is related to how the linking works in practise. Probably a good idea, but is also related to the technology used for implementing PID's. Unfortunately, I am not familiar with E-PRTR, SEVESO Directive and Industrial Emmissin reports, so it is difficult to catch the full understanding of the action.
- We recommend to limit the activity and focus on some national trials as well as for some EU-related spatial data
I am also questioning the reason to bring in INSPIRE thematic identifiers into this MIWP.
- We recommend that these issues not are brought into the TOR and action plan.
Regarding contribution in the potential sub-group on persistent identifiers, we (Norway) would like to focus our resources to the URI pattern and governance in general.