TN_MaintenanceAuthority-OwnerAuthority_CI_Citation not matching

[JohannaOtt]

Edit: this was to clarify and is answered with the comments:

Not yet a change proposal but rather a question:
I seem to remember that there was a discussion to replace CI_Citation as type for MaintenanceAuthority.authority because it does not really match the purpose. But I cannot find any documentation or disccusion on this any more.
The only thing I can find is this discussion on how to fill it but that does not address changing the schema.
Is anyone aware of such a discussion?

Thank you and all the best

Johanna

Change proposal description

Change the type used for MaintenanceAuthority.authority and OwnerAuthority.authority from gmd:CI_Citation to CI_ResponsibleParty

Issue faced

The type used for the attributes does not match their description.

Expected behaviour

The attributes should use CI_ResponsibleParty (defined as "identification of, and means of communication with, person(s) and organizations associated with the dataset")

Current behaviour

The two attributes mentioned (defined as "Identification of the maintenance authority." and "Identification of the owning authority.") are currently using gmd:CI_Citation (defined as "standardized resource reference") as type.

Proposed solution

Change the type for MaintenanceAuthority.authority and OwnerAuthority.authority from gmd:CI_Citation to CI_ResponsibleParty.

Additional information

Proposal reason

This change proposal is needed because the schema model does not fit the purpose.

Addressed schema

TN

Impact on INSPIRE TG / IR

IR on interoperability:

• 7.3.1.3 : Change Type in table from CI_Citation to CI_ResponsibleParty
• 7.3.1.5 : Change Type in table from CI_Citation to CI_ResponsibleParty

TG TN

• UML diagrams
• 5.3.2.1.3 Value type: CI_ResponsibleParty
• 5.3.2.1.5 Value type: CI_ResponsibleParty

Change proposer

Johanna Ott, wetransform GmbH

References

More detailed documentation

Discussion in Forum

[fabiovinci]

Dear @JohannaOtt,

I don’t remember any other discussions on the subject.
In any case, I think you can complete your change proposal in order to start the governance process.

Have you thought about the alternative dataType? It could be "CI_ResponsibleParty".

Moreover, I think that the same problem also concerns the attribute "authority" of the feature type "OwnerAuthority".

[sMorrone]

@JohannaOtt
since the changing of the authority data type would require a change in the IR (and clearly also in the TG, the UML and the XML schema itself), I just checked the document with latest submitted IR change proposals (now in the Comitology procedure) and there is no change request for the MaintenanceAuthority / OwnerAuthority, hence for sure the Forum discussion did not turn into any IR change request. That said, I agree that the CI_Citation data type, meant for 'standardized resource reference' is not suited to authority element and agree with @fabiovinci that CI_ResponsibleParty could be more suited.

[JohannaOtt]

@fabiovinci @sMorrone Thank you for the feedback. I adapted the proposal description accordingly.

[fabiovinci]

Below are some screenshots of the involved elements.

[sMorrone]

Subgroup meeting on 24.03.2022:
the Subgroup approved this change proposal.

[idevisser]

I agree CI_ResponsibleParty suits better,but I wonder what the impact is on existing implementations using the gmd:CI_Citation.

[sMorrone]

If the change request is approved, which may not be so soon as the proposed change will follow the established procedure for proposing changes to the IR, the existing implementations would certainly be impacted, as the proposed one is a breaking change preventing the backward compatibility of the TN schema.