Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03- 14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T ATS (e.g. download -atom) Test (e.g. A.01.TGR1) Type of comment 1 Severity (minor, medium, critical) Comments Proposed change Resolution MS all * GE Critical Based on ISO 19105 and the OGC Specification Model, each Markdown document represents a test case. A test case is part of a conformance class, which in turn is part of an abstract test suite for a specification document. The current material seems to use “ATS” where “Conformance Class” is probably meant. The information which conformance classes form an ATS is, however, not represented. In this context it is important to emphasize that conformance class is the key concept. An ATS is far less important as it is just the aggregation of all the conformance classes in a specification. In addition, the term “ATS” is sometimes also used for a test case. Use “Conformance Class” (or “CC”/“cc”) where “Abstract Test Suite” (or “ATS”/“ats”) is used now - and where the Technical Guidance includes (implicitly or explicitly) a conformance class. Avoid using wrong a misleading term for test cases. Group the conformance classes into ATSs based on the specifications that define the conformance classes. I.e., the structure would be for the current “ATS”s: ATS: TG View Service 3.11 o CC: WMS 1.3.0 profile TC: A.02.IR04.extended... TC: A.03.IR05.schema... TC: ... (no more test cases shown below) o CC: WMTS 1.0.0 profile ATS: TG Discovery Service 3.1 o CC: CSW 2.0.2 ISO AP profile ATS: TG Download Service 3.1 ARE NA 1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test) CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement) page 1 of 93
Transcript
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
all * GE Critical Based on ISO 19105 and the OGC Specification Model, each Markdown document represents a test case. A test case is part of a conformance class, which in turn is part of an abstract test suite for a specification document.The current material seems to use “ATS” where “Conformance Class” is probably meant. The information which conformance classes form an ATS is, however, not represented.In this context it is important to emphasize that conformance class is the key concept. An ATS is far less important as it is just the aggregation of all the conformance classes in a specification.In addition, the term “ATS” is sometimes also used for a test case.
Use “Conformance Class” (or “CC”/“cc”) where “Abstract Test Suite” (or “ATS”/“ats”) is used now - and where the Technical Guidance includes (implicitly or explicitly) a conformance class. Avoid using wrong a misleading term for test cases.Group the conformance classes into ATSs based on the specifications that define the conformance classes.I.e., the structure would be for the current “ATS”s:
ATS: TG View Service 3.11
o CC: WMS 1.3.0 profile
TC: A.02.IR04.extended...
TC: A.03.IR05.schema...
TC: ... (no more test cases shown below)
o CC: WMTS 1.0.0 profile
ATS: TG Discovery Service 3.1
o CC: CSW 2.0.2 ISO AP profile
ATS: TG Download Service 3.1
o CC: Pre-defined Atom
o CC: Pre-defined WFS 2.0.0
o CC: Direct WFS 2.0.0
o CC: Quality of Service
ATS: TG Metadata 1.3
o CC: ISO 19115/19119 profile
ARENA
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
page 1 of 60
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
ATS: TG Spatial Data Services 3.1
o CC: Invocable Spatial Data Services
o CC: Interoperable Spatial Data Services
o CC: Harmonized Spatial Data Services
Notes:
TG View Services: The document does not explicitly specify conformance classes for the two OGC standards, but implicitly these are defined as “profiles”.
TG View and Discovery Services: It is unclear how the requirements regarding QoS have to be treated as the requirements are not identified as requirements with an identifier.
all * GE Critical An ATS belongs to a specification. Therefore, the references in a test case may only reference one specification.However, currently sometimes an IR and a TG are referenced. This is not consistent with the notion of conformance classes or abstract test suites. Since IRs do not specify conformance classes and this is typically done in a technical guidance document, the reference should go to the TG (and the requirement in the TG should reference the relevant parts of the IR).
For each test case, identify/reference the relevant requirements in the TG document that specifies the conformance class.
For TGs that identify requirements, list the requirements, otherwise list the most specific section.
ARENA
all * GE Critical For cases where a dependency exists to an external conformance class (dependencies are always on the conformance class level, not on the level of test suites or test cases),
See comment. For example, do not reference tests “OGC FES 2.0, A.1 Test cases for query”, but reference OGC FES 2.0 Conformance Class “Query”.
ARENA
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
page 2 of 60
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
clearly identify the conformance class.all * GE Critical It would be very useful to clarify for each test
case which messages should be reported in case of identified errors in the test object.While the description of a test case should be independent from both the implementation and the values, the test case “should be complete in the sense that it is sufficient to enable a test verdict to be assigned unambiguously to each potentially observable test outcome (i.e. sequence of test events)” (see ISO 19105). This level of completeness would imply that the potential verdicts / messages can be derived easily from the test case description.In some cases this is trivial, but in general there is a risk that the messages implemented in an ETS may not contain the information that the ATS authors expect.
For each test case, specify the messages (including the variable information derived from the test object) that should be reported.
ARENA
all * GE Critical The section “Prerequisites” should have a reliable structure. Prerequisites should only be other test cases in the same conformance class or other conformance classes.In some cases, this section does not state other tests that need to be passed first, but actually state new tests.
Update “Prerequisites” to be a list of other test cases in the same conformance class or other conformance classes.
Any prerequisites that actually are new tests need to be converted into separate test cases or included in the test method description.
ARENA
all * GE Critical The documentation of the test cases is inconsistent. Sometimes the title is the label (A.xxx.xxx) and sometimes a text.
Make the test case documentation consistent.
ARENA
all * GE Critical The test type is mostly “automated”, but some test are “manual” or it is unclear. However, in some cases a requirement is considered “not testable” where a manual test might be possible.It is clear that the ETS will only implement automated tests, but it may be helpful to understand if manual tests are within the scope of the ATSs or not.
Clarify. ARENA
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
page 3 of 60
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
download-atom
A.02.TGR2.conformtoAtomSpecification
CT / GE Critical Is this only about validation against RelaxNG or checking conformance against RFC 4287?
If the latter, conformance to RFC 4287 should be a separate ATS and identify the test cases to a level that unambiguously identifies the assertions to test.
ARENA
download-atom
A.03.TGR3.conformtoGeoRSS-Simple
CT / GE Critical Is this only about validation of selected elements in an Atom feed against the GeoRSS XML Schema or checking conformance against the GeoRSS specification?
If the latter, conformance to GeoRSS should be a separate ATS and identify the test cases to a level that unambiguously identifies the assertions to test.
ARENA
download-atom
A.04.TGR4.conformtoOpenSearch1.1
CT / GE Critical Validation of OpenSearch description document is more than a test case. There is no schema document or similar that could be used.(If a single test case would be ok here, there would be no need to break INSPIRE conformance classes down into test cases, just one test case “test conformance against INSPIRE Technical Guidance” would be sufficient.)
Define ATS for the OpenSearch description and identify the test cases to a level that unambiguously identifies the assertions to test.
ARENA
download-atom
A.04.TGR4.conformtoOpenSearch1.1
GE Medium Open Search 1.1 is not a finalised specification. http://www.opensearch.org/Specifications/OpenSearch/1.1 redirects to Draft 5.
Clarify which draft version is meant (probably Draft 5).
ARENA
download-atom
A.06.IR511.TGR6.linkToMetadataForTheService
CT Medium “the INSPIRE language request parameters in the Resource Locator to the Atom Download Service Feed URLs must be ignored in the comparison” is unclear. Which comparison? The does not seem to be any comparisons of feed URLs only of metadata record URLs?
Clarify. ARENA
download-atom
A.06.IR511.TGR6.linkToMetadataForTheService
CT Minor “valid gmd:MD_Metadata element” is most likely understood to mean “schema valid”.
If something else is meant, the test should be clarified.
ARENA
download-atom
A.07.TGR7.selfreference
CT Medium Test method seems incomplete. Clarify Xpath reference for “he default language code defined in the OpenSearch description”.
ARENA
download-atom
A.08.IR222.TGR8.linktoO
GE Medium How is this different from A.04.TGR4.conformtoOpenSearch1.1?
Drop one test. ARENA
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
penSearchDescription
download-atom
A.09.TGR9.feedid, A.21.TGR22.datasetFeedId
CT Minor Strictly, the test differs from the requirement. The requirement is not that the id is the same the feed URI provided, but that the id resolves to the same document.
ARENA
download-atom
A.10.IR221.TGR10.rightselement
ED Minor Regarding note 1, the requirement is clear that only /feed/rights is covered.
CT Medium Unresolved issue: “A regular expression could be used to validate the email address. Several regular expressions are available; the workgroup could choose one.”
Delete or resolve. ARENA
download-atom
A.13.IR221.TGR13.datasetidentifiers
CT Medium „the dataset identifier code and dataset identifier namespace must be present in the metadata document of the service“ is too vague. What does „be present“ mean? Included somewhere in the document or in specific elements?
Clarify. ARENA
download-atom
A.14.IR221.TGR14.linksToDatasetMetadata
CT Medium Same issue as with A.13.IR221.TGR13.datasetidentifiers (“present in the metadata document of the service and in the Download Service feed”). What does present mean?
Clarify. ARENA
download-atom
A.14.IR221.TGR14.linksToDatasetMetadata
CT Medium gmd:identificationInfo[1]/*/gmd:citation/*/gmd:identifier may refer to multiple nodes.
Clarify how to deal with multiple identifiers in the test.
ARENA
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
download-atom
A.14.IR221.TGR14.linksToDatasetMetadata
CT Medium gmd:identificationInfo[1]/*/gmd:citation/*/gmd:identifier may be gmd:MD_Identifier, RS_Identifier or some other element.
Clarify how to compare identifiers that use different data types.
ARENA
download-atom
A.18.TGR19.entryUpdated
CT Medium Why is the updated test different from A.11.IR221.TGR11.updatedelement? (Any year will work here.)
Consider aligning tests. ARENA
download-atom
A.26.IR313.TGR27.separateEntriesCRSFormat
CT Medium “Find and retrieve the all the Download Service Feed documents containing an entry pointing to this Dataset Feed”.Why “all” the Download Service feed documents? As the test object is “a” Download Service this test should only check the feed of the Download Service under test.Consistent with this, the Download Service feed document accessed earlier must be used not any other feed document.
“For each category element in the Download Service feed entity, which included the link to the Dataset feed document, check that at least one entry exists in the Dataset feed containing a category element with an identical term attribute.”
CT Medium These seem to overlap significantly. Consider to merge both test cases. ARENA
download-atom
A.29.IR311.TGR31.languageForDownloadLink
CT Medium Unresolved issue: “Is the hreflang attribute still mandatory if data in only 1 language is provided? If not, this ATS is not automatically testable and the ATS should be removed.”
Clarify. ARENA
download-atom
A.34.IR222.TGR39.provideOpenSearchDescription
GE Minor This test case is not referenced from the overview and not testable.
Remove test case. ARENA
download-atom
A.36.TGR41.openSearchGenericSear
CT Medium „test if it provides a document with content-type xxx’“ is vague. Is this a test on the HTTP header of the response or in some
Clarify. Probably a test on the HTTP header of the response is meant.
ARENA
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
CT Critical “For each combination of supported CRS, supported language, SpatialDataSetIdentifier ID code and SpatialDataSetIdentifier Namespace”The mechanism to determine the “supported CRS” is problematic as the CRS information may differ from feature type to feature type. It is unclear in how far that is an issue in practice, but a conformant service may specify different CRSs per feature type.
See comment. As the TG is unclear, the requirement should be clarified in the TG first.
ARENA
download-predefined-wfs
A.03.IR221.TGR53.serviceMetadata
CT Medium The test method is not consistent with the purpose. The test method checks that both all metadata elements are in the extended capabilities and that there is a MetadataURL pointing to a valid Metadata document.
Change test method to express the ”EITHER ... OR”.
ARENA
download-predefined-wfs
A.03.IR221.TGR53.serviceMetadata
CT Medium “valid Metadata document” is most likely understood to mean “schema valid”. If something else is meant, which is likely as schema validity does not make the metadata document conformant with the service metadata requirements, the test should be clarified.
Clarify meaning of “valid”. ARENA
download-predefine
A.03.IR221.TGR53.serviceMetadata
CT Minor Note also that the TG seems to be incorrect and the reference to table 4 should be to table 19.
Update the TG to reference table 19, not table 4.
ARENA
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
d-wfsdownload-predefined-wfs
A.04.TGR55.TGR56.language.affects.capabilities
CT Medium VERSION is not a parameter of the GetCapabilities request.
Change to ACCEPTVERSIONS. ARENA
download-predefined-wfs
A.04.TGR55.TGR56.language.affects.capabilities
CT Critical “If the returned resource can be parsed as a valid XML document and if the document passes all the tests listed as prerequisites for this test”Why do the tests need to be executed again, if they have been tested before (“prerequisites”)?The test cases and conformance classes in “prerequisites” have a WFS 2.0.0 as the test object, while this statement is worded as if these would be test cases and conformance classes on a Capabilities document.
Either drop the prerequisites and explicitly state the steps/assertions or omit the sentence.
ARENA
download-predefined-wfs
AT Minor Maybe a test for requirement 52 / 61 could be added by testing that for each feature type there is exactly one //wfs:FeatureType/wfs:MetadataURL and all values must be identical.However, the TG does not seem to require this, so this would require a TG update first.
- ARENA
download-directaccess-wfs
* AT Minor Maybe a test for requirement 52 / 61 could be added by testing that for each feature type there is exactly one //wfs:FeatureType/wfs:MetadataURL and all values must be identical.However, the TG does not seem to require this, so this would require a TG update first.
- ARENA
metadata A.01.validate CT minor The ATS requires validation against three different XSD schema versions (at least one should pass). It is not clear how to determine which schema to use to validate the document.
The ATS should perhaps clarify that this is on the basis of the declared namespaces in the XML document (see also issue 10 on GitHub), i.e.:If the document declares http://www.isotc211.org/2005/srv, use http://schemas.opengis.net/csw/2.0.2/profiles/apiso/1.0.0/apiso.xsd.
ARENA
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
But otherwise, it is unclear what to use. The official schema for http://www.isotc211.org/2005/gmd is http://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/ISO_19139_Schemas/gmd/gmd.xsd or http://schemas.opengis.net/iso/19139/20070417/gmd/gmd.xsd, but in the context of Discovery services, INSPIRE also uses http://schemas.opengis.net/iso/19139/20060504/gmd/gmd.xsd. It is unclear how to select the schema document. Which schema document does the MD TG require?
metadata A.02.title CR minor There is still an open question whether to include this test case, as there is no explicit requirement in the technical guidelines.
It is proposed to keep this test case, and change the technical guidelines (TG MD) including this requirement.
ARENA
metadata A.03.abstract CR minor There is still an open question whether to include this test case, as there is no explicit requirement in the technical guidelines.
It is proposed to keep this test case, and change the technical guidelines (TG MD) including this requirement.
ARENA
metadata A.05.IR14.ds.keyword
ED Another prerequisite is test case A.04. Add the test case as a prerequisite. ARENA
metadata A.05.IR14.ds.keyword
CT minor Coverage: In theory, the single keyword referring to the INSPIRE data theme could also be a text value, in each of the official languages. Is it OK to assume that in practice all metadata providers will use the language-neutral code?
ARENA
metadata A.06.IR15.srv.keyword
ED Another prerequisite is test case A.04, needed to determine whether the resource is a service.
Add the test case as a prerequisite. ARENA
metadata A.07.IR05.IR06.ds.identification
CR,CT
Ambiguity: The discussion seems to be still ongoing: “In case of MD_identifier, discussion is ongoing on how to match this element against a namespace-identifier in a capabilities document/service metadata.” (see issue MIWP-8 (L) Unique Resource Identifier)
ARENA
metadata A.07.IR05.IR06.ds.identifi
ED Ambiguity: gmd:identificationInfo[1]/*/gmd:citation/*/gmd
Clarify ambiguity and add test case as a prerequisite.
ARENA
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
cation :identifier may refer to multiple nodes. It should be clarified how to deal with multiple identifiers in the test.
Note: Another prerequisite is test case A.04.metadata A.08.IR03.ds
.linkageCT Ambiguity: It is not entirely clear which
parts of the WSDL or GetCapabilities document need to be tested: “If the response indicates a linkage is a service capabilities or WSDL document, some basic params in the service response are analysed”. Or does this only refer to “Any service response should be checked if it provides proper linkage. The service wsdl or capabilities document should have a featuretype that shares the resource unique identification.”
Perhaps CI_OnLineFunctionCode (optional element) could be used to determine the nature of the online resource locator if present.
ARENA
metadata A.08.IR03.ds.linkage
CT Testability: A manual test is suggested, if the resource locator is a web page with further instructions or a client application.
ARENA
metadata A.09.IR04.srv.linkage
CT Ambiguity: “The URL is resolved.” It is not entirely clear what resolving the URI means. Which maximum timeout can be applied? Should we only look at the HTTP status code (200), or also at the returned information?Ambiguity: It is not entirely clear which parts of the WSDL or GetCapabilities document need to be tested: “If the response indicates a linkage is a service capabilities or WSDL document, some basic params in the service response are analysed.” Or does it only refer to: “Any service response should be checked if it provides proper linkage. The service wsdl or capabilities document should have a featuretype that shares the resource unique identification.”Testability: A manual test is suggested, if
Specify which HTTP status codes are acceptable.
ARENA
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
the resource locator is a web page with further instructions or a client application.Note: Perhaps CI_OnLineFunctionCode (optional element) could be used to determine the nature of the online resource locator if present (see also TG SDS req 3).Note: What in case of access restrictions?Note: Another prerequisite is test case A.04.
metadata A.10.IR08.IR09.ds.language
Coverage: The test should not go as far as testing whether there are textual values in the datasets or data series.Ambiguity: The test should specify what the “valid 3-letter language codes according to ISO/TS 19139” are.Note: The test could perhaps explicitly test if the code list is identified by the URI: http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/ . The US Library of Congress is the officially mandated organisation to maintain ISO639.Note: Another prerequisite is test case A.04.
ARENA
metadata A.11.IR10.IR11.ds.topic
ED Another prerequisite is test case A.04. Add the test case as a prerequisite. ARENA
metadata A.12.IR12.srv.type
ED Another prerequisite is test case A.04. Add the test case as a prerequisite. ARENA
metadata A.14.IR16.IR17.IR18.vocab
CT Testability: Validating if the keyword is actually available in the indicated vocabulary is a challenge, since the vocabulary is usually not referenced by a URL. If a vocabulary is indicated that is available to the validator, then this check can be performed.
ARENA
metadata A.16.IR20.IR21.ds.bounds
CT Testability: The bounding box shall be as small as possible. Quite hard to honour. Data should be downloaded and a minimal bounds could be calculated and compared to the indicated bounds.Furthermore, data could be access controlled or in an unknown format. This would hinder testability further. Lastly, this
ARENA
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
may also require coordinate transformations as the source data may be in a projected CRS or use a different Meridian.
metadata A.16.IR20.IR21.ds.bounds
ED Another prerequisite is test case A.04. Add the test case as a prerequisite. ARENA
metadata A.17.IR22.IR23.ds.temporal
CT medium As formulated now, the test result does not depend on the outcome of the first test on TimePeriod, so even in case of an invalid TimePeriod, the test will pass.Furthermore, the test refers to the “validity” of the date (ISO 8601 date format), which strictly speaking relates to MD TG requirement 24.
Perhaps it makes sense to split up into two test cases, one for IR22 and one for IR23.Add a specific test case for MD TG requirement 24.
ARENA
metadata A.22.IR33..IR34.ds.access.use
CT Testability: This cannot be tested in an automated way: “Descriptions of terms and conditions, including where applicable, the corresponding fees shall be provided through this element or a link (URL) where these terms and conditions are described.”
ARENA
metadata A.22.IR33..IR34.ds.access.use
CR The texts ‘no conditions apply’ and ‘conditions unknown’ may be replaced by language neutral codes. See: MIWP-8 (I) Language neutral identifiers.
ARENA
metadata A.24.responsible.party.role
CR There is still an open question on whether to include this test case, as there is no explicit requirement in the technical guidelines.
It is proposed to keep this test case as the element tested is a mandatory one. Therefore the technical guidelines (TG MD) including this requirement should be changed.
ARENA
metadata A.28.creation.date
CR This test case was removed from GitHub?There is still an open question whether to include this test case, as there is no explicit requirement in the technical guidelines.
It is proposed to add an explicit requirement for metadata date in the MD TG. A corresponding test case must also be created.
ARENA
metadata A.29.IR07.srv.identification
CR medium Open issue: The TGs are likely to be changed, see issue MIWP-8_(M)_Coupled_resources.
Note: there is a TODO “to validate this is the proper identification, the identification used
ARENA
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
in capabilities might be required.”metadata A.31.IR25.re
source.creation.date
Coverage: This test case only addresses the creation date (TG requirement 25). The IR require also that there will be no more than one date of revision.
ARENA
metadata missing A.3X.IR24
CT critical There is no test for TG MD requirement 24, because this is claimed to be not testable.It is not clear why the temporal reference system cannot be tested.Also, the values for data of creation / revision / updated can be tested whether they conform to the ISO 8601 format (yyy-mm-dd).
Add a test case for this requirement. ARENA
interoperability-metadata
* GE critical This ATS clearly needs more work. In general, the tests are not implementable as they are.Only IR references are provided. All tests should be against requirements stated in a TG.
ARENA
interoperability-metadata
A.01.IR13.1.crs
ED minor Ambiguity: the hyperlink of “RS_Identifier “does not point to the right sourceIn addition “It is suggested ...” or "the test can grab ...” is not an unambiguous description of a test.Testability: Also, it is unclear how to “validate the coordinate reference system against the advertised system”?The data specifications provide http URIs for all default CRSs. Is this relevant for this test (note that http://www.opengis.net/def/crs/EPSG/0/4326 is not one of them)?
ARENA
interoperability-metadata
A.01.IR13.1.crs
CR medium Testability: The identifier should be checked against a code list of identifiers present in common registry (see inspire Data specification template V3.0rc3) but no official registry list is presented.
ARENA
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
interoperability-metadata
A.02.IR13.2.trs
CR medium Testability: there is no code list for temporal reference systems mandated by INSPIRE.
See also MIWP-8 issue 2323. ARENA
interoperability-metadata
A.03.IR13.3.enc
ED medium Ambiguity: “the format may be deduced” is too generic expression, it should either explicit or express with a code a list.
Update the INSPIRE data specifications template (Section 8.2.3) and refer to the INSPIRE media type register (See MIWP-8 issue 2324). Update the test case accordingly.
ARENA
interoperability-metadata
A.04.IR13.4.topo
CT, CR medium It is not clear from the TG how topological consistency is encoded.It is not clear from the test case how it can be tested.
ARENA
interoperability-metadata
A.04.IR13.4.topo
CT, CR medium Testability: As indicated, it is not clear how to ascertain whether ‘the data set includes types from the Generic Network Model and does not assure centreline topology (connectivity of centrelines) for the network.’
ARENA
interoperability-metadata
A.05.IR13.5.char.enc
CT, CR medium Testability: The test should clarify that this only works if the resource can be retrieved online and is a textual resource.Ambiguity: The test should clarify for each possible resource how the character encoding of a resource can be verified. If the character encoding is not included in the retrieved resource, no claim can be made about the used character encoding. For example, in XML, the character encoding prolog is not mandatory (i.e. <?xml encoding='UTF-8'?>).
ARENA
discovery-service
* GE medium The test method descriptions often are not unambiguously clear with respect to exactly what needs to the asserted. Providing the Xpath references for each selection and assertion necessary would help.
ARENA
discovery-service
A.01.01.ISO_AP
GE critical ATS not provided as it is still a subject of further implementation specification development.
Coverage: consider of splitting into different
It could be possible to work with OGC to implement such a test in OGC CITE. As testing for an OGC standard is not INSPIRE-specific and should be provided by OGC.
ARENA
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
tests; support of all mandatory operations and their parameters, correct encoding of the requests and responses
discovery-service
A.01.02.extended.behaviour
CT critical ATS not provided as it is still a subject of further implementation specification development.
Remove test case because of redundancy:“The test is an abstraction of all the tests in this Abstract Test Suite”
ARENA
discovery-service
A.01.03.iso_19115_19119.model
CT critical Testability + Ambiguity: both the test purpose and test method need more details and clarification in order to arrive at a test case which “is sufficient to enable a test verdict to be assigned unambiguously to each potentially observable test outcome”
Notes:Unique identification (name) for this tests needs to be added (e.g. A.1.3 Metadata request).
NR IS should be added as reference (Annex II Part A 2.1)
XPATH expression is missing
ARENA
discovery-service
A.01.04.language.parameter
ED Minor IR N2 reference should be part A and not part BXPATH expression is missing
Update reference to IR N2
Add XPATH reference
ARENA
discovery-service
A.01.05.iso-639.codes
AT medium “A.1.4 Language parameter” should be a prerequisite
ARENA
discovery-service
A.01.06.unsupported.languages
AT medium “A.1.4 Language parameter” should be a prerequisiteFurthermore there is some overlap with case 2 of test case A.1.4
Add 1.4 as prerequisite or consider merging with test case A.1.4
ARENA
discovery-service
A.02.01.iso.searching.parameters
AT medium As the list of SupportedISOQueryables and AdditionalQueryable are known an XPath could be present in the ATS.“1.3 Metadata request” should be a prerequisite
ARENA
discovery-service
A.02.02.additional.languag
AT critical Should be merged with A.01.04 ARENA
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
e.parameterdiscovery-service
A.02.03.addiotional.search.attributes
ED Minor Typo in the URLXPATH expression is missing
A.3.1 as prerequisite? Additional search attributes are supported by the Discovery Service.
Addiotional -> additionalAdd XPATH reference
ARENA
discovery-service
A.02.04.discovery.service.metadata.parameters
AT medium XPATH expression is missing
Also, clearly identify which Conformance Class / ATS needs to be passed by the document retrieved from the MetadataURL or by the ExtendedCapabilities element. For the MetadataURL it probably is the ats-metadata. For the second case I do not know any Conformance Class / ATS for this. In that case, the test cases for testing the extended capabilities would need to be specified in an unambiguous and testable way.
Add XPATH reference ARENA
discovery-service
A.02.05.inspire.service
AT medium XPATH expression is missing
Clearly identify the Conformance Class / ATS that the response document must conform to / pass.
Add XPATH referenceARENA
discovery-service
A.02.06.federated.catalogues.advertisement
CR medium Ambiguity:Neither requirement 3 nor the test states unambiguously how the list of federated catalogues shall be advertised. Adding Xpath references may help, but the information should also be included in the TG.Notes:XPATH expression is missing
Under “notes”, hyperlink to section 4.3.4.3
ARENA
discovery-service
A.02.07.federated.discovery.service
AT medium XPATH expression is missing Add XPATH reference ARENA
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
discovery-service
A.02.08.natural.languages
AT critical It should be merged with A.01.04 ARENA
discovery-service
A.02.09.response.language
AT critical Could be merged with A.01.04For default language it should use “inspire_common:DefaultLanguage” as specified in A.02.10
XPath expression can be added here
Add XPATH reference ARENA
discovery-service
A.02.10.supported.languages
AT medium XPATH expression is missing Add XPATH reference ARENA
discovery-service
A.02.11.xml.schema
AT medium Link to the XML schema (not included in the TG) should be provided to test effectively
ARENA
discovery-service
A.03.01.inspire.search.attributes
ATED
medium - XPATH expression is missing- Test type can be ‘automated’
- Adapt last sentence to:
“This test is an abstraction of the tests A.3.7 INSPIRE search criteria, A.3.8 Language search criteria and A.3.9 Additional search criteria”
Add XPATH reference ARENA
discovery-service
A.03.02.language.query.parameters
ED medium The parameter ‘Language’ could be removed from the test case as it is already present in A.01.04Reference to the TG requirement should be added. Also, it needs to be clarified what “supporting the Query parameter” means. Is it referring to test A.3.4? If yes, what does A.3.2 add?
ARENA
discovery-service
A.03.03.language.search.attribute
ED medium The parameter Language has been already introduced in A.01.04
Add A.01.04 as prerequisite or merge with A.01.04
ARENA
discovery-service
A.03.04.query
AT medium The XPATH expression for the query element is missing (it could be determined
Add XPATH reference ARENA
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
from the Discovery Metadata Request)discovery-service
A.03.05.inspire
ATED
medium Testability:Not testable, as one would need to have the list of all records to verify that “each resource matching the query” is selected.
Notes:
The XPATH expression is missing
URL is not descriptive, consider changing to ‘inspire.metadata’ or ‘inspire.md.elements’
Consider rephrashing purpose to make this testable: “each resource contained in the response”
Add XPATH reference
ARENA
discovery-service
A.03.06.distributed.search.parameter
GEED
medium Ambiguity: “Where applicable” in both test purpose and test method is vague and should be specified.The XPATH expression for hopCount is missing + information about hopCount attribute?Is the test type automated or manual?Notes section contains template text
Specify “where applicable” in both test purpose and test method
Add XPATH reference
Define whether test can be automated or not
Update notes section
ARENA
discovery-service
A.03.07.inspire.search.criteria
AT medium It should be merged with A.03.01 or delete A.03.01
ARENA
discovery-service
A.03.08.language.search.criteria
AT medium It should be merged with A.03.01 or delete A.03.01
ARENA
discovery-service
A.03.09.additional.search.criteria
AT medium It should be merged with A.03.01 or delete A.03.01
ARENA
discovery-service
A.03.10.missing.language.filter
AT critical - A.01.04 and 1.02.09 as prerequisites- I think it is in conflict with A.01.06 where a default language should be provide anyway.
A.02.09 states that if language requested by client is NOT contained in the list of supported languages, the default language
ARENA
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
is used as defined in \inspire_common:Language
However based on 3.10 this should be equivalent to missing language parameter? -> In other words, the response should contain metadata records of several natural languages, as provided by the INSPIRE Discovery Service.
discovery-service
A.03.11.language.filter
AT mediumOverlaps with A.01.04A.01.04 as prerequisite
A.02.09 as prerequisite
ARENA
discovery-service
A.03.12.invalid.request
AT mediumA.1.04 as prerequisite
A.2.09 as prerequisite
ARENA
discovery-service
A.04.01.harvesting.readiness
CT medium This test (and requirement) does not belong to the ATS and the TG. It is a requirement on a different subject (some external resource), not the discovery service. Remove test from ATS. There is nothing that can be tested against the discovery service via the CSW API (or if it is clarify what the requirement is that should be tested).
Remove test ARENA
discovery-service
A.04.02.third.party.discovery.services.published
CT medium Unclear what should or could be tested here via the CSW API
ED medium Ambiguity: “Verification whether all information about the Public Authority’s or Third Party’s Discovery Service are provided”. The test should specify which information should be provided.
Testability: How to determine the URL of the MS discovery service? Does this need to be provided as an additional parameter to the test run?
ARENA
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
discovery-service
A.06.03.QoS.availability This is not a test for the test framework.
Continuous monitoring should be part of the local infrastructure (this applies in general for the other QoS aspects as well, but for them a one-time test in a test run are possible, but not for availability).
Remove test case from ATS ARENA
view-wms
* ED minor Explicit references to the implementation requirements are missing (although it can be derived from the name of the test case).
Add a reference to the implementation requirement.
ARENA
view-wms
IR01 CR Medium Implementation requirement 1 is too general to be tested.
As it is intended for scoping the technical guidance, it may be better to remove this as an explicit requirement from the document.
ARENA
view-wms
IR02, IR03 CT Medium These requirements for compliance with the “basic WMS” conformance class should perhaps be included as an explicit abstract test case.
Add this as a test case with reference to an explicit external conformance class “OGC WMS 1.3.0. Basic WMS Server”.
ARENA
view-wms
IR02, IR03 CT Medium The requirements related to conformance with the WMS standard are not represented in the ATS.
The ATS should reference the OGC WMS conformance class(es) that are a dependency (but not reference individual WMS tests). With a view to ETSs for those, in general, the tests for WMS 1.3.0 should be provided by OGC CITE (which would require the WMS 1.3.0 tests to be amended to be independent of any test dataset).
ARENA
view-wms
IR04 CR medium “The extended capabilities section shall be used to fully comply with the INSPIRE View Service metadata requirements (see section 4.2.3.3.1).”This sentence is just about scoping, as the metadata requirement is covered by IR10.
It may be better to remove this statement from the requirement.
ARENA
view-wms
IR06 ED medium “Mandatory ISO 19128 – WMS 1.3.0 metadata elements shall be mapped to INSPIRE metadata elements to implement a consistent interface.”This statement is redundant to IR10.
It may be better to remove this statement from IR06, as it is already covered in IR10.
ARENA
view-wms
IR07 ED medium “It is mandatory to use the mapping provided in this Technical Guideline (described in
Remove this statement from IR07, as it is already covered in IR10.
ARENA
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
Section 4.2.3.3.1.1 to 4.2.3.3.1.16. INSPIRE metadata elements that cannot be mapped to available [ISO 19128] – WMS1.3.0 elements are implemented as Extended Capabilities.”This statement is redundant to IR10.
view-wms
IR07 ED medium “Metadata are published through a service's capabilities document and can be harvested by an INSPIRE Discovery service.”This sentence is almost literally repeated for IR09.
This sentence can be removed from IR07 as it is covered by IR09.
ARENA
view-wms
missing for IR09
CT medium It is claimed that this requirement is not testable. This seems wrong.
It seems that this could be testable in both scenarios:- scenario 1: Retrieve the URL to the Discovery service from <metadataURL>. Verify if the metadata record exists and is valid.- scenario 2: The ATS could require an optional test run parameter to indicate the corresponding discovery service. A query could check whether there is indeed a corresponding metadata record in the discovery service.
ARENA
view-wms
A.02.IR04.extended.capabilities.node
ED minor “Check that the extended capabilities element validates against the INSPIRE schemas.”Coverage: it seems not correct that by applying the XSD Schema validation it is possible to validate the inspire view service metadata requirements (IR04).
There are two options:Option 1. Update IR04 removing the reference to the INSPIRE View Service metadata requirements;Option 2. Merge this test case with one or more other test cases testing the INSPIRE View Service metadata requirements (in both scenarios).
ARENA
view-wms
A.02.IR04.extended.capabilities.node
ED Minor Prerequisite: Test case A.03.IR05.schema.validation is a prerequisite to this test case, as it tests whether the GetCapabilities document can be retrieved and whether it is valid according to the WMS Capabilities schema.
Add A.03.IR05.schema.validation as a prerequisite.
ARENA
view-wms
A.03.IR05.schema.validati
CT medium Coverage: The IR05 seems to require testing in the first place whether the
First, the test should retrieve the Capabilities document using the default language
ARENA
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
on Capabilities document can be retrieved using valid HTTP request parameters. This requires that the GetCapabilities request should be tested without specifying a language parameter (default language) and also for all LANGUAGE parameters that the service provides.Furthermore, the test should only succeed if the Capabilities document does not contain an exception (i.e. the response can be valid against the WMS Capabilities schema when containing an exception).
(without language parameter).Different outcomes are possible:- HTTP error (e.g.4XX or 5XX) response: the test fails;- HTTP 200 response, but with service exception document: the test fails;- HTTP 200 response with capabilities document that validates against the ISO 19128 schema: the test succeeds.Second, the GetCapabilities request should be repeated for all supported languages. (>> update: this is done in test A.40)- HTTP 4XX response: the test fails;- HTTP 200 response, but with service exception document: the test fails;- HTTP 200 response with capabilities document that validates against the ISO 19128 schema: the test succeeds if the language is current.
view-wms
A.04.IR06.metadataURL.node
ED medium “If no metadata URL is given then all mandatory ISO 19128 metadata elements must exist in the ExtendedCapabilities section.”It seems wrong to expect the ISO 19128 elements in the Extended element.The mandatory ISO 19128 metadata elements must be provided, regardless whether or not there is a <metadataURL> link.The check for the mandatory ISO 19128 metadata elements is also covered by test cases A10, A11, A14, A19, A20, A21.
The mandatory ISO 19128 elements are in the <wms:Capabilities> (<service>) elements not in the <extendedCapabilities> elmement.Remove the condition “if no metadata URL is given…”.Consider merging the check for the mandatory ISO 19128 metadata elements with test cases A10, A11, A14, A19, A20, A21.
ARENA
view-wms
A.05.IR07.extended.capabilities.elements.node
ED medium “If no metadata URL is given then all mandatory ISO 19128 metadata elements must exist in the ExtendedCapabilities section.”It seems wrong to expect the ISO 19128 elements in the Extended element.
The mandatory ISO 19128 elements are in the <wms:Capabilities> (<service>) elements not in the <extendedCapabilities> elmement.
ARENA
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
view-wms
A.05.IR07.extended.capabilities.elements.node
CT medium The reference to “ISO 19128 metadata elements“ is a 404. It is unclear what the “ISO 19128 metadata elements“ are.
Update reference to unambiguously identify the metadata elements for which test assertions are needed.
ARENA
view-wms
A.05.IR07.extended.capabilities.elements.node
CT medium Conditional test: This test case should only fail in case of “scenario 2” only. This means that the test case should also test for the absence of a <metadataURL> element.
It may be better to merge test cases A.04, A.05, and A.07-A.024. There are dependencies in the outcomes of these test cases.The following situations are possible:- scenario 1 only (only a <metadataURL> field): the test case should check whether all mandatory ISO19128 elements exist ánd if the referred metadata record can be retrieved and meets the INSPIRE metadata requirements;- Scenario 2 only (no <metadataURL> element): the test case should check whether all mandatory ISO19128 elements exist. Additionally, it should check whether are requirement INSPIRE metadata elements are valid;- Scenario 1 and 2 (both a <metadataURL>: the test case should check whether all mandatory ISO19128 elements exist. Additionally, it should check whether are requirement INSPIRE metadata elements are valid ánd if the referred metadata record can be retrieved and meets the INSPIRE metadata requirements.
ARENA
view-wms
A.06.IR08.language.node
ED minor The purpose of the test is wrong (copy-paste error). It does not refer to IR08.
Update the purpose, with the normative statement for IR08.
ARENA
view-wms
A.07.IR10.title.abstract
CTCR
critical Coverage: This test case does not fully tests the IR10 requirement: “An INSPIRE View service shall contain the INSPIRE metadata elements set out in the Metadata Regulation [INS MD] as shown in Table 3.”
Change the test or change the requirement only to cover keyword.It may be better to merge this test case with A.04, A05, A07, and A11-A21.
ARENA
view-wms
A.08.IR11.resource.type.node
CT minor This test case only needs to be executed in the context of “scenario 2”. Prerequisites should reference other test cases in the
Move assertions to the test methods. In particular, incorporate this “precondition” into the test method. Alternatively, it may be
ARENA
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
same ATS or a conformance class, not introduce additional assertions.
better to merge test cases A.04, A.05, and A.07-A.024.
view-wms
A.09.IR12.resource.locator.node
CT minor This test case only needs to be executed in the context of “scenario 2”. Prerequisites should reference other test cases in the same ATS or a conformance class, not introduce additional assertions.
Incorporate this “precondition” into the test method. Alternatively, it may be better to merge test cases A.04, A.05, and A.07-A.024.
ARENA
view-wms
A.10.IR13.coupled.resource.node
CT medium Ambiguity: “is a valid link” – how will this be unambiguously assessed? Based on the HTTP GET Response?Also, this is a duplicate of A.11.IR14Open issue: The TGs are likely to be changed, see issue MIWP-8_(M)_Coupled_resources.
Option 1: merge test case with A.10.IR13.Option 2: split the test method over the two test cases.
ARENA
view-wms
A.11.IR14.metadata.record.node
CT medium This test case duplicates A.10.IR13.coupled.resource.node.
Option 1: merge test case with A.10.IR13.Option 2: split the test method over the two test cases.
ARENA
view-wms
A.12.IR15.spatialdataservicetype.node
This test case only needs to be executed in the context of “scenario 2”. Prerequisites should reference other test cases in the same ATS or a conformance class, not introduce additional assertions. I.e. What should the test result be in case of “scenario 1” (skipped, not-applicable, etc-)?
Incorporate this “precondition” into the test method. Alternatively, it may be better to merge test cases A.04, A.05, and A.07-A.024.
ARENA
view-wms
IR17 CT medium Coverage: There is no test case for IR17. However, it is not clear why this requirement is not testable. Is this because the test result would always succeed, irrespective of whether or not there is a wms:KeywordList with wms:Keywords?
ARENA
view-wms
A.13.IR18.keywords.node
CT medium Overlap with A.39.IR16, which already checks for “/inspire_common:MandatoryKeyword”
Testability: if it is optional to define additional keywords (/inspire_common:Keyword) on top of /inspire_common:MandatoryKeyword,
Consider merging with A.39.IR16 ARENA
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
then this test would fail if no additional keywords are provided.
This test case only needs to be executed in the context of “scenario 2”.
view-wms
A.15.IR20.dates.node
CT medium This test case only needs to be executed in the context of “scenario 2”. What should the test result be in case of “scenario 1” (skipped, not-applicable, etc-)?
Rewrite the test method and provide clear instructions on the test outcome.
ARENA
view-wms
A.16.IR21.temporal.reference.node
CT minor Ambiguity: This testcase as written now is already covered by test case A.15.IR20. It seems that this test case should be about the temporal extent (as a period).Also, as it is no, it is not clear under which conditions this test case fails.This test case only needs to be executed in the context of “scenario 2”.
Merge with test case A.15.IR20 and clarify in which cases (creation date, publication data, date of last revision, temporal extent) the test should fail. Please note that the combination of the requirements from the INSPIRE Metadata IR and ISO19115 make that the presence of temporal extent does not affect the outcome of the test.
NB: also in IR21, the word temporal extent should be added (as it is implied).
ARENA
view-wms
A.17.IR22.conformity.deegree.node
ED minor Note: in TG Requirement Coverage table (req# 22), the link to this test case returns a 404 error.This test case seems to only fail if the degree of conformity is not mentioned. Perhaps it should also fail if there is no conformity node (which is checked in A.18.IR23.conformity.node).
This test case only needs to be executed in the context of “scenario 2”.
Update link in TG Requirement Coverage table.
Consider merging this test case with A.18.IR23.conformity.node.
ARENA
view-wms
A.18.IR23.conformity.node
Some tags were dropped from the purpose description.
This test case only needs to be executed in the context of “scenario 2”.
Add the tags back to the purpose description.
ARENA
view-wms
A.19.IR24.fees.node
CT minor As ‘conditions applying to access and use’ are mandatory according to the INSPIRE Metadata IR, the test should fail when the
Update the test method accordingly. ARENA
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
wms:fees element is not present.view-wms
A.20.IR25.contactpersonprimary.node
CT minor Currently the test only considers whether a wms:ContactPersonPrimary node exists in the wms:ContactInformation section.However, the requirement states that also a wms:ContactOrganization node should be present within wms:ContactPersonPrimary
Update test method to reflect the testing of the following structure:
CT minor This test case only needs to be executed in the context of “scenario 2”.
Incorporate this “precondition” into the test case. Alternatively, it may be better to merge test cases A.04, A.05, and A.07-A.024.
ARENA
view-wms
A.24.IR29.metadata.date.node
CT minor This test case only needs to be executed in the context of “scenario 2”.
Incorporate this “precondition” into the test case. Alternatively, it may be better to merge test cases A.04, A.05, and A.07-A.024.
ARENA
view-wms
A.26.IR31.getmap.format.node
CT minor Like for the WMTS test case, the test could also check whether the returned image is indeed encoded in the requested format.
Add: “Make a GetTile request for the layer using a maximum allowed bounding box and either "image/png" or "image/gif" format and check that the returned image is encoded in the requested format.”
ARENA
view-wms
IR32 ARENA
view-wms
A.31.IR36.layer.bbox.node
CT minor The test method does not explain how to determine “all supported CRS” to test against.
Clarify that this is based on the wms:CRS elements.
ARENA
view-wms
IR37 (missing test case)
CT minor It is not clear why this requirement cannot be tested.It seems that this requirement refers to the inclusion of a unique resource identifier in an external metadata record (scenario 1 – metadata record as online resource).
Clarify whether this test should be added, it could also be covered by a more general test case that retrieves the metadata record and checks whether resource identifiers are present.
ARENA
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
view-wms
A.32.IR38.layer.identifier.node
ED minor Since IR38 is split into two test cases, the test purpose should be updated to reflect this.
The test case should probably test whether all authority attributes of Identifier elements have corresponding AutorityURL elements with that name.
ARENA
view-wms
A.33.IR38.authority.url.node
ED medium Note: in TG Requirement Coverage table (req# 38), the link to this test case returns a 404 error.More importantly, it is not clear why there should be a AuthorityURL node in each layer. IR38 suggests that this can be defined only once. The example in the TGs also has this element only once… and has multiple layers.
Also, the test purpose is that of IR37 instead of 38.
Update the purpose. Alternatively, consider merging test cases A.32 and A.33.
ARENA
view-wms
A.35.IR39.harmonized.layer.name
GE minor Overlap with A.10 with regard to the testing of the HREF attribute.
ARENA
view-wms
A.36.IR40.etrs89.itrs.crs
GE medium Testability: refer to note in test case: “will not be complete without a machine-readable "whitelist" register of the acceptable CRSes with their CRS identifiers and commonly used aliases”
ARENA
view-wms
IR49 (missing)
CT Medium It is not clear why IR49 on category layer MetadataURL cannot be tested.
ARENA
view-wms
IR50-IR59 CT Medium These requirements for conformance with the WMS standard should perhaps be included as explicit abstract test cases that make reference to the corresponding OGC ATSs.
Add explicit abstract test cases for these requirements with reference to the corresponding OGC ATSs.
Test case already includes a test for this.This test case only needs to be executed in the context of “scenario 2”.
Consider merging with A.13.IR18.keywords.node.
ARENA
view-wmts
IR74-IR75, IR78, IR81,
CT Medium The requirements related to conformance with the WMTS standard are not represented in the ATS.
The ATS should reference the OGC WMTS conformance class(es) that are a dependency (but not reference individual
ARENA
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
IR82 WMTS tests). With a view to ETSs for those, in general, the tests for WMTS 1.0.0 should be provided by OGC CITE.
view-wmts
* ED minor Explicit references to the implementation requirements are missing (although it can be sometimes derived from the name of the test case).
Add a reference to the implementation requirement.
ARENA
view-wmts
*
GE medium Prerequisites should reference other test cases in the same ATS or a conformance class, not introduce additional assertions.
Move assertions to the test methods. ARENA
view-wmts *
GE medium Link to specific test case is missing for prerequisites
Update prerequisites with specific reference tests
ARENA
view-wmts
A.01.IR77.language.param
ED medium The meaning of “RESTful or procedure oriented” could be clarified.
ARENA
view-wmts A.02.IR79.la
yer.metadata.ref
GEED
medium Ambiguity: What is “a valid WMTS 1.0.0 ServiceMetadata document”? Is it a WMTS 1.0.0 Capabilities document that is schema valid?Notes: First sentence in “purpose” section: a unambiguous -> an unambiguous
ARENA
view-wmts A.03.IR82.im
age.format
ED medium Reference refers to Chapter 5.2.3.3.2.2, while the correct chapter would be Chapter 4.2.3.3.2.2
Update reference to TG VS Chapter 4.2.3.3.2.2
ARENA
view-wmts
A.04.layer.name.id
ED medium Ambiguity: Wording of purpose not entirely clear: “It must be unambiguous to find out which of the layers provided by the service visualize the INSPIRE spatial data sets given in the Data Specifications for each INSPIRE theme”Testability: “the list of valid layer names should be in the INSPIRE registry, if it is supposed to be used in a test.Notes:Open questions/notes on the usefulness of harmonised layer names
Clarify that the correct harmonised layer names (which are codes ) are indeed in the inspire registry: http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/layer
ARENA
view- A.05.IR85.la ED minor In purpose: users’ -> users Evaluate and update test method. ARE
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
wmts
yer.title
Will validation of the correctness of the translated title be included (see note)?
Clarify whether the translations need to be tested, and whether the correct harmonised layer names (which are codes) and the translated labels to be used are in the inspire registry: http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/layer
NA
view-wmts
A.05.IR85.layer.title
ED Minor Add an explicit reference to implementation requirement 85
Add an explicit reference to implementation requirement 85
ARENA
view-wmts A.06.IR86.la
yer.abstract
AT critical Test method only verifies whether abstract is a non-empty character string. There is no check to validate that the language presented is the correct one.
Evaluate and update test method ARENA
view-wmts A.07.IR88.la
yer.bbox
AT critical The test method states “longitude and latitude, in this order” – How to test that a value is longitude or latitude?
Evaluate and update test method ARENA
view-wmts A.08.IR90.la
yer.style
AT critical Test purpose states that at least one style element exists per layer. However, the test method does not include a check on the existence of at least one layer style.
Update test method to include check on whether at least one layer style exists.
ARENA
view-wmts A.09.IR91.la
yer.legend
CR critical It is not possible to check whether the resolved legend resource is a valid image as the format attribute has no requirements in the TG (see notes).
Evaluate and update test method ARENA
download-atom
A.15 GE Minor Browser problems for IE 11 if type="application/atom+xml" is included in link (browser shows no link).
AT
View-wms
A.35.IR39.harmonized.layer.name
GE How to deal with the problem that a layer name has to be unique in a WMS (at least Geoserver). E.g. for Statistical Units there are 2 layer names (SU.VectorStatisticalUnit, SU.StatisticalGridCell) but multiple datasets (like Grids in various sizes) have to be displayed.
The use and usefulness of harmonized layer names has to be discussed further.
AT
??? AT Critical Unicity is not checked. There is a test that checks whether an element is available and not empty. But there is no control whether this element occurs just once or multiple
BE
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
times.??? CR Critical Grouplayers will not be validated under the
current proposal. However, their use is being promoted within the Geology theme to satisfy the present guidelines.
BE
??? GE medium How is multilinguism taken into account? BE??? GE medium It seems these tests can’t be run in an
automated way against the software.It’s possible to do this with OGC web services using CITE tests. Some third parties do this for CSW at the moment.Do you know of any pending plans to implement the test suite for automated testing.
BE
metadata A.01.validate ED minor '...against ISO 19139 version 2005-DIS with...' is not a correct reference
Correct the reference. DE
metadata A.01.validate CR medium For validation only ISO/TS 19139:2007 with GML 3.2.1 should be used. In order to achieve interoperability only one encoding should be used, and this should be the final TS, not the draft.
Change the ATS and the TG MD accordingly.
DE
metadata A.05.IR14.ds.keyword
CT medium What happens if there's no descritiveKeywords block citing INSPIRE GEMET at all? I understand the current description of the test as follows: the test will work for each block and will skip to the next block (without failing) if no reference to INSPIRE GEMET is given. It's allowed to have additional descriptiveKeyword blocks citing nothing or other concepts.
"If at least one descriptiveKeywords block references INSPIRE GEMET or any duplicate (...) and at least one keyword from that source is found in this block, the test succeeds, otherwise it will fail."
DE
metadata A.05.IR14.ds.keyword
ED minor The reference should be 2.4 and not 2.2.3. Check and change. DE
metadata A.06.IR15.sr ED minor The reference should be 2.4 and not 2.2.3. Check and change. DE
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
page 30 of 60
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
v.keyword
metadata A.07.IR05.IR06.ds.identification
GE medium The test method should only include the actual requirments. A reference to an ongoing discussion on how to match MD_Identifier against a namespace-identifier is not applicable here.
ED minor Test method, second paragraph: If one or more are provided:
Change the '.' to ':'. DE
metadata A.15.IR19.kws-in-vocab
ED minor Reference: TG MD 2.4.2, Req 19 Add correct reference. DE
metadata A.16.IR20.IR21.ds.bounds
CT medium How can you sufficiantly test a bounding box which should be as small as possible if there is no clear definition of what that means? Additionally, this is not considered as crucial for interoperability.
Remove IR 20 and use only IR 21. DE
metadata A.17.IR22.IR23.ds.temporal
ED minor missing word at first bullet at "Test method" "Is a valid TimePeriod given and ..." DE
metadata A.17.IR22.IR23.ds.temporal
CT medium I think it has to be the other way round: The test regarding TG Req. 23 will be passed only if at least one of the three date-checks is valid.Otherwise (as I read the documented tests by now) the test could fail e.g. because of a missing revision date though there is a valid creation date.
"The test will fail be passed if and only if at least one check among date of publication, date of last revision or date of creation doesn’t evaluates to true."
GE / CT critical TG Requirement 28 demands a conformity statement regarding a certain specification: IR interoperability (1089/2010 and amendments). This has not been considered in these tests. A test method aiming at the
Improve A.19.IR28.ds.conformity concerning this issue.
DE
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
page 31 of 60
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
particular content of element specification is necessary.
metadata A.19.IR22.ds.conformity
ED minor The reference should be 2.8 and not 2.8.1 Check and change. DE
metadata A.20.IR29.ds.specification
ED minor The reference should be 2.8 and not 2.8.2 Check and change. DE
metadata A.20.IR29.ds.specification
GE / CT medium TG Requirement 29 demands the conformity statement to be formed as DQ_DomainConsistency. This has not been considered in this test.
improve A.20.IR29.ds.specification concerning this issue
DE
metadata A.21.IR30.IR31.ds.public.access
ED minor The title contains IR31 twice Remove one of the double mentioned IR31. DE
metadata A.26.IR38.md.contact.role
ED minor redundant and missing word at first bullet at "Open questions"
"Is The the codeList URL ..." DE
metadata A.26.IR38.md.contact.role
ED minor The reference should be 2.11.1 and not 2.11.2
Check and change. DE
metadata A.30.IR27.ds.spatial resolution
ED minor Reference: TG MD 2.7.2, Req 27 Add correct reference. DE
metadata Open issues GE critical We think that it is not necessary to check the pure existence of a mandatory element. The ATS should cover those tests which are not already testable by a schema validation.
Consider if elements which are mandatory according to ISO need to be tested by an ATS or if the validation against the schema is already sufficient.
DE
metadata Open questions
GE medium The link to A.28.md.creation.date doesn't work and there's no chapter named like that.
Check and remove link or add A.28.md.creation.date to the ATS.
DE
interoperability-metadata
<all> GE minor All regulations on "Metadata for interoperability" (see following issues) aim at datasets and series and only when applying
DE
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
page 32 of 60
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
to IR 1089/2010.How to define that? Conformity statement citing IR 1089/2010 with pass= TRUE?Or are these regulations relevant for all INSPIRE metadata regardless the level of fulfilling IR 1089/2010?
interoperability-metadata
A.1 Coordinate Reference System
GE medium Coordinate Reference System is one of the mandatory elements in "Metadata for interoperability" for datasets and series.
There should be at least a test on pure existence for datasets and series if the resource is already in focus of IR 1089/2010.
DE
interoperability-metadata
A.1 Coordinate Reference System
ED medium The test purpose is to evaluate the RS_Identifier and not the description of the CRS.
Test purpose should be changed in order to reflect what is actually tested, e.g. 'Qualified URL in the given RS_Identifier'.
DE
interoperability-metadata
A.1 Coordinate Reference System
CT medium It is not clear how a grabed CRS can be validated against the advertised system. Additionally, this is not covered by the test purpose which only check the existence of a qualified URL.
Remove this sentence. DE
interoperability-metadata
A.2, A.3... ED minor Use 'ISO' for ISO standards, not 'iso'. Change. DE
interoperability-metadata
A.3 Encoding GE medium Encoding is one of the mandatory elements in "Metadata for interoperability" for datasets and series.
There should be at least a test on pure existence for datasets and series if the resource is already in focus of IR 1089/2010.
DE
interoperability-metadata
A.4 Topological Consistency
GE medium Not the correctness is tested as written in the purpose, but the existence of a topological consistence metadata element.
Correct the purpose. DE
interoperability-metadata
A.5 Character Encoding
GE medium Character Encoding is one of the mandatory elements in "Metadata for interoperability" for datasets and series.
There should be at least a test on pure existence for datasets and series if the resource is already in focus of IR 1089/2010.
DE
interoperability-
A.5 Character
ED minor It is not clear what metadata element is meant by 'CharEnc'.
Use only terms and abbreviations according to the IR and TG.
DE
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
page 33 of 60
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
metadata Encoding
interoperability-metadata
A.6 Spatial Representation Type
CT minor The test should be limited to the check if an appropriate value of the codelist has been chosen. A dataset should be considered INSPIRE conformant if such an element is provided.
Skip the test on validation of the matching of the given with the advertised representation since this is considered out of scope of conformance testing.
DE
interoperability-metadata
Open issues CT critical The objective of ATS and testing is to ensure INSPIRE compliant datasets. Therefore, only the requirements should be tested not the recommendations, too. If a recommendation is considered crucial for interoperability it should be upgraded to a requirement. Then you can add a corresponding ATS to this issue.
Do not add recommendations to ATS if not really necessary for achieving interoperable datasets.
DE
interoperability-metadata
Open issues GE medium Testing should only cover a test if the required metadata elements are correctly provided. This can be done automatically. Further test methods aiming the feasibility of the thematic content seem to be too advanced.
Keep the testing cases on the level of correctly given elements.
DE
view-wms
A.02.IR04 ED minor The test method should be specified in the same way as the same test in the WFS Download Service, meaning that the references to the relevant schema should be added.
Add the schema reference. DE
View-wms
A.36.IR40.etrs89
GE medium What about the INSPIRE relevant CRS (EPSG 4258, 3034)? Should they be mentioned here as well?
Add the INSPIRE CRS applicable for WMS DE
download-atom
A.15 CR critical The Attribute: type="application/Atom+xml" is required. If this Attribute is part of the link-tag the link does not work in the Internet Explorer! The examples for INSPIRE-Atom-Feed contain the type-Attribute in the link-tag, too. And also it does not work in IE. That not the sense of interoperability. If the
Cancel the test Attribute type in the link-tag and Change the requirement.
DE
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
page 34 of 60
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
type-Attribute will delete the link work in the IE.
download-predefined-wfs
<all> GE minor Consider if the prerequisites should be mentioned in each test since they have to be tested anyway.
Remove the references to the OGC test or add them also to the other ATS (e.g. WMS, WMTS). In any case, do it in the same way for all ATS.
DE
download-predefined-wfs
A.04 and the following
ED minor Prerequisites: A.01 already contains the both mentioned OGC WFS tests.
Remove the redundant test cases. DE
view-wmts
IR 89 AT medium Add a test covering the ETRS based CRS in the same way as in WMS. Consider to add here the CRS here as well.
Add an additional test or reference the test from WMS ATS.
DE
view-wmts
Tile Matrix GE medium Consider to add a requirement for a tile matrix system, since a commonly used tile matrix is crucial for interoperable cross-border WMTS.
Add a commonly used tile System (e.g. Pseudo-Wercator or InspireCRS84Quad) as requirement and a corresponding test case.
DE
DS A.1.5 ed Medium In the note there is some part does not really make sense i.e. “The list of codes in the Technical Guidelines for INSPIRE metadata and Technical Guidance for INSPIRE Discovery Services does not comply with each. The Technical Guidance for INSPIRE Discovery Services also provides codes for the EFTA countries while Technical Guidelines for INSPIRE metadata provides codes only for the EU Member States” to be even more specific what does not comply with each (see the word in bold)
Since we do not understand the note we cannot provide any proposed change.
DK
DS A.1.5 ed Medium In note 1one cannot help thinking it might be a good idea to get the two documents in question synchronized
Synchronize the two documents. DK
DS A.1.6 ed Medium The purpose and the test method are word to word identical, except for the very first
Describe the test method better and more in detail.
DK
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
page 35 of 60
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
word. So it is difficult to see how this method can be implemented. This comment is also valid for several other tests described in this document.
DS A.2.4 ed Medium In the purpose the word “properly” is used. This is a vague word to use in the purpose of a test. The next question is then what is meant with “properly”.
Tighten up the purpose. DK
DS A.2.5 ed Minor Why is the note included here? – It seems more like an comment received earlier on.
Remove the note. DK
DS A.2.8 ed Medium When reading A.1.4 and A.1.5 this test seems to be covered.
Delete the test. DK
DS A.3.1 ed Critical In the notes it is stated that there is some mismatch between the legal documents and the guidance document. This must be sorted out before handling the tests
Sort out the mismatch between the documents and then reconsider this test.
DK
DS A.3.3 ed Medium The question is what is the difference between this test and A.3.2?
DK
DS A.3.7 ed Minor Where can the tables referred to in the Purpose and the Notes can be found?
DK
DS A.3.8 ed Minor In the clause “Prerequisites” there is a question. One answer to that question could be how about all the tests that has something to do with language,
DK
DS A.6.1 ge Critical There will be a strong need for developing some standard test to examine if the purpose is fulfilled.
DK
all Ge/ed medium Links point to the github repository. Make them relative links (into the document) FR
all ge critical The target of tests are not clear enough. It is hidden in the method sometimes or in the prerequistes in others.
Add a target field. FR
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
page 36 of 60
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
metadata Vocabulary ct medium When an element is implemented as an Anchor as additional information not required by INSPIRE there is no need to check the validity of the link.
Remove this as a general test. FR
metadata XML namespaces prefixes
ed minor The list is not complete (missing srv, gmx, and probably others)
Please complete FR
metadata ed minor Many namespaces are missing in xpaths. Eg:./gmd:identificationInfo[1]/*/gmd:citation/*/title
Correct them FR
metadata ge critical Some tests, declared as automated are really described in a very fuzzy way. It is not always clear what has to be tested and how, sometimes tests are “suggested” (e.g. A.09.IR04.srv.linkage)
Be more precise on the test method. FR
metadata ge critical In the same idea, the test method often gathers several tests (e.g. A.09.IR04.srv.linkage)
If several subtests are required present them clearly as subtests.
FR
metadata GE The field “Purpose” is often used inconsistently.“Purpose” shall be a summary description of what is checked, not a description of the metadata element, e.g.A.02.titlePurpose: The title by which the cited resource is knownShould read instead:Purpose: Check that a resource title is specified.
Review and change Purpose and Test method for all tests.For some of the tests this has already been done below.
JRC
metadata GE There are Open questions JRC
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
page 37 of 60
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
There is no explicit Implementation Requirement in TG MD for the following tests:A.02.titleA.03.abstractA.24.responsible.party.roleA.28.md.creation.dateShould these be excluded or included in the ATS? Or added as requirements in the TG MD?
metadata GE It is not clear whether this ATS aims at checking whether in a metadata document:-the minimum set of required documents is present-some of the elements are specified incorrectly with respect to the INSPIRE requirements. This aspect is crucial to determine if a test succeeds or fails
JRC
metadata GE English level is quite low Review all English text JRC
metadata AT There is no mention of the spatial resolution for services. It should be documented even though the ATS would be automatically testable since it was agreed to place in the abstract.
JRC
metadata A.02.title The purpose is not formulated correctly:“Purpose: The title by which the cited resource is known”
Change to:“Purpose: Checks that a resource title is provided”
JRC
metadata A.04.IR01.IR02.hierarchy
The purpose is not formulated correctly:“Purpose: Type of the cited resource must be provided”
Change to:“Purpose: Checks that a resource type is provided”
JRC
metadata A.04.IR01.IR02.hierarchy
The sentence “To be relevant for INSPIRE the value should be either 'dataset', 'service'
Change the sentence to: “The test succeeds if the value is either 'dataset', 'service' or
JRC
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
page 38 of 60
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
or 'series'” does not make it clear when the test fails.
'series'” and it otherwise fails.
metadata A.04.IR01.IR02.hierarchy
In the sentence: “Checks if a resource type (hierarchyLevel) is provided and is taken from the MD_ScopeCode codelist.”MD_ScopeCode is a link that points to the INSPIRE Codelist(*) (**)However, the MD TG maps the INSPIRE values to the already existing original ISO values.So the codelist values are simply a subset of those defined in B.5.25 MD_ScopeCode <<CodeList>>
(*)The INSPIRE codelist contains the value “services” that was amended into “service” in the MD Regulation Corrigendum).(**) The INSPIRE codelist makes available codes that are absolute HTTP URIs (e.g. http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/metadata-codelist/ResourceType/dataset ) while in ISO 19139 you need just the term ‘dataset’. The INSPIRE codelist does not make the term available on its own.
Remove the link to the INSPIRE Codelist and reference instead table B.5.25 MD_ScopeCode <<CodeList>> of ISO 19115.
JRC
metadata A.05.IR14.ds.keyword.md
The purpose is not formulated correctly:“Purpose: Keyword for datasets. If the resource is a dataset or a dataset series, at least one keyword must originate from the INSPIRE theme of the GEMET Thesaurus”
Change to:“Purpose: If the resource is a dataset or a dataset series, it checks that at least one keyword originating from the INSPIRE theme of the GEMET Thesaurus is provided”
JRC
metadata A.05.IR14.ds.keyword.md
The term “resource type” in the test method description is not hyperlinked.“Test method If the type of the resource is not dataset or series, this test is omitted.”
Change the sentence to:“Test methodIf the resource type is not dataset or series, this test is omitted.”
JRC
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
Make “resource type” a hyperlink to ([hierarchyLevel](#hierarchyLevel))
metadata A.05.IR14.ds.keyword.md
The test method does not explain how to reference a thesaurus and does not link to another ATS that does.It does not link to the ATS which says that per must be maximum one instance of descriptiveKeywords per thesaurus.
Add prerequisite A.15.IR19.kws-in-vocab: (Keyword values originating from a single version of a single controlled vocabulary shall be grouped in a single instance)
Reference A.14.IR16.IR17.IR18.vocab
JRC
metadata A.05.IR14.ds.keyword.md
The test method allows alternative thesauri while the MD TG asks for the GEMET one.“Test method If the type of the resource is not dataset or series, this test is omitted. The test should check for each descriptiveKeywords block if it references either http://www.eionet.europa.eu/gemet/inspire_themes or any duplicate of that thesaurus (eg http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/theme).”
Remove reference to alternative thesauri.Rephrase the test method as follows:“Test methodThe test looks for an instance of descriptiveKeywords which [references]( A.14.IR16.IR17.IR18.vocab) the http://www.eionet.europa.eu/gemet/inspire_themes thesaurus.”
JRC
metadata A.05.IR14.ds.keyword.md
The test method does not specify in which language to express an inspire theme or if it has to be a language neutral name like a URI:“If a block is referencing that thesaurus the test should check if at least one keyword is available and it matches with a concept in the thesaurus.”The MD Regulation requires a theme as it appears in the Annex I, II, III of the INSPIRE
Rephrase the test method as in the previous point and add the part in bold:
“Test methodThe test looks for an instance of descriptiveKeywords which [references]( A.14.IR16.IR17.IR18.vocab) the http://www.eionet.europa.eu/gemet/inspire_themes thesaurus.
JRC
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
Directive The test succeeds if such instance is found and if it contains at least one keyword as it appears in the specified thesaurus in the language of the metadata.”
metadata A.06.IR15.srv.keyword
The test method says for a service there must be at least one keyword originating from EU commission regulation No. 1205/2008, Annex part D, No. 4. The regulation says that “The keywords are based on the geographic services taxonomy of EN ISO 19119”, but it should also say that that the language neutral name shall be used
Add to the test method the part in bold:“If the resource is a service, at least one keyword must originate from EU commission regulation No. 1205/2008, Annex part D, No. 4.They keyword must match the language neutral name”.
JRC
metadata A.06.IR15.srv.keyword
The test method says for a service there must be at least one keyword originating from EU commission regulation No. 1205/2008, Annex part D, No. 4. The regulation says that “The keywords are based on the geographic services taxonomy of EN ISO 19119” but it should also say a thesaurus must be specified pointing to the relevant thesaurus, be it the MD Regulation, ISO 19119 or the INSPIRE Codelist Registry. I think the MD Regulation would be fine.
Add to the test method the part in bold:If the type of the resource is not service, this test is omitted.“If the resource is a service, at least one keyword must originate from EU commission regulation No. 1205/2008, Annex part D, No. 4.They keyword must match the language neutral nameThe test should check for each descriptiveKeywords block if it references the …(<appropriate thesaurus>). If a block is referencing that thesaurus the test should check if at least one keyword is specified, which matches a concept in the thesaurus.If such a keyword is found the test succeeds, otherwise it fails.”
JRC
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
page 41 of 60
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
metadata A.07.IR05.IR06.ds.identification
The purpose is not completely accurate. It should specify that at least one identifier is needed.Purpose: Unique resource identifier. If the type of the resource was dataset or series, a unique identifier identifying the resource must be given.
Change the purpose to:“Purpose: If the type of the resource is dataset or series, it checks that at least one unique resource identifier is given.”
JRC
metadata A.07.IR05.IR06.ds.identification
Uses a non-well defined “empty” instead of “not an empty characterstring” as in previous test another expression is used.
“The test first checks if a unique identifier is given and if it is of type MD_Identifier or RS_Identifier. The contained code element may not be empty.
In case of RS_identifier, the codespace element should not be empty…”
Rewrite the Test method as follows:“The test first checks if a unique identifier is given and if it is of type MD_Identifier or RS_Identifier. The code element must be provided and must not be an empty characterstring.
In case of RS_identifier, the codespace element must be provided and must not be an empty characterstring…”
JRC
metadata A.08.IR03.ds.linkage
-The Purpose does not make it clear when and if the test succeeds or fails.Purpose: If a linkage is available, a resource locator must be given. If the resource is a service, the linkage should be checked.
-How do I know “if a linkage is available to the resource” if I do not test the link? So, when does the test succeed and when is it to be considered failed?
- The term resource in “If the resource is a service,” actually does not refer to the dataset metadata but to the resource found
Rephrase the Purpose as follows:Purpose: This test checks each resource locator URL to see if it is syntactically correct and if the resource it references can be accessed, in order to determine its type.If the referenced resource is recognized as a Network Service, it checks whether the linkage to the dataset is declared and implemented.
JRC
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
page 42 of 60
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
at the URL being tested. It would be better to make this clearer.
- What about URLs that are accessible only inside the intranet of an organisation?
-What about the case when no linkage to the dataset is provided but the same dataset is found referenced by a Network Service described in a service metadata coming from the same catalogue?-What if more than one View Service offers the dataset? Shouldn’t there be a National View Service (even just a proxy) of reference for each viewable dataset?
metadata A.08.IR03.ds.linkage
In the Test Method, the expression “The URL is resolved.” The use of the word resolved is misleading.To resolve a URL means to resolve it to an IP address while the intended meaning here is (ref. https://github.com/inspire-eu-validation/ats-metadata/blob/master/README.md#resolve )“Resolve: Goal is to check if a URL references an existing document. First the URL can be checked on syntactical correctness. Then a http head operation can give an indication of the availability of the document without fully downloading it. The operation might fail due to a number of reasons: the service is (temporarily) unavailable, the service is protected (status 403).”
Change the Test method as follows:
The test checks if a linkage is provided.If none is given, the test will complete successfully.If one or more are provided, for each linkage the test checks:- if the linkage element contains an element of type gmd:URL.- if the element content is a syntactically correct URL- if the referenced resource is accessible.
If the response identifies the linkage as a Harmonised Spatial Data Service or a Network Service, the test checks if
JRC
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
So, we have the following checks:- the URL is checked for syntactical correctness;- the resource is accessed to check if it is accessibleThe suggestion of using a HTTP HEAD operation is not acceptable because:- servers and services do not implement the HEAD operation consistently;- the response is not enough to identify Network Services or Harmonised Spatial Data Services.The following reference to a WSDL is unclear. OGC Services for which SOAP binding is implemented, still respond with a capabilities document:“Any service response should be checked if it provides proper linkage. The service wsdl or capabilities document should have a featuretype that shares the resource unique identification”
The following hint is not complete and not correct for all service types. In addition, the linkage is always also implemented via MetadataURLs in all the services which is therefore the preferred way.“if WMS/WMTS/WFS, the link is in //layer[identifier={id}&&@authority={codespace}] if Atom, the link is in //feed[@uuidhref={id}&&@namespace={codespace}]”
How is the following part relevant for the test outcome?
appropriate linkage to dataset is available.The linkage is established via the Metadata URL for WMS, WFS and Atom based services.
a final manual test is suggested to the tester (to test if any of the linkages points to a webpage with further instructions or a client application that directly accesses the service).
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
page 44 of 60
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
“a final manual test is suggested to the tester (to test if any of the linkages points to a webpage with further instructions or a client application that directly accesses the service).”
metadata A.09.IR04.srv.linkage
The prerequisites section contains a condition that in previous test was dealt with in the Test methodPrerequisites- the hierarchylevel of resource should
be "service"
To specify the precondition of being a service, adopt the same approach as in the other tests.
JRC
metadata A.12.IR12.srv.type
The Test method contains a meaningless sentence:“The test first checks if a service type element is given at serviceType and if it is unique throughout the document.”
Remove the sentence in bold. JRC
metadata A.13.IR13.keyword.md
Its execution is actually redundant because of A.05.IR14.ds.keyword.md for datasets and series and of A.06.IR15.srv.keyword.md for services
Add to the test method the part in bold:“The test checks if at least one keyword element is provided and it is not an empty characterstring.This test is already implemented for data and services by A.05.IR14.ds.keyword.md and A.06.IR15.srv.keyword.md, respectively. A failure in those tests implies a failure of this test.”
JRC
metadata A.14.IR16.IR17.IR18.vocab
The part of the test method that talks about validating the keyword against the thesaurus when its URL is available is out of place since it is not in any requirement.In addition, it implies that a URL of the thesaurus is needed, which is not true:
Remove the following sentence:“Validating if the keyword is actually available in the indicated vocabulary is a challenge, since the vocabulary is usually not referenced by a URL. If a vocabulary is indicated that is available to the validator, then this check can be
JRC
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
page 45 of 60
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
“Validating if the keyword is actually available in the indicated vocabulary is a challenge, since the vocabulary is usually not referenced by a URL. If a vocabulary is indicated that is available to the validator, then this check can be performed.”
performed.”
metadata A.15.IR19.kws-in-vocab
The Test method repeats the purpose“In order to be consistent with ISO 19115, all the keyword values originating from a single version of a single controlled vocabulary shall be grouped in a single instance of the ISO 19115 descriptiveKeywords property.For each descriptiveKeywords element, the referenced controlled vocabulary should be unique”
From the test method, remove the following sentence:“In order to be consistent with ISO 19115, all the keyword values originating from a single version of a single controlled vocabulary shall be grouped in a single instance of the ISO 19115 descriptiveKeywords property.”
JRC
metadata A.15.IR19.kws-in-vocab
The Test method is wrong in its specifications because it does not accomplish the purpose“In order to be consistent with ISO 19115, all the keyword values originating from a single version of a single controlled vocabulary shall be grouped in a single instance of the ISO 19115 descriptiveKeywords property.For each descriptiveKeywords element, the referenced controlled vocabulary should be unique”
Rewrite the test method as follows:
“In order to be consistent with ISO 19115, all the keyword values originating from a single version of a single controlled vocabulary shall be grouped in a single instance of the ISO 19115 descriptiveKeywords property.Each referenced controlled vocabulary must appear in at most one descriptiveKeywords element”
JRC
metadata A.17.IR22.IR23.ds.temporal
GE The test method is not formulated very clearly:
Reformulate JRC
metadata A.19.IR28.ds.conformity
The test does not consider the notEvaluated case
JRC
metadata A.23.IR35.IR The test should include some checks about JRC
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
page 46 of 60
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
36.responsible.party.contact.info
the email address
metadata A.25.IR37.md.contact
The test should include some checks about the email address
JRC
metadata A.26.IR38.md.contact.role
There are Open Questions:Open questions:
The the codeList URL above the only approved way to refer to the CI_RoleCode codelist?Does the string value of the RoleCode element have any significance? Does it have to also be "pointOfContact" or can it be missing entirely?
JRC
metadata A.26.IR39.language
The test method does not specify it is ISO-639/B and not ISO-639/T.
The MD Regulation limits the list:The value domain of this metadata element is limited to the official languages of the Community expressed in conformity with ISO 639-2.
JRC
metadata A.29.IR07.srv.identification
This test name is wrong.This is about coupled resources, i.e. the srv:operatesOn element.
The Test Method must specify that xlink:href must be resolved and the datasets metadata retrieved and parsed.The dataset identifiers obtained must correspond to what determined in
JRC
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
page 47 of 60
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
A.08.IR03.ds.linkage
There is still a todo:“todo: to validate this is the proper identification, the identification used in capabilities might be required”
interoperable-sds
GE The Prerequisites section of each test contains a verbose requirement validity against xml schema.Since the xml schema is now the standard ISO 19139, it should simply reference the ats-metadata requirement.
JRC
interoperable-sds
A.01.IR06.IR07.supported.crses.as.list
The Note is misleading because there is no requirement about which CRSs shall be supported by a SDS. The only requirement is to list all the CRSs supported by the service.“The list of the allowed INSPIRE CRS identifiers is only given as a recommendation, so it's not possible to automatically validate if the CRSes provided fulfill the INSPIRE CRS criteria (ETRS89 based for data inside Europe, ITRS based otherwise).”
JRC
interoperable-sds
A.01.IR06.IR07.supported.crses.as.list
The XPath contains a pipe operator which means an OR condition.The test method should instead tell which information is relevant, mandatory and which takes precedence over the other.
/gmd:MD_Metadata/
JRC
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
page 48 of 60
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
- The Prerequisites still references the now obsolete profile schema.
-The XPath still references the now obsolete profile schema.
JRC
interoperable-sds
A.05.IR11.custodian.contact.point
Notes:“…The XPath test also requires…”
JRC
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
page 49 of 60
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
Instead of saying that, the test should say that the Responsible Party must have passed also the corresponding test in the ats-metadata.
The following Note is, though formally correct, quite an overkill. Why can’t people just declare the highest conformance class?It's assumed, that separate gmd:report elements are provided for each passed classification invocable, interoperable and harmonised that the service conforms to. Otherwise the tests for these "super class"
JRC
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
page 50 of 60
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
CCes will not pass.discovery-service
A.1.1 ISO Metadata Application Profile
The Test Method requires testing OGC standard functionality, which instead shall be delegated to the OGC Tests.The Test Method shall instead just inspect the capabilities document and this is not mentioned.
JRC
discovery-service
A.1.2 Extended behaviour
What is this for? JRC
discovery-service
A.01.03.iso_19115_19119.model.md
Title is wrong:A Unique identification for this test
JRC
discovery-service
A.1.4 Language parameter
The Test Method is wrong:“Examine whether the Get Discovery Service Metadata and Discover Metadata operations support the parameter “language”,
No additional language parameter is foreseen for the Discover Metadata operation for which ISO queryable is used.
JRC
discovery-service
A.2.3 Additional search attributes
Typo in the link:A.02.03.addiotional.search.attributes.md
JRC
discovery-service
A.2.4 Discovery Service metadata parameters
The test does not take into account that MetadataURL can be present, optionally, also in the long scenario.
JRC
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
page 51 of 60
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
discovery-service
A.2.6 Federated catalogues advertisement
The validation can only be done knowing the Discovery Scenario chosen when registering the service in the INSPIRE Geoportal.
JRC
discovery-service
A.2.7 Federated Discovery Service
The validation can only be done knowing the Discovery Scenario chosen when registering the service in the INSPIRE Geoportal.
JRC
view-wms
GE If MetadataURL is specified in the Extended Capabilities some elements (like the resource title, abstract, keywords) will be mapped twice: once in the standard capabilities elements and once in the linked metadata document.There is no guidance about this.
JRC
view-wms
GE When the resource referenced by a MetadataURL element (in the Extended Capabilities or in the layer element) is accessed, the response that comes back is usually wrapped inside a GetRecordById.However, according to the OGC WMS 1.3.0 specifications, it can be just the metadata file.If this is allowed, it should be explained.
JRC
view-wms
GE The Prerequisites contain the following sentences, the meaning of which is really not clear:
Test for the existence of default element namespace.Test for the existence of the namespaces for INSPIRE View Services inspire_vs and inspire_common.
JRC
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
page 52 of 60
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
view-wms
A.10.IR13.coupled.resource.node
The Test Method is inaccurate.It does not say that the resource referenced by the MetadataURL must be accessed and its response analysed.It does not consider, either, that multiple MetadataURL elements can be present, some pointing html resources, other to xml ones.
JRC
view-wms
A.32.IR38.layer.identifier.node
The identifiers found here, together with the information in authorityURL, shall match the information found from MetadataURL.
JRC
view-wms
A.33.IR38.authority.url.node
The test does not specify which information inside AutorityURL actually represents the namespace:-<AuthorityURL name="MAGRAMA"><OnlineResource xlink:href="http://www.magrama.gob.es" xlink:type="simple" /></AuthorityURL>
JRC
download-atom
A.02.TGR2.conformtoAtomSpecification.md
In the Test method the use of the word “resolve is misleading”.“…resolve the link the referenced Atom feed…”
The Test Method description contains a subtle bug which generates too many permutations since SpatialDataSetIdentifier ID code and SpatialDataSetIdentifier Namespace shall be considered as a whole:“For each combination of supported CRS, supported language, SpatialDataSetIdentifier ID code and SpatialDataSetIdentifier Namespace:
JRC
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
page 53 of 60
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
perform a GetFeature request”
In addition, it does not really consider that a dataset could have multiple unique resource identifiers.
invocable-sds
GE The Prerequisites section of each test contains a verbose requirement validity against xml schema.Since the xml schema is now the standard ISO 19139, it should simply reference the ats-metadata requirement.
JRC
invocable-sds
GE The “SDS” part in the test names (A.03.IR05.SDS) does not apply anymore as the standard ISO19139 schemas are used
JRC
invocable-sds
A.01.IR01.SDS.SV_ServiceIdentification
The Note still mentions “the SDS metadata extension schema”
JRC
invocable-sds
A.02.IR02.IR03.at.least.one.recource.locator
There is a typo in the name: “recource” instead of “resource”
JRC
invocable-sds
A.02.IR02.IR03.at.least.one.recource.locator
The test method is should mention that only the gmd:CI_OnlineResource with a specific description are considered.In addition, the XPath uses the gmd:function element while the TG prescribes gmd:description
JRC
harmonised-sds
GE The Prerequisites section of each test contains a verbose requirement validity against xml schema.Since the xml schema is now the standard
JRC
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
page 54 of 60
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
ISO 19139, it should simply reference the ats-metadata requirement.
The Prerequisite does not make sense because:- it puts a condition on the metadata document that will be fetched during the test.The condition it describes should be moved to the Test Method.-it assumes that what comes back is an ISO 19139 document while it could be a Capabilities document.The “equivalent” for Network Services is the Get Network Service Metadata Response document which is often an OGC Capabilities document.
JRC
download-QoS
GE It contains no tests. JRC
metadata A.05.IR14.ds.keyword
CT medium How can be checked if any duplicate of that thesaurus is referenced? This can only if they are known
Delete this part of the check NL
metadata A.05.IR14.ds.keyword
CR medium Based on the requirements in the TG, this is an indirect requirement;-you shall provide a keyword that describe the relevant INSPIRE Spatial Data Theme (req 14)-If the keyword value originates from a controlled vocabulary(thesaurus, ontology), for example GEMET - Concepts, the citation ofthe originating controlled vocabulary shall be provided.(req17)
Should be defined better in the new version of TG MD
NL
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
page 55 of 60
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
the text in the TG “MD The titles and definitions of all 34 INSPIRE Spatial Data Themes have been integrated into adedicated branch of the General Environmental Multilingual Thesaurus (GEMET) in the 24official Community languages (see http://www.eionet.europa.eu/gemet/inspire_themes). ” informs that there is a thesaurus available.The test if this thesaurus is referenced is practical.
CT medium The service wsdl or capabilities document should have a featuretype that shares the resource unique identificationif WMS/WMTS/WFS, the link is in //layer[identifier={id}&&@authority={codespace}] if Atom, the link is in //feed[@uuidhref={id}&&@namespace={codespace}]On which requirement is this based?
Delete this part NL
metadata A.16.IR20.IR21.ds.bounds
CT medium The bounding box shall be as small as possible. Quite hard to honour. Data should be downloaded and a minimal bounds could be calculated and compared to the indicated bounds.This depends on the availability of the download service, which is also not direct to recognise in the dataset metadata.is to difficult to check
Delete the part Data should be downloaded and a minimal bounds could be calculated and compared to the indicated bounds.
NL
metadata A.19.IR28.ds.conformity
AT medium Purpose: The metadata shall include information on the degree of conformity with the implementing rules on interoperability of
Add check if the degree of conformity is with the implementing rules on interoperability of spatial data sets and services.
NL
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
spatial data sets and services.The check if the degree of conformity is with the implementing rules on interoperability of spatial data sets and services, is missing
metadata A.26.IR38.md.contact.role
CT medium Check that the attribute codeList has value "http://standards.iso.org/ittf/ PubliclyAvailableStandards/ISO_19139_Schemas/resources/codelist/gmxCodelists.xml#CI_RoleCode"This is not in accordance with the accepted schema’sIs not checked for other codelists, so inconsistent
Check all accepted schemas for all codelists checks or delete this check.
NL
metadata Open questions
medium Please include those tests Add as requirement in the new TG MD NL
metadata GE Is it possible to add recommended tests, to prevent providing not correct metadata?Example; all the keywords in a single instance of the ISO 19115 descriptiveKeywords property, must be a part of the referenced controlled vocabulary.
add a test to check if the keywords in the same decriptiveKeywords instance where the GEMET inspire themes is referenced, are inspire themesetc.
NL
interoperability-metadata
Open Issues: test scope
GE Scope should be the metadata only. Testing the data itself is very hard or practically impossible in many cases.
NL
interoperability-metadata
A.1 Coordinate Reference System
AT medium The test described can be required if another test is added; the conformity of the dataset ,if true then the described test is required, because the CRS is a requirement in IR SDSS
Add a test to check if the dataset is harmonised.Require the described test if the dataset is harmonised
NL
interoperability-metadata
A.1 Coordinate Reference System
GE medium Please make this test conform with the proposed implementation in the new TG MD
NL
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
page 57 of 60
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
interoperability-metadata
A.5 Character Encoding
CT medium Grab the resource. Check the encoding. If the resource is not encoded based on UTF-8, validate if the appropriate encoding is provided in CharEnc Not applicable to services
The dataset is only available through the downloadservice, but here is stated it is not applicable to services.
Delete this part, is not executable NL
interoperability-metadata
A.6 Spatial Representation Type
CT medium Grab the resource and check the spatial representation. Validate if it matches the advertised representation.
Delete this part, is not executable NL
download-atom
A.08.IR222.TGR8.linktoOpenSearchDescription
ED minor Typo in the Note: “the the” Rewrite to “the” NL
download-atom
A.11.IR221.TGR11.updatedelement, A.18.TGR19.entryUpdated and A.23.IR221.TGR24.datasetFeedUpdated
ED medium Both tests check for validity of a date, but in a different way.
Use the same way to check if a date is valid. NL prefers A.18.TGR19.entryUpdated (and A.23.IR221.TGR24.datasetFeedUpdated), so add to A.11.IR221.TGR11.updatedelement to check on a valid date with 'year-from-dateTime(xs:dateTime(atom:updated))'
NL
download-directaccess-wfs
README.md ED minor A typo: the section TG Requirement Coverage contains (in the first line) a link to [TG VS] which should refer to [TG DL].
Change link to TG DL NL
download-predefined-wfs
A.03.IR221.TGR53.serviceMetadata
ED minor From the test method it is not clear how to validate the metadata document for being valid. Needs more clarification.
Specify how metadata validation must be done. For example: validate the metadata document to the XML schema.
NL
View- A.03.IR05.sc CT Critical Validation of the Capabilities document to Change the schema for validation to: NL
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
page 58 of 60
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
wms hema.validation
the WMS schema alone (so to http://schemas.opengis.net/wms/1.3.0/capabilities_1_3_0.xsd and without the INSPIRE schema http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/schemas/inspire_vs/1.0/inspire_vs.xsd means that an implementation with INSPIRE ExtendedCapabilities will by definition fail the validation test. Because the ExtendedCapabilities element is not declared in the WMS schema. The schema http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/schemas/inspire_vs/1.0/inspire_vs.xsd includes the required WMS schema.
ED Minor A typo. The “test method” section and the Notes section refer to “WMTS layers”. This must be “WMS layers”.
Change WMTS to WMS NL
all G Critical Unfortunately we had not had enough time to go through all documents, but we have found parts of the document that are too general. They should be more specific if the purpose is to be able to validate Inspire conformance.The following example is taken from ATS metadata.- A04 is an example of too general text;Test methodChecks if a resource type (hierarchyLevel) is provided and is taken from the MD_ScopeCode codelist.To be relevant for INSPIRE the value should be either 'dataset', 'service' or 'series'This test is relevant for Inspire, so the value should just consist of 'dataset', 'service' or 'series'
When Inspire is precise in its requirements, e.g. resource type, then the test should also be more precise.
SE
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
Template for comments Country: ALL Date: 2016-03-14 Document: Draft Abstract Test Suites Project: MIWP-5 / MIG-T
ATS(e.g.
download-atom)
Test(e.g.
A.01.TGR1)
Type of comment1
Severity(minor,
medium, critical)
Comments Proposed change Resolution MS
- A24 is an example of when the test is written more precise (good example);Test methodThe test first checks if there is at least one role element. The element must contain an element at gmd:CI_RoleCode[@codeListValue=x], where x is one of the values described in ISO 19115, chapter B.5.5.
download-predefined-wfs
A.03.IR221.TGR53.serviceMetadata (page 8)
CT Medium In the Purpose you can choose between EITHER metadata to be linked to via an inspire_common:MetadataURL OR put all metadata element in ExtendedCapabilities.In the test, it says to test all metadata elements in ExtendedCapabilities irrespective of inspire_common:MetadataURL is there.
To conform with the purpose of the test, change position of the two last check points,
- If a inspire_common:MetadataURL is provided, request the Metadata document with this URL. Check if the response is a valid Metadata document.- Else, check if all mandatory metadata elements as specified in Table 4 of the TG exist in the ExtendedCapabilities section.
Also clarify how to validate the Metadata document in the first check above; the schema to be used and/or that it should conform with Table 4.
SE
1 Type of comment: GE = general ED = editorial AT = add a test (that is currently missing to test a certain requirement) CT = we have a different interpretation of how the TG requirement should be tested (and therefore propose to change the test)CR = we have a different interpretation of how the IR requirement has been translated into a TG requirement (and therefore propose to change the requirement)
