Response to INSPIRE Discovery and View Draft

This page is meant for collecting feedback about the above draft legal rules for European SDI participants, to be submitted through the FOSS SDIC. We can only send one spreadsheet document on behalf of the SDIC, so either please provide text or a link here if you want your comments to be included.

When adding commentary please mark your contributions with Article or Annex number (e.g. 8.2.3) and paragraph number if necessary, that would help a lot.


 * http://inspire.jrc.it/reports/ImplementingRules/network/D3.7_Draft_IR_Discovery_and_View_Services_v2.0.pdf Implementing Rules for Discovery and View Services


 * FOSS SDIC
 * Response to INSPIRE Network Services Architecture (this document is referenced in this IR and is short so is worth reading first.)

Responses
{| border="1" valign="top"


 * Clause/ Subclause||Paragraph/ Figure/ Table||Type comment||Comment||Proposed change
 * 6, Protocol bindings || para 1 || G || "One of the requirements specified in the D3.5 Network Services Architecture document is the use of SOAP bindings for all INSPIRE services."'' This is incorrect. D3.5 does not mandate SOAP, simply offers arguments in its favour and solicits reports and comments from the spatial data user community. - change "one of the requirements specified" to a less definite wording, or omit this section until the Architecture is actually complete.||
 * 6 Protocol bindings || para 1|| G ||"web services, as defined by the W3C in http://www.w3c.org/TR/ws-arch/" The URL given is not a W3C Recommendation and explicitly states that it is a Working Group Note which does not imply endorsement by the W3C Membership and states that it is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress. At this time in 2003 as today, there was much disagreement about the definition of Web Services. A respected geospatial market analyst wrote at the time that "Today, four organizations - Liberty Alliance, OASIS, W3C and WS- I - are vying to preside over the Web standards process, each with different goals"''1 and this Working Group Note is one of several competing "definitions" written by members of industry consortia at that time. - This URL should be removed from citation or it should be made clear that it is a non-binding draft without agreement from the w3c membership. ||
 * 6 Protocol bindings ||para 2|| G ||"Therefore, for INSPIRE Services SOAP bindings are mandatory". As this claim is based on two assertions (1. that the D3.5 Architecture document requires SOAP, and 2. that the W3C organisation defines web services as having SOAP bindings) and neither of these assertions are grounded in fact, the mandatory SOAP bindings clause, possibly this entire section of the draft, should be reworded or removed.||
 * 6 Protocol bindings || para 1|| G ||"web services, as defined by the W3C in http://www.w3c.org/TR/ws-arch/" The URL given is not a W3C Recommendation and explicitly states that it is a Working Group Note which does not imply endorsement by the W3C Membership and states that it is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress. At this time in 2003 as today, there was much disagreement about the definition of Web Services. A respected geospatial market analyst wrote at the time that "Today, four organizations - Liberty Alliance, OASIS, W3C and WS- I - are vying to preside over the Web standards process, each with different goals"''1 and this Working Group Note is one of several competing "definitions" written by members of industry consortia at that time. - This URL should be removed from citation or it should be made clear that it is a non-binding draft without agreement from the w3c membership. ||
 * 6 Protocol bindings ||para 2|| G ||"Therefore, for INSPIRE Services SOAP bindings are mandatory". As this claim is based on two assertions (1. that the D3.5 Architecture document requires SOAP, and 2. that the W3C organisation defines web services as having SOAP bindings) and neither of these assertions are grounded in fact, the mandatory SOAP bindings clause, possibly this entire section of the draft, should be reworded or removed.||
 * 6 Protocol bindings ||para 2|| G ||"Therefore, for INSPIRE Services SOAP bindings are mandatory". As this claim is based on two assertions (1. that the D3.5 Architecture document requires SOAP, and 2. that the W3C organisation defines web services as having SOAP bindings) and neither of these assertions are grounded in fact, the mandatory SOAP bindings clause, possibly this entire section of the draft, should be reworded or removed.||