Difference between revisions of "Cat-Interop"

From OSGeo
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
''Working Group on Catalogue Interoperability''  
+
''Catalogue Interoperability Working Group''  
  
 
* Home Page: http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/cat-interop
 
* Home Page: http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/cat-interop
 +
* GitHub: https://github.com/OSGeo/Cat-Interop
 
* Mailing List: http://lists.osgeo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cat-interop
 
* Mailing List: http://lists.osgeo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cat-interop
 
   
 
   
 
== Description ==
 
== Description ==
The group aims to discuss (and test/implement) beter interoperability between the open source metadata servers and  
+
The group aims to discuss (and test/implement) better interoperability between open source metadata servers and  
clients. Mostly targetting the use case, find a dataset -> view a  
+
clients. Mostly targeting the use case, find a dataset -> view a dataset. But any other issue in catalogue interoperability can be suggested.
dataset. But any other issue in catalogue interoperability can be suggested.
 
  
 
Join the discussion at the mailinglist!
 
Join the discussion at the mailinglist!
  
 
There is still quite some mis-matching in the  
 
There is still quite some mis-matching in the  
products out there due to different implementations. Clients as Geonode,  
+
products out there due to different implementations. Clients such as Geonode,  
 
Qgis are not able to display an "add to map" button from some catalogue servers.  
 
Qgis are not able to display an "add to map" button from some catalogue servers.  
 
But even if the button is presented, still some  
 
But even if the button is presented, still some  
optimisations could be agreed upon. One of the goals would be to have a  
+
optimizations could be agreed upon. One of the goals would be to have a  
 
seamless user experience (find->display) and prevent for example the  
 
seamless user experience (find->display) and prevent for example the  
 
situation where in the CSW client a user should specify the type of  
 
situation where in the CSW client a user should specify the type of  

Latest revision as of 19:00, 5 March 2014

Catalogue Interoperability Working Group

Description

The group aims to discuss (and test/implement) better interoperability between open source metadata servers and clients. Mostly targeting the use case, find a dataset -> view a dataset. But any other issue in catalogue interoperability can be suggested.

Join the discussion at the mailinglist!

There is still quite some mis-matching in the products out there due to different implementations. Clients such as Geonode, Qgis are not able to display an "add to map" button from some catalogue servers. But even if the button is presented, still some optimizations could be agreed upon. One of the goals would be to have a seamless user experience (find->display) and prevent for example the situation where in the CSW client a user should specify the type of metadata catalogue (s)he wants to add data from.

Approach

  • End of 2013 we hope to agree on a specification to implement an interoperable DC-profile, work in progress is here [1]
  • Start of 2014 we hope projects will be able to set up forks with this implementation and we want to set up a test procedure (set of test records on osgeo-live-dvd)
  • At FOSS4G 2014 we might organise a benchmark on interoperability

History

First initiatives are here DCLite4G.

The mailinglist was formed at FOSS4G 2013 in Nottingham as a result of a Birds of Feather on Catalogue interoperability. The BOF was visited by participants from GeoNetwork OpenSource, pycsw, CKAN, GeoNode, QGIS, OpenLayers, GeoExt.