Re: [sdw] Analysis of Gaps in current practice (#1259)

From my gap analysis above: 

> [13.3]( identifies a gap in standardized dataset and service descriptions for data portals. It mentions the OGC working on such a standard, but to my knowledge no such work is progressing at the moment. Maybe we were thinking of GeoDCAT-AP, a European standard; there were plans for picking that up within OGC but I think it has stalled.

> Meanwhile, there is a new version of GeoDCAT-AP based on DCAT 2.0. Even though it is not a worldwide standard, we might say, well there is a good practice we see in the wild in Europe, let's promote this to a BP. That's one way forward.

> We also know DCAT 2.0 on its own is already better equiped for describing geospatial datasets and for describing data services. We're already feeding that into the BP thanks to Andrea.

> The question is, is DCAT 2.0 enough or do we consider there to be a gap until something like GeoDCAT-AP is established in practice.

I'm hoping for input from @andrea-perego and anyone else that has in-depth knowledge about these metadata standards!
- Does anyone happen to know if there is still work going on within OGC to standardise GeoDCAT-AP? I haven't seen this progress and am guessing the work may have stalled? In that case I will not mention such work anymore in the BP update.
- Do we want to recommend DCAT 2.0 + GeoDCAT-AP as best practice, based on implementation in Europe? Are there  examples in production environments we can point to? 

If we do consider this best practice, it's no longer a "gap" and I will propose to remove parts of [13.3]( from the document. @andrea-perego has already kindly done some updates to the best practice document in PR 

GitHub Notification of comment by lvdbrink
Please view or discuss this issue at using your GitHub account

Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in

Received on Monday, 16 May 2022 12:12:33 UTC