You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
So both patterns seem to be stemming from the same technical guidelines, but resulting in different implementations.
It would be good to address this in the geodcat mapping notes. (this is Issue #139 in the GeoDCAT-AP repo: SEMICeu/GeoDCAT-AP#139)
I am not sure what the best approach is for a generic solution in the XSLT.
I'm testing the transformation to geodcat ap for the 3.0.0 pilot.
In addition to my remark in #58 about blank nodes, I also think there are some issues with the mapping of Distributions and DataServices.
My original iso19115 xml is listing a distribution format like this:
and 5 different transfer options:
What I see in the resulting transformed DCAT structure (Converted to ttl from rdf/xml for readability) is this:
I guess I would expect 3 Distributions (WMS, WFS and ATOM) with corresponding DataServices.
But there are only 2 distributions. Both with a format description of ESRI Shape, where I would expect WMS and WFS.
The ATOM feed is presented as a landingpage, I would expect that as a distribution/dataservice.
The first landing page is presented as a landingpage, which looks correct.
The second landingpage is mapped to a document. It's not clear to me why there is a difference being made here.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: