Norwegian Digitalisation Agency representative raised the issue regarding the BRegDCAT-AP multiplicity of 1..n for property cv:hasCompetentAuthority.
In the CPSV-AP, which BRegDCAT-AP doesn’t have to fully follow, the multiplicity for property cv:hasCompetentAuthority is 1..1 and the usage of this property is explained as “This property links a Public Service to a Public Organization, which is the responsible Agent for the delivery of the Public Service.”
In BRegDCAT-AP, multiplicity of 1..n for cv:hasCompetentAuthority adds some flexibility by covering cases where there is more than one public organizations responsible for the same public service.
Nevertheless, are there any examples of cases where several different public organizations are responsible for the same public service?
Options to discuss:
- Provide examples where more than one public organizations are responsible for the same public service.
- If such examples can’t be provided or identified, we can change the multiplicity for cv:hasCompetentAuthotity to 1..1 in the next major release of the specification.
Comments
An example from the education domain:
Issuing a diploma is in some EU regulations considered a public service of a public (and private) institutions.
Several joint-degrees do exist where more than one Higher Education Institutions (in different Member States) together issue one diploma. An example is the diploma from the German French University, see here for more details: https://www.dfhi-isfates.eu/de/
Perhaps this could be solved at domain specific layer higher than the core vocabularies e.g. with extra relationships "issuingAuthority" or "obtainedAt" (https://github.com/SEMICeu/SDG-sandbox/issues/129#issuecomment-710008473).
Having one evidence issued by more than one institution in more than one Member State might sound like an edge case but to my understanding however should be kept in mind when drafting typical cross border data exchange between Member States.
If not taking into account - especially the early pan-European data exchange front runners will be "punished" for not fitting in the "a service is delivered by one institution in one Member State only logic"
Dear Mr. Sklarss, thank you very much for your input. We also received similar feedback from several other countries via email. Hence, the multiplicity for property will stay intact. We will, of course, communicate this decision at the next ABR Working Group meeting.
Best,
ABR Team