ABR WG Highlights - September

ABR WG Highlights - September

Published on: 20/09/2019
News

The third working group meeting was held on 16th September 2019 (14:00 CEST). Fifteen participants, representing public and private organisations, attended the teleconference, participating actively in the discussions.

After a round of introductions, the chair of the meeting presented the status of the work of the group and introduced the open issues to be discussed during the meeting. Most of the participants took part in the discussions, as summarised below.  

Discussion on Issue #2: isAuthoritative property:

  • In order to include a way to describe that a piece of information is authoritative, three options were discussed:
  1.     A new property for Data Elements with a Literal range (boolean)
  2.     Reuse of dct:conformsTo
  3.     Reuse of dqv:hasQualityAnnotation and dqv:QualityPolicy
  • Two different approaches in the discussion. Option 1 is a pragmatic solution, easy to implement and useful for national base registries. Option 3 is more flexible and covers the ambiguity of ‘isAuthoritative’.
  • Ana Rosa (ES) commented that the concept of isAuthoritative is considered always the same in the base registries context.
  • Peter W mentioned that option 3 enables the description of the context for authoritativeness (timeframe and provenance).
  • No consensus on this topic since two members went for option 1 and two members for option 3.
  • As a next step, the group will try to collect a universal definition of 'is authoritative’ that could serve to cover all the use cases.

Discussion on Issue #05: Content of Datasets Description

  • Two proposals were discussed:
  1. The Belgian vocabulary that includes two new classes: DataSource and DataElement
  2. Using hasPart to break down Datasets into atomic Datasets
  • Ana Rosa mentioned the need to see concrete information in the datasets. Not only the theme, nor the schema, the data.
  • The Belgian model includes concepts to identify the type of data (e.g., Persons with email, first/last name, etc.).
  • Peter W. reminded that dcterms:conformsTo may be used to describe the conformance of a record, not only the technical schema, so it could be a solution for that. Gabrielle (IT) liked this idea.
  • Peter W.: dct:Standard is defined in [DCTERMS] as "A basis for comparison; a reference point against which other things can be evaluated." The target resource is not restricted to formal standards issued by bodies like ISO and W3C. In this context, it is any resource that specifies one or more aspects of the cataloged resource content, for example, schema, semantics, syntax, usage guidelines, file format, or specific serialization. The meaning of conformance is determined by provisions in the target standard.
  • No consensus reached on this point. So, the next step is getting some examples of the use case Ana Rosa mentioned. So we can continue to find the proper model to represent it, either using dct:conformsTo or using other ways.

Discussion on Issue #06: Quality of Datasets

  • The proposal of DiFi (NO) was presented. Properties and classes to define the quality of the data (completeness and standards compliance).
  • Interest in using quality properties to describe the data, but not clear what kind of quality variables the specification should include.
  • ABR team will include a proposal for data completeness.

What's Next?

The working group has not reached consensus on these open issues.

Therefore, we are inviting you to share with us and the group your local use cases and requirements, via posting in a comment under related discussion on Joinup - Issue #2, Issue #05, Issue #06 - or sending us via email to our email address: ABR@trasysinternational.com.

We propose this approach in order to arrive to a final decision about the most suitable solution, which could include more than one option.

As a reminder of the scope of this work, the specification aims at covering all types of base registries in Europe, and serving MS as a data model for creation or alignment of their registry of registries to it, as well as, for the work on potential European Registry of Registries in the future.

Our next meeting will be held by the middle of October, to summarise the work on the specification and endorse the data model.

On the 9th of October, the work will be presented in a public ABR Webinar on Framework on Base Registry Access and Interconnection.

We are looking forward for your feedback!

Shared on