GeoDCAT-AP [PR]: Responsible Party Roles - RDF mapping

Published on: 14/09/2015


This issue has been reported by Jan Hjelmager.



Draft 6 of the GeoDCAT-AP specification, in its Annex II.16, lists the proposed mappings for responsible party roles, taking into account only widely used vocabularies.

In order to avoid the use of “N/A” in the mapping from ISO 19115/ISO 19139 and INSPIRE Metadata Regulation to RDF, Jan rises that it could have been useful to map two or more ISO 19139 roles into one RDF mapping in some cases, for example, using a comment. Table contains too many roles (according to INSPIRE Metadata Regulation) that only are covered by “N/A”.

Related issues






Mon, 14/09/2015 - 23:41

stijngoedertier (not verified)
Mon, 21/12/2015 - 22:29

A many-to-one mapping for responsible party role was proposed to the WG by Andrea Perego as an "option 1" in:

A summary of the discussion is in:


The conclusion boils down to keeping the (incomplete) syntax bindings for GeoDCAT-AP core profile.

For the GeoDCAT-AP Extended profile, the mapping is complete: the PROV Ontology can be used in combination with the controlled vocabulary for responsible party roles. See Annex II.16 in GeoDCAT-AP Draft 7.