scope 2.0

[stansmith907]

"scope" implements MD_Scope which is a new class used in many other classes throughout -1. Definition: "the target resource and physical extent for which information is reported".

Definitions:

• "scopeCode": "target resource covered".
• "scopeDescription": "detailed description/listing of the items specified by the scope".
• "scopeExtent: "information about the horizontal, vertical and temporal extent of the resource specified by the scope."

Changes:

1. "scopeCode" is a required element of type MD_ScopeCode. This was the only element in the mdJson 1.0 implementation.

{
   "scope": {
      "scopeCode": "MD_ScopeCode",
      "scopeDescription": [
         {
            "see": "scopeDescription 2.0"
         }
      ],
      "scopeExtent": [
         {
            "see": "extent 2.0"
         }
      ]
   }
}

see ISO XML example useConstraint -3.xml

[jlblcc]

Can we change scopeDescription to:

"scopeDescription": [
    {
        "type": "dataset|attribute|feature|other",
        "description": ""
     }
]

Type can be an enum, if necessary. Or we can leave as free-text with codelist and handle in the writers.

[stansmith907]

The scopeDescription object has been changed as suggested.

[stansmith907]

I also changed the roleExtent to timePeriod as per the discussion on issue #52.

[stansmith907]

If we follow ISO the following would become our scope object. Now the we have it out-of-the-way of resource and associated with constraint, lineage, source, processStep, and maintenance scope becomes a means of limiting or constraining the block to a subset of the total resource. Note: scope is an array only in maintenance. We could probably get by with making this a single object.

Let me know if you agree and are on board with changing scope to the following.

{
   "scope": [
      {
         "scopeCode": "MD_ScopeCode",
         "scopeDescription": [
            {
               "dataset": "",
               "attributes": "",
               "features": "",
               "other": ""
            }
         ],
         "sourceExtent": [
            {
               "see": "extent 2.0"
            }
         ]
      }
   ]
}

[jlblcc]

I'm fine with this.

[jlblcc]

One question. Does it make sense to have scopeDescription as an array?

[stansmith907]

Not entirely, just being loyal to ISO. However with the array I can see the potential to group attributes and features to a dataset.

[jlblcc]

What makes me question that is the use of plural attributes and features.

[jlblcc]

Shouldn't that be scopeExtent?