Pripomienky ČR

  1. We recommend the mandatory use of the existing European recommendation DCAT-AP for all metadata of all HVDS. In the presentation, a “*.csv document” is mentioned in the metadata field and it is unclear what that means. Without this requirement, the metadata will not be interoperable and the datasets will not be findable.

  2. We recommend all HVDS to be cataloged in the European Data Portal in a DCAT-AP compatible fashion which allows potential consumers to easily find all datasets published by individual member states for each HVDS. For instance, to easily find all “Companies ownership” datasets from all member states, e.g. by developing a code list of HVDS and making it mandatory to tag the datasets in DCAT-AP using this code list. Without this, the datasets will not be findable.

  3. We recommend the mandatory use of existing ISA2 Core Vocabularies where applicable, especially in the Company and company ownership datasets, and the development of new ones where they are missing now so that they can be made mandatory to use. Without this, the resulting data will not be interoperable.

  4. Wherever the presentation suggests multiple formats to be recommended, we would recommend just one, which would increase interoperability of the published datasets. Without this requirement, when each member state chooses a different format (RDF, JSON, XML, GeoPackage, …) for a certain dataset, the potential consumers will not be able to integrate the data.

  5. Where there is no existing standard, we recommend the one data format and schema to be RDF based, which would ease the interoperability of the published datasets.

  6. We recommend the specification of data schemas for the chosen data format for each HVDS and the development of proper dataset documentation. In addition, we recommend mandatory validation of the published datasets from each member state using those schemas. Without this, it will not be possible to easily use the published datasets in a cross-border scenario.

  7. The identified licenses and terms of use are too broad to be applicable in each member state. For instance, in the Czech Republic, it is not enough to simply choose “CC-BY 4.0”, and more aspects of the copyright law need to be addressed.

  8. Regarding documentation and structure – we recommend requiring a single data structure for each identified dataset, accompanied by single documentation applicable to the dataset, as published by each member state instead of allowing each member state to publish the dataset in a different data structure, accompanied by different documentation. In the European setting, this would make the dataset not interoperable, and almost impossible to integrate and use.

  9. We recommend mandatory identification of all data entities in all HVDS using persistent IRIs, in accordance with the Linked Data principle. Without this, the datasets will not be interoperable.

  10. For statistical datasets, we recommend that all statistics are published in RDF, using the RDF Data Cube Vocabulary, SKOS, and XKOS.

  11. We recommend that all HVDS are available both as bulk downloads and via uniform APIs described by the OpenAPI specification.

  12. We recommend that the machine readability of statistical datasets be mandatory. Without this, there will be no value in publishing the datasets.

  13. It is unclear what the .000 format in the Electronic Navigational Charts HVDS is.

  14. Regarding the geospatial data transformation costs – we recommend that member states establish automated data transformation processes, which can later run with minimal maintenance costs, to avoid yearly data transformation costs, which suggest repetitive manual work.