Supporting material for the working group (WG) meeting: Presentation.

This WG meeting gathered 21 participants from 11 Member States (MS) and different EU institutions. 

Objective of the working group was to present the Status of solutions: BRegDCAT-AP and reusable open source tools, learn about their implementation in Member States, and dicuss the proposed changes for BRegDCAT-AP (Stable version v2.00) and collect new change requests.

Status of Solutions

1. No changes to Release v2.00 – Stable version: Available on Joinup, Solution: ABR – BRegDCAT-AP

Reuse in 2020 by:

• SDG / TOOP architecture: Data Services Directory
• Norway: DCAT-AP-NO

2. BREG DCAT practical example:

An RDF model with a data sample as a practical example on how BRegDCAT-AP specification works. Available on Joinup. 

Reuse of solutions in Member States

Two member States presented the use cases – Greece and Norway. These two showcases will be very useful to everyone who is in the process of analysing potential implementation of BRegDCAT-AP and wondering what type pf support the ABR Team can provide.

Greece: BRegDCAT-AP implementation in the sector of education

 Presented by Mr Bourmpoulias, Senior Personnel Officer, Department of Business Administration, University of Macedonia, Directorate of Secondary Education of Chalkidiki

The presentation outlined the process of implementation of the tools, what was the rationale behind the choice of BRegDCAT-AP and BRegDCAT-AP tools, as well as the benefits that these tools brought to the community.

Presentation is available here.

Q: There were several question regarding SHACL validation and correction of the errors and the ABR Team explained that Interoperability Testbed should be contacted in order to follow up on this issue.

Norway : Norwegian experiences with using BRegDCAT AP

Presented by Mr. Yang, Norwegian Digitalisation Agency

The presentation explained what was the Norwegian data catalog and the Norwegian needs, how to assess whether the dataset is reusable in the specific case, as well as the reasoning behind choosing BRegDCAT AP, adapting it to the local needs and experiences with using it.

Presentation is available here.

Open discussions

Change management :

ABR Team presented the proposed changes (editorial changes, controlled vocabularies to be used, other changes) which were unanimously accepted during the meeting. All proposals are available in the supporting presentation.

Action: ABR Team will implement all agreed changes and report on its progress in the Joinup Collection, in the change management log.

Comment regarding a decision to use Eurovoc + Themes NAL:

Comment: Norway - If only Eurovoc is used we will fail when we publish on European data Portal.

Comment : Publication’s Office - All three vocabularies are used, not only Eurovoc. Eurovoc is not mandatory, considering that although it is very rich and good, for some publishers can be too articulate.

Decision: state clearly in usage note which vocabulary is mandatory and which one recommended in the Specification. Eurovoc should not be mandatory, but  recommended.

SHACL definitions:

Inconsistency between the PDF version of the specification and the SHACL definitions. Updates in BRegDCAT SHACL spec (v2.00) available on GitHub here.

BRegDCAT Validator

Hosted by the ISA² Interoperability Test Bed (ITB).

Comment : Norway – It would be good to give inputs on SHACL either on Joinup or on GITHUB.

Decision : Issues function on GitHub could be used for any new suggestions. Additionally, any issues regarding SHACL shapes reported on GitHub will be also checked with the Interoperability Testbed team. Results wil be published online, sot hey are visible to everyone.

What's next

• Implementation of decisions of today’s meeting.
• Deep analysis if the full alignment of BRegDACT-AP with DCAT-AP v2.0.0 in order to see what are the differences, and what changes need to be done.
• Continuous work with Member States. It is very appreciated if any useful information is shared and experience exchanged, because this will help a lot in the future development and maintenance of BRegDCAT-AP & BREG DCAT Open Source Tools.
• Development of the Feasibility Study on European Registry of Base Registries, for which, again, it is important to receive information from member States regarding Registry of Registries.

 

Stay tuned for the next working group meeting!