[md-tg-2.0] Message for test of C.19 (bounding box) unclear

[michellutz]

Relevant for /inspire-eu-validation/ets-repository/blob/md-tg-2.0/metadata/2.0/common/ets-md-common-bsxets.xml

The message reported for a correctly specified bbox is unclear and should be replaced by (+/-) the same message as used in the test for v1.3:

This test checks if the metadata record has a valid geographic extent, expressed as a geographic bounding box with four coordinates (westBoundLongitude, eastBoundLongitude, southBoundLatitude, and northBoundLatitude). In addition, the bounding box shall be as small as possible. This requires a manual check.

This test case only applies to records with a hierarchyLevel value 'dataset' or 'series'.

The test checks if:

• a correctly formatted westBoundLongitude is given at gmd:westBoundLongitude/gco:Decimal
• the following constraint is fulfilled: -180.00 ≤ westBoundLongitude ≤ 180.00
• a correctly formatted eastBoundLongitude is given at gmd:eastBoundLongitude/gco:Decimal
• the following constraint is fulfilled: -180.00 ≤ eastBoundLongitude ≤ 180.00
• a correctly formatted southBoundLatitude is given at gmd:southBoundLatitude/gco:Decimal
• the following constraint is fulfilled: -90.00 ≤ southBoundLatitude ≤ northBoundLatitude
• a correctly formatted northBoundLatitude is given at gmd:northBoundLatitude/gco:Decimal
• the following constraint is fulfilled: southBoundLatitude ≤ northBoundLatitude ≤ 90.00

It could also be considered to split the automatic from the manual test into two test cases.

Please find below:

• MD record and test Report: MD_record+TestReport.zip
• Assertion URI: http://vap-inspire-sandbox.jrc.it/etf-webapp/v2/TestRuns/EID882e3bed-234a-48bc-baf9-aa289a79e912.html?lang=en#EID5f09f21b-62aa-4ce1-af1f-2677716c6582

[PaulaRodrigo-Geograma]

The description of the test message has been simplified.

The option of removing the manual part has not been considered, taking into account the general structure that each requirement of the technical guide corresponds to a specific test to be checked, the ratio is 1 to 1. But it can be discussed.

[michellutz]

The option of removing the manual part has not been considered, taking into account the general structure that each requirement of the technical guide corresponds to a specific test to be checked, the ratio is 1 to 1. But it can be discussed.

I think this is a more general discussion for the 2017.4 sub-group. I will tag the issue accordingly.

[IGNCNIG]

We think that if it is technically feasible, It is a goog idea to ckeck both.
Beyond this, we have a question: How would you automatically check the bounding box is as small as possible?

[thijsbrentjens]

As discussed: separating the manual checks would be nice. This gives a checklist to the editor / dataprovider. I think it is important to keep the manual checks, some things can't be tested (reasonably) automatically, but are important to check.

[MarcoMinghini]

[2017.4 meeting 2018-11-15] it is advisable that manual tests are kept separate.