We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Current behaviour of pycsw for rel="xxx" of ogcapi item links is: if a link contains rel, then this link is taken
rel
https://github.com/geopython/pycsw/blob/3fefd4e7ac53346e21a259f437316ea97c3004c8/pycsw/ogc/api/records.py#L1236-L1241C11
Not sure how the value is populated (but that is a follow-up of this thread)
Recommendation 9 in https://docs.ogc.org/DRAFTS/20-004.html recommends to use a rel from https://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml
Is some mapping required between link types used in for example iso19139/dublin core to these ogc-api types?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
How does ISO 19115 deal with link relations? Or does it still deal with gmd:protocol per se?
gmd:protocol
We have to verify this behaviour in -3, at which point we can decide on our plan in pycsw (via update to geolinks.
Sorry, something went wrong.
No branches or pull requests
Current behaviour of pycsw for rel="xxx" of ogcapi item links is: if a link contains
rel
, then this link is takenhttps://github.com/geopython/pycsw/blob/3fefd4e7ac53346e21a259f437316ea97c3004c8/pycsw/ogc/api/records.py#L1236-L1241C11
Not sure how the value is populated (but that is a follow-up of this thread)
Recommendation 9 in https://docs.ogc.org/DRAFTS/20-004.html recommends to use a rel from https://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml
Is some mapping required between link types used in for example iso19139/dublin core to these ogc-api types?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: