1. Register federation exchange format
MIWP-6 meeting #10 9 December 2015

2. Different interpretations
Register (= concept scheme) is defined by its definition/intention (“intensional” interpretation), i.e. by the kind of items it holds
Everyone can assert that an element belongs into the register
No problem to declare that an additional value (e.g. a CLC value) belongs to a central INSPIRE register (as long as it meets the definition of the register (items))
Register (= concept scheme) is defined by the set of items it contains (“extensional” interpretation)
Being included in a register means that the governing body endorses the item to be used in their context/application
Only the governing body can assert that an item belongs into a register
Additional values (e.g. a CLC value) can not be declared to belong to a central INSPIRE register by the extending organisation

3. Proposed interpretation
Register (= concept scheme) is defined by the set of items it contains (“extensional” interpretation)
Being included in a register means that the governing body endorses the item to be used in their context/application
The intension of a register content should be declared through the item class
Consequences for the exchange format
No inScheme relationships between additional values and the register being extended
Dependencies between registers to be expressed through voaf:reliesOn
How to express the item class of a register?