MIWP-Action #2128

MIWP-6: Registries and registers

Added by Lorena Hernandez Quiros about 5 years ago. Updated over 2 years ago.

Status:ClosedStart date:01 Jan 2014
Priority:NormalDue date:
Assignee:Michael Lutz% Done:

100%


Description

Issue:

Member States need to build registries to implement INSPIRE (and use the central INSPIRE registers). A technical guideline should explain how to build them, how to extend central INSPIRE registers and how to link national registers/extensions to the central INSPIRE registry.

The priorities for the further development (functionality and content) of the central INSPIRE registry should be discussed between the EC and the MS. Possible topics include:

  • Support for registration of mapping between code lists
  • Support for registration of extended models and code lists
  • Inclusion of updated feature concept dictionary (incl. Annex II+III)
  • Agreement on how to address CRS register in INSPIRE

Proposed change or action:

  • Develop technical guidelines and Best Practices explaining how to build registries and how to link them to EU registry.
  • Provide requirements and set priorities for the development of the central INSPIRE registry and underlying Re3gistry software
  • Test new releases of mainly the service (and possibly the software) and provide feedback
  • Set-up a test-bed for connecting national registries to the central INSPIRE registry
  • Set-up a registry of registries that contains metadata for registries and registers in the Member States
  • Define procedures and decision-making rules for a control body for the INSPIRE Registry (with the possibility to form a separate sub-group if needed)

Organisational set-up:

Form a MIG sub-group including MIG representatives and experts from the PoE

Outcomes:

  • Development roadmap (functionality and content) for the central INSPIRE registry.
  • Updated version of the central INSPIRE registry
  • Technical Guidelines on how to set up registries and registers for INSPIRE (including connecting to the central INSPIRE registry), covering topics such as versioning, http URIs (while interacting with groups working on this topic elsewhere in the MIF)
  • Testing instances of the INSPIRE registry deployed in different participants’ organisations

Possible funding:

  • ARE3NA (for registry development, testbed)
  • MS funding (for registry development, testbed)

ToR_MIG_temp_sub-group_registers_and_registries_revision_Nov2015.docx (119 KB) Michael Lutz, 22 Nov 2015 12:55 pm

History

#1 Updated by Michael Lutz almost 5 years ago

  • Tracker changed from Task to MIWP-Action

#2 Updated by Michael Lutz over 4 years ago

  • Status changed from Submitted to Work in progress
  • Start date changed from 10 Mar 2014 to 01 Jan 2014
  • % Done changed from 0 to 30
Status 2014-09-04:
  • This task is documented on the INSPIRE registry wiki
  • An initial workshop was held on 22-23 January 2014 to define the scope and workplan for this task (see INSPIRE Registry Workshop 22-23/1/2014 Presentations and Draft Minutes of the Workshop)
  • Terms of reference for a temporary MIG sub-group have been developed (#2123). The work of the sub-group is planned to start in Septemeber 2014.
  • A JRC study investigating different aspects relevant for registry federations (between MS and EU-level registries) is planned for autumn 2014.
  • The development of the central INSPIRE registry and the underlying Re3gistry software (funded through the ARE3NA ISA action) are progressing well (see the dedicated registry development wiki)
  • Until 15 September, interested stakeholders are invited to test and provide feedback on the candidate release 4 of the INSPIRE registry service and of the v0.4 release candidate of the Re3gistry software.

#3 Updated by Michael Lutz over 4 years ago

  • Status changed from Work in progress to Endorsed

#4 Updated by Michael Lutz about 4 years ago

  • Description updated (diff)
  • Progress since the last meeting:
    • The work on use cases progress and is now documented in a chapter of the draft guidelines for registers and registries
    • Initial ideas for the information model and API of the register of registers (RoR) have been discussed
    • The register federation testbed is now planned in 2 (maybe 3) phases
      • Phase 1: RoR-related use cases (regsistering/retrieving extensions)
      • Phase 2: register item use cases (retrieving register items in the extensions and extended registers) 
      • Phase 3: Advanced use cases (to be decided)
  • Tasks/deliverables planned for the next month(s):
    • Initial set-up of the RoR (phase 1)
    • Work on further chapters of the guidelines
      • Information/conceptual model of the RoR
      • Federation architecture
      • APIs
      • Encoding
  • Overall status: behind schedule
    • the work on use cases and the testbed set-up should have been completed by end of April
    • the 1st draft of the TG is due end of May
  • Risks or issues for discussion in the MIG-T:
    • lack of resources in organisations planning to participate in the testbed

#5 Updated by Michael Lutz almost 4 years ago

  • Progress since the last meeting:
  • Tasks/deliverables planned for the next month(s):
    • Initial set-up of the RoR and test instances for the register federation testbed
    • Work on further chapters of the guidelines
      • Information/conceptual model of the RoR
      • Federation architecture
      • APIs
      • Encoding
  • Overall status: behind schedule
    • the work on use cases and the testbed set-up should have been completed by end of April
    • the 1st draft of the TG should have been delivered end of May
  • Risks or issues for discussion in the MIG-T:
    • lack of resources in organisations planning to participate in the testbed
    • only very few real-world test cases for register extensions

#6 Updated by Michael Lutz almost 4 years ago

  • Progress since the last meeting:
    • work on specifications for "register of registers" and testbed set-up (at JRC)
  • Tasks/deliverables planned for the next month(s):
    • Initial set-up of the RoR and test instances for the register federation testbed
    • Work on further chapters of the guidelines
      • Information/conceptual model of the RoR
      • Federation architecture
      • APIs
      • Encoding
  • Overall status: behind schedule
    • the work on use cases and the testbed set-up should have been completed by end of April
    • the 1st draft of the TG should have been delivered end of May
  • Risks or issues for discussion in the MIG-T:
    • lack of resources in organisations planning to participate in the testbed
    • only very few real-world test cases for register extensions

#7 Updated by Michael Lutz over 3 years ago

  • Progress since the last meeting:
    • work on specifications for "register of registers" and testbed set-up (at JRC and EEA)
  • Tasks/deliverables planned for the next month(s):
    • Initial set-up of the RoR and test instances for the register federation testbed
    • Work on further chapters of the guidelines
      • Information/conceptual model of the RoR
      • Federation architecture
      • APIs
      • Encoding
  • Overall status: behind schedule
    • the work on use cases and the testbed set-up should have been completed by end of April
    • the 1st draft of the TG should have been delivered end of May
  • Risks or issues for discussion in the MIG-T:
    • lack of resources in organisations planning to participate in the testbed
    • only very few real-world test cases for register extensions

#8 Updated by Michael Lutz over 3 years ago

  • Status changed from Endorsed to Work in progress
  • Progress since the last meeting:
    • work on prototype of the "register of registers" (JRC)
    • proposal for an exchange format for the register federation (EEA)
  • Tasks/deliverables planned for the next month(s):
    • Initial set-up of the RoR and test instances for the register federation testbed
    • Work on further chapters of the guidelines
      • Information/conceptual model of the RoR
      • Federation architecture
      • APIs
      • Encoding
  • Overall status: considerably behind schedule
    • the work of the sub-group should be completed at the end of 2015
    • the roadmap will be discussed in the upcoming MIWP-6 meeting on 30 Oct, including whether to propose to the MIG-T to extend the timeframe for the sub-group and/or re-scope the action
  • Risks or issues for discussion in the MIG-T:
    • lack of resources in organisations planning to participate in the testbed
    • only very few real-world test cases for register extensions

#9 Updated by Michael Lutz over 3 years ago

  • Progress since the last meeting:
  • Tasks/deliverables planned for the next month(s):
    • Further discussion and testing in the testbed of the SKOS-based exchange format
    • Addition of further examples from ELF and GeoSmartCities projects
    • implementation of the search use case
  • Overall status: considerably behind schedule
    • the work of the sub-group should be completed at the end of 2015
    • In the meeting on 30 Oct, it was agreed to propose to the MIG to extend the deadline to 30/06/2016 and to scope down the tasks of the group to work on the RoR prototype and federation testbed (including documentation). In June, there should then be a discussion in the group and with the MIG-T whether the planned guidelines are needed in addition and whether the group should keep working.
  • Risks or issues for discussion in the MIG-T:

#10 Updated by Michael Lutz over 3 years ago

  • Progress since the last meeting:
    • updated prototype of the "register of registers" (RoR) available at http://inspire-regadmin.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ror/
    • addition RoR content based on extensions from the ELF and GeoSmartCities projects and EIONET
    • further agreement on SKOS-based exchange format for registers
    • new proposal for a registration/harvesting mechanism and exchange format for registry metadata
  • Tasks/deliverables planned for the next month(s):
    • Further discussion and testing in the testbed of the proposed exchange formats and registration/harvesting mechanism
    • implementation of the search use case
    • Collection of FAQs
  • Overall status: according to (new) schedule
  • Risks or issues for discussion in the MIG-T:
    • none

#11 Updated by Michael Lutz over 3 years ago

  • Progress since the last meeting:
    • updated prototype of the "register of registers" (RoR) available at http://inspire-regadmin.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ror/
    • draft exchange formats for registries and registers (incl. example files)
    • mockup of implementation of the registration/harvesting mechanism in the RoR
  • Tasks/deliverables planned for the next month(s):
    • Test the current proposals for the exchange formats in a small testbed until mid March (progress and issues encountered are documented in issue #2684), including the following activities
      • JRC to finalise the specifications / requirements to be met by registry/register providers (Registry federation requirements)
      • Register providers to implement exchange files for several registers/code lists as well as a registry descriptor listing these registers
        • Volunteers: Heidi (LandCoverClassValue and BuildingNatureValue extensions from ELF), Christian/Michael N (LandCoverClassValue and possibly other extensions from the EEA), Chris/Kathi (LandCoverClassValue from UBA AT), maybe GeoSmartCity project(BuildingNatureValue)
      • JRC to implement the upload and harvesting functionality in the RoR
      • Register providers to test the upload and harvesting functionality in the RoR and provide feedback on issues encountered (bugs to be fixed, specification to be improved, ...)
    • Collection of FAQs
    • Update of Re3gistry software to support the agreed requirements for register federations (in ARE3NA)
  • Overall status:
    • according to (new) schedule
  • Risks or issues for discussion in the MIG-T: 
    • none

#12 Updated by Michael Lutz about 3 years ago

  • Progress since the last meeting:
    • Testbed for the exchange formats
      • Example files were prepared by DK, ES and EEA.
      • All files validated ok using the validation tool provided by JRC.
      • Documentation and requirements updated based on feedback from testbed participants.
    • Specification for the harvesting functionality of the RoR, focused on the "searching and browsing extensions" use case.
  • Tasks/deliverables planned for the next month(s):
    • JRC to implement the upload and harvesting functionality in the RoR
    • JRC to specify and implement the search use case in the RoR
    • Collection of FAQs
    • Update of Re3gistry software to support the agreed requirements for register federations (in ARE3NA)
  • Overall status:
    • according to (new) schedule
  • Risks or issues for discussion in the MIG-T: 
    • none

#13 Updated by Michael Lutz almost 3 years ago

Progress since the last meeting

  • Updated documentation and requirements updated based on feedback from testbed participants.
  • Implementation of the harvesting functionality of the RoR
  • Implementation of the "searching and browsing extensions" and the "search" use cases.
  • Some questions proposed for FAQ section

Tasks/deliverables planned for the next month(s)

  • Testbed participants to test RoR functionalities and adapt examples to updated requirements
  • Elaborate answers and collect further FAQs

Overall status: 

according to (new) schedule

Risks or issues for discussion in the MIG-T: 

  • Should the action be prolongued in order to create "proper" guidelines?

#14 Updated by Michael Lutz almost 3 years ago

Progress since the last meeting

  • Draft Best Practices & TG document for MIWP-6-internal review
  • Work started on including basic support for the register federation descriptor formats in the Re3gistry software

Tasks/deliverables planned for the next month(s)

  • Review and finalise the Best Practices & TG document for MIG-T review
  • Release v1.3 of the Re3gistry software with basic support for the register federation descriptor formats

Overall status: 

  • slightly behind schedule (due to the decision to create a "proper" TG/BP document)
  • document should be ready for MIG-T review in September

Risks or issues for discussion in the MIG-T: 

  • In the MIG-P meeting, a question was raised whether support for the Re3gistry software and the INSPIRE registry service will be continued also after the completion of the work of the MIWP-6 sub-group. JRC will continue to provide this support. Is it necessary to include this (and other "infrastructure support") as an explicit action in the MIWP 2016-2020?

 

#15 Updated by Michael Lutz over 2 years ago

  • % Done changed from 30 to 90

Progress since the last meeting

  • Draft Best Practices & TG document finalised and submitted to MIG-T review (#2853)
  • v1.3 of the Re3gistry software includes basic support for the register federation descriptor formats and references to externally governed items (to be published in October)

Tasks/deliverables planned for the next month(s)

  • Draft document describing roles and procedures for the central INSPIRE registry (control body, submitting organisations, ...)

Overall status: 

  • slightly behind schedule (due to the decision to create a "proper" TG/BP document)

Risks or issues for discussion in the MIG-T:

  • Draft document describing roles and procedures for the central INSPIRE registry (at the next MIG-T meeting)
  • How to deal with externally managed code lists in the data harmonisation process (at the next MIG-T meeting)

#16 Updated by Michael Lutz over 2 years ago

Progress since the last meeting

  • Draft document describing roles and procedures for the central INSPIRE registry (control body, submitting organisations, ...) submitted to MIG-T for discussion at the face-to-face meeting
  • Discussion paper on handling externally governed code lists submitted to MIG-T for discussion at the face-to-face meeting

Tasks/deliverables planned for the next month(s)

  • none

Overall status: 

  • The sub-group has completed all tasks foreseen in the ToR (with a slight delay)

Risks or issues for discussion in the MIG-T:

  • none

#17 Updated by Michael Lutz over 2 years ago

  • Status changed from Work in progress to Closed
  • % Done changed from 90 to 100

Progress since the last meeting

  • All deliverables of the sub-group have been completed
  • The ToR for submitting organisations and control body of the central INSPIRE registry and register federation have been endorsed by the MIG in its meeting on 30/11-1/12, pending a scrutiny reserve from France and published at http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/id/document/tor/registry-control-body-and-submittingorganisations
  • The BP & TG document has been completed taking into account all comments from the MIG-T review. It will now be submitted to the MIG for endorsement by 28/02/2017. The documents are available at issue #2853

Tasks/deliverables planned for the next month(s)

  • The JRC will publish shortly calls for nominations/expression of interest for the INSPIRE registry control body and submitting organisations

Overall status

  • The work of the action/sub-group has been completed.

Risks or issues for discussion in the MIG-T

  • none

Also available in: Atom PDF