MIWP-16 11th web meeting
|Status:||Closed||Start date:||07 Dec 2014|
As 15/12 is a milestone in the development of the dashboard (availability of the harvesting and export to monitoring XML functionalities), we should have a meeting in order for François to present the product and try to answer any technical questions you may have.
Please provide your availability at http://doodle.com/gshr3neaw9ryzhiq
#1 Updated by Francois Prunayre over 5 years ago
Based on the answers to the doodle, the meeting is scheduled for Wednesday 17/12 14:00-15:30 CET.
1. Approval of agenda
2. Review and approval of the minutes from the Copenhagen meeting
3. Progress report on the dashboard prototype
#2 Updated by Paul Hasenohr over 5 years ago
- Description updated (diff)
- % Done changed from 0 to 40
Please find below the connection details for the meeting.
1. Connect to http://ec-wacs.adobeconnect.com/miwp-16_webmeeting/
2. Choose “Enter as a guest” and enter your name and country, e.g. “Adam Smith (UK)”
3. Accept the disclaimer
4. In the prompt, select "Dial in to the Audio Conference via Phone" and note down your 4-digit identification code at the bottom of the text box: "Once joined to the audio, identify yourself: Press *65*xxxx# on your phone."
5. Click "Done"
6. Dial your Local or International Access Number (available from http://www.meetingone.com/eu_eg/Access_Numbers)
7. Enter the MeetingOne Conference Room Number: *1323039#
8. Press *65*xxxx# on your phone (using your 4 digit identification number from step 4 - you can also find your identification code by selecting the "Dial-in details" in the information icon in the top right-hand corner).
9. Follow any voice prompts
#6 Updated by Ilkka Rinne over 5 years ago
I'm sorry to say that I'm not able to join the meeting today due to other pressing top-priority work with conflicting schedules.
I've skimmed through the progress report, and looks ok by me. I have a question about the Ancillary information submission implementation: How does it work in current version (API or using an UI?) and how to you plan to have it tested?
#8 Updated by Paul Hasenohr over 5 years ago
Unfortunately I cannot attend today's meeting (I have to take care of my second daughter [1 week old] this afternoon) therefore I have asked François to run it. I will be able to send the information you mention during the last week of December. I wish I would have done it earlier but I simply ran out of time.
#11 Updated by Daniela Hogrebe over 5 years ago
- File MIWP-16_minutes_20141216_dh.docx added
Thanks to Francois for the draft minutes. I put in some minor changes and one comment on the validation issue (see attached file).
I am not sure if we already have concluded the discussion on this point. Thus, from my point of view the question remains on how we will derive (automatically) the information about metadata conformity in the dashboard without using a validator?
#12 Updated by Ine de Visser over 5 years ago
- File MIWP-16_minutes_20141216_dh-IdV.docx added
Thanks for the minutes and best wishes for all!
I agree wirh Daniela, I am not sure if we already have concluded the discussion on the point of metadata validation. From my point of view we recognised two options on how we will derive (automatically) the information about metadata conformity in the dashboard. The use of the INSPIRE validator with the possibility to change its's results in the XML tooling or the use of other validation services on metadata in stead off the INSPIRE metadata validation service.
#13 Updated by Marc Leobet over 5 years ago
- File MIWP-16_minutes_20141216_dh-IdV_LBT.doc added
I think that we could have to come back to this question as I could have not the same understanding than Ine. I recall my arguments in the minutes (back to the ToR).
I understand that the first option in Ine comment ("use of the INSPIRE metadata validator with the possibility to edit the results in the XML tooling") is not a part of the core development for the dashboard but a future (and very welcomed) option.
Firstly, many MS (as FR) do not use XML report. Secondly, at least up to a consensual agreement about MIWP-5 results and a commonly agreed INSPIRE validator, to use its own validator or an other (including JRC's one) is not in the scope of MIWP-16.
It could be an answer to Daniela comment : the choice of validation method is out of our scope. More or less, we have all (I guess) a way to estimate or compute metadata, datasets ans services validation.
#14 Updated by Daniela Hogrebe over 5 years ago
In my understanding in the scope of MIWP-16 it is to facilitate and automize the monitoring process based on metadata. So our first step was to investigate how the required monitoring information could be derived from metadata. We then recognized that not all of the required monitoring information is derivable from metadata. Thus, we need other methods to gain the information on conformity of metadata, geographical coverage and use of services. So, in my opinion we did not discuss validation methods we discussed (and still discuss) methods to obtain the required information to operate the monitoring in an easy (automized) way. From my point of view we have the following options:
- leave all indicators that could not be derived from metadata out of the dashboard (in the case that it is not used for the official monitoring submission)
- adress this issue to MIWP-8 to find solutions for including the missing information in metadata
- make a proposal to change the monitoring and reporting decision (adaption of indicators)
- define other ways to gain the missing information
- conformity of metadata: use validator or add manually
- geographical coverage: add manually or ?
- use of services: add manually or ?
However, in Germany we will not use the dashboard for the official monitoring submission, we will use our national registry client. Thus, we will not add any information manually for over 20.000 data sets and services through the dashboard. For me the dashboard should operate full-automatically based on discovery services.
#15 Updated by Marc Leobet over 5 years ago
Thanks to Daniela to draw the way we made together. I share it and her conclusions.
The only point is that FR computes the conformance of medata inside FR infrastructure, and we are in position to send automaticaly to the dashboard these indicators. So, for us, these indicators are not a problem. Please read my former comment under that light : which validator to include for compliancy evaluation is not in our scope, but the necessity to have one could be in.
From the firsts minutes, I understood that we would have to drop geographic coverage and uses of services and make proposal to change the monitoring and reporting decision, isn't it?
By the way, a discussion during the next physical meeting would be welcomed.
#16 Updated by Paul Hasenohr over 5 years ago
With respect to the validation of the metadata, it has been agreed at our last physical meeting in Copenhagen to use the JRC validator with a threshold of 75% for the time being. This agreement is in the file dashboard_fit_requirements.xlsx which can be found in the meeting's ticket (#2222).
For official monitoring, nothing would prevent a reporter unhappy with the results of the JRC validator but still wanting to base his/her reporting on the content of the dashboard to do the following:
- export the XML from the dashboard,
- edit it in his/her favourite editor or in the online application developed by EEA so that all/more of the records of his/her MS are declared conformant,
- upload the new XML as official submission for monitoring.
I hope that this addresses some of the concerns raised.