MIWP-7b: Extension of Download Service Technical Guidelines for Web Coverage Services (WCS)
The attached documents propose
- an updated description of action MIWP-7b: Extension of Download Service Technical Guidelines for Web Coverage Services (WCS) (Action_description_MIWP-07b_for_MIG-T+P_review.docx)
- the corresponding draft Terms of Reference (ToR) for a temporary MIG sub-group (ToR_MIG_sub-group_download_service_for_coverages_MIWP-7b_for_MIG-T+P_review.docx)
- the prioritisation schema for the action (Prioritisation_schema_MIWP-7b_for_MIG-T+P_review.docx)
Comments are welcome from MIG-T and MIG-P until 15 April 2015.
The comments will be incorporated into the documents by 22 April 2015.
The MIG-P will be asked for endorsement of the proposed action by 30 April 2015.
#1 Updated by Michael Lutz over 5 years ago
please provide feedback on the proposed documents for action MIWP-7b: Extension of Download Service Technical Guidelines for Web Coverage Services (WCS) as comments to this issue by 15 April.
The comments will be incorporated into the documents by 22 April 2015. The MIG-P will be asked for endorsement of the proposed action by 30 April 2015.
Michael (on behalf of Jukka and the MIWP-7b "drafting group")
#3 Updated by Christina Wasström over 5 years ago
- File Action_description_MIWP-07b_for_MIG-T+P_reviewSWE.docx added
- File Prioritisation_schema_MIWP-7b_for_MIG-T+P_reviewSWE.docx added
- File ToR_MIG_sub-group_download_service_for_coverages_MIWP-7b_for_MIG-T+P_reviewSWE.docx added
After sending these documents to the Swedish stakeholders I got a few inputs that is marked in yellow and/or as a comment in the attached versions of the documents.
#4 Updated by Daniela Hogrebe over 5 years ago
Please find attached one comment on the prioritisation schema (section 2a).
#5 Updated by Alex Ramage over 5 years ago
- Description updated (diff)
The UK have looked again at the issue of including within the remit, data specifications that do not strictly inherit the coverage type in their models as the download technical guidance describes/will describe methods that may be applicable in different ways to the same specifications and clearly WCS is applicable to data specifications that do not formerly inherit the coverage type..
In fact we think that Habitats and Biotopes HB might be added to the core list as :
NOTE The HabitatsAndBiotopesDistribution application schema could be encoded using a coverage model (ISO 19123). However, a feature based encoding is proposed, since there is a lack of mature implementations that support multi surface coverages. When implementations will exist, it is recommended that the proposed default encodings are revised within the framework of INSPIRE implementation and maintenance.
So the expectation here we think is that in the long term coverages would be preferred over features; our feeling here is that we should include HB in the scope of the Extension of Download Service TG document, because such inclusion would help to move forward the goal of software support.
Also EF could be in the core list as:
There appears to be more than the data spec template content on coverages in this document, but no specific set of data is targeted as having to be delivered (or preferred to be delivered) as a coverage. Instead we think the expectation is that some data may be in scope, for example section 22.214.171.124. Default encoding(s) for application schema Environmental Monitoring Facilities specifically mentions:
TG Requirement 7 If the format used for encoding the coverage range also includes information about the coverage domain, this information shall be consistent with the information encoded using the GML Application Schema for Coverages.
We suggest as well as referring to HB and EF above adding a second paragraph to the document along the lines of
Other data specifications such as 'Sea Regions' whilst not mandating data should be provided as coverages, would benefit from consideration within these guidelines.
This will enable the group to discuss if these Data specifications (and others) should be core or not.
#6 Updated by Michael Lutz over 5 years ago
- File Action_description_MIWP-07b_for_MIG-P_endorsement.docx added
- File ToR_MIG_sub-group_download_service_for_coverages_MIWP-7b_for_MIG-P_endorsement.docx added
- File Prioritisation_schema_MIWP-7b_for_MIG-P_endorsement.docx added
We receiced feebback from three senders:
- Christina Wasström: documents , , and 
- Daniela Hogrebe: document 
- Alex Ramage: document 
 Action description
I integrated all the comments from Christina and Alex. Daniela suggested to lift the prioritization of 2a: The action will make a necessary technical adjustment or fixes a known deficit or bug from “No” into “High” but I left is as it was because I believe that it is not *necessary* to add the WCS alternative.
The final documents are attached. I will send the to the MIG-P and ask for endorsement of the proposed action by written procedure by 30 April 2015.
#7 Updated by Jari Reini over 5 years ago
- Progress since the last meeting:
ToR, Action desciption and priritisation schema sent out to MIG-P
- Tasks/deliverables planned for the next month(s):
- waiting for endorsement by MIG-P
- Call for experts
- Overall status:
- not started yet
- Risks or issues for discussion in the MIG-T:
#8 Updated by Michael Lutz over 5 years ago
- File Summary_MIG-P_endorsement+comments.xlsx added
Dear Jukka, all,
please find attached the overview of the endorsement votes from the MIG-P representatives. The proposal was unanimously accepted. Congratulations!
We only received two comments:
- Sweden: WCS 2.0 is still a very young standard, and not supported very well by WCS clients and servers. For two-dimensional datasets, WCS 1.x implements all needed download operations, with much better software support. WCS 2.0 will add slicing/subsetting operations in multidimensional datasets, as well as on-the-fly server-side processing of raster data. We believe that these are not the most common use cases. Therefore, we don’t see the benefit of already now adopting the probably still evolving WCS 2.0 standard for INSPIRE. This will likely delay the process of implementing INSPIRE compliant raster download services. We would rather use WCS 1.0 for INSPIRE now, and adopt WCS 2.0 later when it is more mature.
- Finland: We propose to add one outcome: Analysis of the impacts (e.g. costs) of implementing the updated Technical Guidelines.
My proposal would be to accept the latter as an additional deliverable.
For the Swedish comment, I am not so sure. The question of whether to base the TG on WCS 1.0 was discussed at the workshop last October, and there was general agreement that we should go for WCS 2.0. However, it might be an option to explicitly include a section in the TGs with the discussion on the most appropriate WCS version(s) on which to base the TGs. That would mean including a task analysing the appropriateness of the different standard versions (including a discussion on implementation support).
What do you think?
Jukka, could you make a draft for a final version of the documents taking into account the comments?
#9 Updated by Jukka Rahkonen over 5 years ago
- File Action_description_MIWP-07b_draft-final.docx added
- File Prioritisation_schema_MIWP-7b_draft-final.docx added
- File ToR_MIG_sub-group_download_service_for_coverages_MIWP-7b_draft-final.docx added
Please find attached the draft-final versions of MIWP-07b documents.
- Prioritisation schema: no changes
- Action description: status lifted to Endorced, analysis of impacts added as a new outcome
- ToR: analysis of impacts added as a new outcome, state-of-play review widened to cover older WCS versions
I consider that member states have given a strong endorcement to base the work on WCS 2.x as suggested in the documents. Especially I do not believe that WCS 1.0 version could fulfill the needs for all INSPIRE coverages, although it could handle simple raster downloads. However, support of existing software is indeed valuable and we should do the the state-of-play review well. Even with the current wording of ToR we have not tied our hands to accept only WCS 2.0 in the final technical guidelines.
#10 Updated by Michael Lutz over 5 years ago
I agree to the updates proposed by Jukka. We should only add "... and solutions based on the deprecated WCS standard versions" to the proposed change or action part of the action description as well, to make it consistent to the ToR.
Any further comments? Or can we launch the call for participation for the sub-group?
#11 Updated by Michael Lutz over 5 years ago
Late endorsement from Greece:
Hope is not too late to endorse proposal, it is a good work you have done.
Please select one of the following options:
[x] Action endorsed
[ ] Action endorsed with comments
[ ] Action not endorsed with comments