Consultation #2739

Quality/completeness check of the Proposal for changes to TG / inconsistencies in IR

Added by Michael Lutz over 4 years ago. Updated about 4 years ago.

Status:ClosedStart date:24 Mar 2016
Priority:NormalDue date:15 Apr 2016
Assignee:Robert Tomas


Dear MIG-T representatives,

In the attachment you will find a consolidated proposal for changes to the INSPIRE technical documentation and list of inconsistencies found in the Implementing Rules for interoperability of spatial data and services (IR_Inconsistencies_Proposal_Changes_TGs.docx). There is also an additional document (INSPIRE_MIG_Mineral4EU_codelist.xlsx) that is only related to the changes proposed for the Mineral resources code lists.  

The Proposal was prepared by the facilitators of the INSPIRE Thematic clusters, MIWP-14 members, some additional MIG-T members (e.g. Benoit David, FR) and has been consolidated by the INSPIRE EC+EEA team.

As agreed during the MIG-T meeting in Rome we would like to ask you for the completeness / clarity check of the proposal.

Please add comments, additions and further clarifications as a comment below, indicating the number of the issue in the document.

We are expecting country-based responses by 15 April 2016 (COB).

INSPIRE_MIG_Mineral4EU_codelist.xlsx (154 KB) Michael Lutz, 24 Mar 2016 01:58 pm

IR_Inconsistencies_Proposal_Changes_TGs.docx (443 KB) Michael Lutz, 24 Mar 2016 02:00 pm

IR_Inconsistencies_Proposal_Changes _TGs_SE.docx (547 KB) Christina Wasström, 08 Apr 2016 02:19 pm

ThematicClusterErrors.xlsx (11.3 KB) Marie Lambois, 15 Apr 2016 10:53 am

INSPIRE_MIG_Mineral4EU_Codelist_comments_UK.docx (27.2 KB) Alex Ramage, 15 Apr 2016 11:10 am

IR_Inconsistencies_Proposal_Changes_TGs_comments_UK.docx (28.6 KB) Alex Ramage, 15 Apr 2016 11:10 am

IR_Inconsistencies_Proposal_Changes_TGs_DE.docx (449 KB) Daniela Hogrebe, 15 Apr 2016 02:27 pm


#1 Updated by Christina Wasström over 4 years ago

Here are few proposals that already been sent to Robert, see comments in the attached document

#2 Updated by Lenka Rejentova over 4 years ago

There are no comments from the Czech Republic.

#3 Updated by Marie Lambois over 4 years ago

General : To provide quick entry to thematic experts we had to design a general table to be able to select the issue concerning their themes. Table is enclosed as it might be useful for others. Some comments below:

Issue number: 1 to 23 : Impacted themes and documents are not written in bold letters.

Issue number: 28 : Reason for change is not clear. Please precise it.

Issue number:  29 : The picture talks about modelling it as an association but then it is suggested to make ShoreSegment a datatype which is not the same thing. Please harmonize

Issue number: 43 : It is not clear why the change of reference would change the extensibility of the codelist. Please explain why the extensibility should be changed.

Issue number: 70 : Is it really related to TN theme and not US ?



#4 Updated by Alex Ramage over 4 years ago

The Uk has some comments that are identified in our attached comments report.

The proposed text for Imagery encoding needs to be re-written by someone who is expert in TIFF and/or JPEG2000.  We can tell it’s wrong, but we can’t tell (and therefore explain) what it’s supposed to say! See issue 69.


Issue 72 is just wrong – the problem & solution refer to different parts of the document (9.4.1 vs 9.4.2).


 Alex Ramage


#5 Updated by Daniela Hogrebe over 4 years ago

Please find some German comments (mainly editorial) in the attached document.

#6 Updated by Michael Lutz about 4 years ago

  • Status changed from Work in progress to Closed

This MIG-T consultation has been completed.

Also available in: Atom PDF