Quality/completeness check of the Proposal for changes to TG / inconsistencies in IR
|Status:||Closed||Start date:||24 Mar 2016|
|Priority:||Normal||Due date:||15 Apr 2016|
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).
#3 Updated by Marie Lambois over 4 years ago
- File ThematicClusterErrors.xlsx added
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
- File INSPIRE_MIG_Mineral4EU_Codelist_comments_UK.docx added
- File IR_Inconsistencies_Proposal_Changes_TGs_comments_UK.docx added
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).