- 11th meeting of the MIG permanent technical sub-group (MIG-T)
- FINAL Minutes
- Welcome and approval of the agenda
- Minutes of the previous meeting
- Maintenance and implementation work programme (MIWP)
- Review of 1st year MIG-T work and working methods
- MIG-T processes
- Status MIWP-8
- The French Metadata Guidelines
- A controlled vocabulary for Inspire (VocInspire)
- Seminar series on national INSPIRE implementation
- INSPIRE Conference / GWF 2015
- MIWP-5: Validation and conformity testing - Status and planning
- Status MIWP-18a: Annex I XML schema updates
- Status MIWP-14: Call for facilitators of thematic clusters
- Status MIWP-6: Registers and registries
- Discussion on required work on identifiers
- The Danish Geodata Agency's approach to modelling Basic Data using INSPIRE's framework and data models
- Proposal for a sub-group/action on communication
- Proposal for a work item on "technological developments - status and challenges"
11th meeting of the MIG permanent technical sub-group (MIG-T)¶
Tuesday, 30 September - Wednesday, 1 October 2014
108 Cannon Street
Call for agenda items and presentations: #2167
Tuesday, 30 September
9:00 - 17:30
- Welcome and approval of the agenda (Michael Lutz)
- Minutes of the previous meeting (for discussion and agreement) (Michael Lutz)
- Maintenance and implementation work programme (MIWP)
- De-briefing MIG-P meeting (Michael Lutz, other attendees) [Slides: 20140930_MIWP.pptx]
- Planning of work for endorsed actions
- How to improve the sharing of implementation experience and best practices
- Review of 1st year MIG-T work and working methods (all) [Slides: 20140930_MIG-T_review.pptx]
- working procedures (meetings, discussions, work programme, ...)
- tools (collaboration space, ...)
- active involvement of MIG-T members
- funding of MIG-T activities
- MIG-T processes (Christina Wasström) [Slides: 20140930_MIG-T_processes.pptx]
- When and who will make the open call for a temporal sub-group?
- Who will QC documents within a sub-group?
- Who will make decision regarding changes (e.g. extra or changed issues according to ToR)?
- Structure and naming policy (e.g. were to upload different files, naming of temporal sub-groups)
- Status MIWP-8 (Kjell Horth)
- Impact of new ISO 19115-1 standard (Christina Wasström)
- The French Metadata Guidelines (Marc Leobet) [Slides: Leobet_London_Metadata.ppt]
- A controlled vocabulary for Inspire (VocInspire) (Benoit David) [Slides: 20140930_vocinspire.ppt]
- Seminar series on national INSPIRE implementation (Michael Lutz, Christina Wasström) [Slides: 20140930_INSPIRE_implementation_seminar_series.pptx, 20140930_Swedish_SDI.pptx]
Wednesday, 1 October
9:00 - 16:30
- INSPIRE Conference / GWF 2015 (Michael Lutz, all) [Slides: 20141001_INSPIRE-GWF_2015.pptx]
- MIWP-5: Validation and conformity testing - Status and planning (Carlo Cipolloni) [Slides: attachment: ...]
- Status updates (Michael Lutz)
- MIWP-18a: Annex I XML schema updates
- MIWP-14: Call for facilitators of thematic clusters [Slides: 20141001_Thematic_clusters.pptx]
- MIWP-6: Registers and registries (incl. discussion around extensions in MS and thematic domains - Darja Lihteneger)
- Discussion on required work on identifiers
- Identifier namespace register (Michael Lutz, Markus Seifert)
- Outcomes of the ARE3NA study (Robin Smith) [Slides: 20141001_ARE3NA_RDF+PIDs_study.pptx]
- Proposals for work on identifiers (Emilio López Romero)
- The Danish Geodata Agency's approach to modelling Basic Data using INSPIRE's framework and data models (Heidi Vanparys, Lars Storgaard) [Slides: Danish eGov Strategy and Basic Data, Common Model Rules_Danish Geodata Agency.pptx]
- Proposal for a sub-group/action on communication (Michael Lutz) [Slides: 20141001_Proposal_MIG_communication.pptx]
- Proposal for a work item on "technological developments - status and challenges" (Arvid Lillethun) [Slides: 20141001_MIG-T_techreport_proposal.pptx]
- BAR CAMP SESSION (cancelled)
- Conclusions and next steps
- Next physical meeting
The minutes are based on the notes taken by the scribes ...
Where "+1" is used in the minutes, this is to indicate support for the position of the previous speaker.
Actions are indicated in the minutes using the keyword [Action] and are summarised in the table below. This table includes also open actions from previous meetings (up until action 60).
|4||Propose working methods, procedures and tools||EC||2013-11-30|
|23||Propose members for a sub-group on XML schema maintenance||MIG representatives||2014-02-07|
|26||Share relevant events with the group||all||continuous|
|40||Investigate whether JRC can transfer collected detailed issues to Redmine||JRC||2014-03-28|
|41c||Publish the Redmine Tutorial on the wiki||JRC||2014-04-24|
|41d||Open an issue on Redmine on ensuring that all metadata that should be harvested are actually harvested, to discuss if anything needs to be changed or added to the current harvesting procedure.||JRC||2014-04-30|
|41j||Send suggestions of good examples of web sites to Karen||All||2014-05-30|
|41k||Set up a communication sub-group||JRC||2014-05-30|
|42||Investigate how openly accessible issue trackers can be made available (in Redmine?) for consulations and open discussions||#2163||JRC||2014-06-30|
|44||Send the ELF list of issues to the MIG / register them in the MIG issue tracker||Christina (SE)||2014-06-15|
|49||Share the engineering report with the MIG-T||OGC||2014-07-31|
|53||Propose agenda topics for face-to-face meeting||#2167||all||2014-09-26||x|
|54||Provide comments on ToR for MIG sub-groups||all||2014-09-05||x|
|55||Incorporate comments received for all ToR and launch call for experts||Task leaders||2014-09-12||x|
|57||Inform MIG representatives when the OGC wiki page on INSPIRE goes live||JRC||when available|
|58||Discuss and propose how to align the "Monitoring and Reporting" ToR to the new template||EEA||2014-09-15||x|
|59||Propose a structure in Redmine for collecting good practices for INSPIRE end-to-end implementation||Alex Ramage and Michael Lutz||2014-09-15|
|60||Propose good practices for INSPIRE end-to-end implementation||all||continuous|
|61||Include a section in the MIWP on the standard tasks of the MIG-T and MIG-P, including the sharing of good practices||JRC||next MIWP version|
|62||Set up doodle polls for the next physical meeting and a regular slot for the virtual meetings||Next f2f meeting
Regular meeting slot
|63||Develop a proposal for simplifying Redmine and Redmine MIG instructions||#2231||JRC & EEA||2014-11-15|
|64||Investigate if a combination of phone and PC-audio can be used with AdobeConnect||Michael||2014-10-10||x|
|65||Investigate whether a mailing list archive can be set up||Michael||2014-10-20|
|66||Prepare an overview of possible communication topics, audiences, channels and plans||EEA||2014-11-15|
|67||Update MIG flowchart in the ToR to reflect distinction of issues and actions||JRC||2014-10-31|
|68||Describe process for setting up MIG temporary sub-groups in some sort of guidance||JRC||2014-11-15|
|69||Propose consistent naming of MIWP actions||Michael||2014-10-10||x|
|70||Develop instructions on how to use Redmine specifically for the work of the MIG and present these in a (recorded) web-conference||#2231||JRC & EEA||2014-11-30|
|71||Make suggestions for improvement or specific questions on how to do certain MIG tasks with Redmine||#2231||all||2014-10-31|
|72||Update the MIG ToR to allow also MIG members to participate in sub-groups||Michael||2014-10-31|
|73||Highlight the boilerplate text in the ToR template for temporary sub-groups||#2164||Michael||2014-10-10||x|
|74||Launch call for participation for MIWP-8 sub-group||#2229||Michael L & Michael Ö||2014-10-10||x|
|75||Indicate possible dependencies with other actions in the MIWP-8 ToR/work plan||Michael Ö||2014-10-31|
|76||Organise a seminar on national INSPIRE implementation||JRC, ES, SE||2014-11-15|
|77||Send around more details on the format and the selection procedure for the INSPIRE Conference/GWF 2015||#2242||JRC||2014-10-15|
|78||Provide information on ELF "distance hackathon"||ELF project members||2014-10-10||x|
|79||Open a redmine issue and organise a separate call, if necessary, to collect proposals for planned MIG-related submissions||#2242||JRC||2014-10-15||x|
|80||Launch call for participation for MIWP-5 sub-group||#2228||Michael L & Carlo Cipolloni||2014-10-10||x|
|81||Suggest experts for NS+MD validation workshop||#2225||all||2014-10-13||x|
|82||Discuss possible ELF support to Annex I schema testing||JRC & Anja Hopfstock (ELF)||2014-10-15||x|
|83||Organise a call for sample Annex I datasets that have already been implemented with the old schemas||JRC||2014-10-20|
|84||Organise a call/webinar to discuss the open issues on Annex I schemas||JRC||2014-10-20|
|85||Propose ToR for a subgroup around GML||Michael||2014-10-20|
|86||Make available TG code list values in an Excel table; provide translations||JRC, all||2014-10-20|
|87||Launch call for participation for MIWP-6 sub-group||Michael||2014-10-20||x|
|88||Draft an update of the action description for MIWP-4a (and if appropriate the ToR for a sub-group)||EEA||2014-10-31|
|89||Share ARE3NA deliverables on Best practices on RDF and PIDs||JRC||2014-10-15|
|90||Share DK and NO Enterprise Architect models||Heidi, Arvid||2014-10-31|
Welcome and approval of the agenda¶
The agenda was approved without changes.
Minutes of the previous meeting¶
Michael mentioned that he added the list of open actions from the Arona meeting to the action lists. There were no other comments and the minutes were adopted in their current version.
Maintenance and implementation work programme (MIWP)¶
Michael presented the comments received during the consultation with the MIG-P and the outcomes of the discussion at the MIG-P meeting on 15 September. He highlighted that the different MIWP actions are at different stages in the life-cycle of an action. Several countries had asked for further updates of the MIWP before it could be endorsed. In the MIG-P meeting the EC stressed the importance to have a solid basis for the work of the MIG-T and MIG sub-groups.
It was therefore agreed in the meeting as a compromise to endorse at least those actions that are currently on-going or have a work plan and/or terms of reference for a temporary sub-group. It was also agreed that future updates of the MIWP should only add actions if they are well described (including their expected impact and associated risks as well as a well-defined work plan and terms of reference for a sub-group). Detailed criteria for such additional description criteria will be elaborated by the MIG-P.There were several questions about which actions were included or excluded from the list of endorsed actions. Michael confirmed that
- action MIWP-14 (thematic clusters) was endorsed by the MIG-P and that the preparations are progressing with the facilitators selected and the kick-off meeting planned for the 13-14 October
- MIWP-4 (identifiers) was not (yet) endorsed, because there is no clear work plan / terms of reference for a sub-group yet
- MIWP-7a (SOS-based download service) was endorsed, but 7b (WCS) and 7c (TJS) would still need to be further elaborated, but that the workshop on WCS-based download services will still take place (14-15 October) to define the task more precisely
- MIWP18 was split into two sub-action, 18a (Annex I schema updates), which was endorsed, and 18b (XML schema maintenance process), which still needs to be further elaborated (e.g. the ToR for a GML sub-group are yet to be defined)
- (Added by Marc Leobet) The others priorities endorsed by MIG-P were:
- MIWP-2: Create and maintain FAQ page
- MIWP-5: Validation and conformity testing
- MIWP-6: Registries and registers
- MIWP-8: Update of Metadata TG
- MIWP-10: Update Annex I data specifications
- MIWP-16: Improve usefulness and reliability of monitoring information
- MIWP-21: Pilots for INSPIRE-based applications (including for e-reporting)
Alex R asked what the timescale was for the WP (e.g. is it a two-year programme?). One of the ways to prioritise actions is to identify those actions that support the data harmonisation deadline in 2017. He suggested that actions should be analysed for this and the dependencies between them.
Marc suggested that priority criteria are important and that the list of priority actions is already long. He agreed that additional actions could be added, but that we need to be conscious of the limited resources. He suggested not to launch other groups until the MIG-P work on governance and long-term objectives has proposed prioritisation criteria. He stressed that the EC should invite MIG-P volunteers to work on these topics.
Michael emphasised that one important goal of the MIG is the sharing of good practices, which can include topics that are not currently priorities for all countries but may become important in coming years. He stressed that we should not lose opportunities from the work on-going in some countries. He suggested that the MIG-T should take actions to pursue this goal more actively, so that the INSPIRE conference does not remain the only occasion at which good implementation practices are being shared.
Marc agreed that the conference should not be the only way to share good practices, also because it is often painting a (too) rosy picture and instead we need to know about real issues and solutions. Webinars could be good for this purpose, including discussing the state of play of certain subjects with specific people/specialists. Christina agreed that webinars would be a good solution (as they are done e.g. in Eurogeographics KENs) because they allow discussing with real experts, also to keep up-to-date. She also mentioned that the Nordic countries also organise webinars in English. Michael suggested that these and other similar events should be shared with the wider INSPIRE community (if technically possible).
Alex R suggested that, similar to the last INSPIRE conference, such webinars should be recorded and shared with the wider community. He also suggested that existing good practice could be cross-referenced with the MIWP.
Martin said that it is difficult to keep an eye on different tasks. He suggested that national INSPIRE sites could have specific pages for specific tasks pointing to the relevant resources in the MIG Redmine space. He also mentioned that Slovakia would be interested in hearing from other countries about plans for or difficulties with funding certain activities, including planned replies to European calls.
Arvid said that overviews of national work programmes could be helpful, but only if they are specific and grouped according to the actions in the MIWP or also thematically. Webinars need to be quite specific, too. Darja agreed that sharing work programmes may be interesting, but that sharing the real implementations based on national and cross-border projects would be even more important. She also emphasised the importance of MIWP-14 for the sharing of good practices in thematic domains.
Sulev suggested that countries should share their solutions and software used for INSPIRE implementation. Michael and Robin pointed out the relation to the (non-priority) action MIWP-15 and the planned work of the ARe3NA re3ference platform.
Emilio wondered whether the the translation of national guidelines, e.g. in Spanish, into English is worthwhile. Michael replied that in a first step such guidelines should be presented. It can then be discussed whether there is value in translating them and how this can be done and funded.
Paul agreed that sharing is important, but highlighted that only one of the original MIWP actions related to sharing made it into the list of endorsed actions. Sharing work programmes is important if we want to have some synergies, once priorities are established - the same topic, tool or service between countries can lead to savings by sharing information. Webinars are good if recorded and shared afterwards.
It was agreed that sharing good practices is part of the normal tasks of the MIG-T (and MIG-P), and that this should be explicitly mentioned in the MIWP. [Action JRC]
Marc asked how to identify a best practice. Would then MIG-P define guidelines for these? Michael clarified that the discussion should be about good practices, and that these should be seen as a list of examples, for other implementers to choose from - there should not be any formal endorsement.
Review of 1st year MIG-T work and working methods¶Michael initiated the discussion on the MIG-T work and working methods with a short presentation with observations and questions around the following topics:
- Working procedures
- Involvement of MIG-T representatives
The main feedback from the discussion are listed below according to these topics.
Arvid said that some of the working procedures were not entirely clear, e.g. when a sub-group is launched, what is the difference between an action and a (temporary) sub-group, what are the procedures for participation (registering, volunteering). He reminded that Norway already nominated a number of experts for specific actions in the MIWP but that they have not heard anything. Michael suggested to re-propose these experts when the actual call for participation / nomination for the sub-groups will be published.
On the question whether the MIG-T should discuss issues at technical level, there was general agreement that the intial discussion, scoping and definition of work plan should be done in the MIG-T, while the detailed technical discussions should be done in the dedicated temporal sub-group. Once the work is completed, it should then be presented again to the MIG-T for discussion and eventual endorsement.
Chistina proposed to plan dates of meetings well in advance and to fix a regular slot (e.g. last Thursday morning of every month) for the virtual meetings. Michael will set up doodle polls for the next physical meeting (around early March 2014) and a regular slot for the virtual meetings. [Action Michael]
Several participants felt that Redmine could be improved/simplified and that there should be clearer instructions on where to put what.
It was agreed that JRC & EEA would make a proposal for simplifying Redmine and for clearer instructions. This should then be presented and discussed at one of the next meetings. [Action Michael and Paul]
Alex R suggested that issues are initially raised only to one dedicated person, e.g. the leader of the relevant action, who then decides who to add as watchers to the issue (so that they receive notifications).
Participants felt that the web-/audio-conferencing facilities, while not perfect, were performing ok. It was agreed to try out at the next virtual meeting to not mute the participants' microphones to allow a more natural discussion. This would however mean that participants would have to mute their phones individually to reduce background noise. Michael will investigate if a combination of phone and PC-audio can be used with AdobeConnect. [Action Michael]
Michael stressed that the mailing list should be used by all to raise issues for discussion with the group (rather than sending messages individually to JRC). Paul asked whether there is an archive for the mailing list. Michael will investigate whether this can be set up. [Action Michael]
Involvement of MIG-T representatives
Emilio suggested to have an explicit vote on items/deliverables for which feedback is being asked. While this may seem over-formalistic, it forces respondents to at least answer and express an opinion. There was some discussion on whether this should be tried out in the MIG-T as well.
Robin suggested that for improving feedback on MIG-T outcomes / draft deliverables, a review group for deliverables could be set up already at the beginning of a task.
Christian reminded that a need for improved communication and coordination was among the main outcomes of the INSPIRE mid-term evaluation. He also suggested to define more clearly the scope, goals and target audiences of communication before thinking about the appropriate communication channels. He doubted whether the outcomes of the MIG-T work reaches the factory floor. The collaboration platform may be good for internal communication, but not very useful for external stakeholders.
Christian mentioned the "open data movement" as an example for a successful communication strategy. Alex R agreed that open data is easier to put forward than INSPIRE.
Darja noted that the MIG is not known enough outside and that it's unclear how implementers can get in touch. She sees a need to improve this bidirectional channel. Coordination activities done inside countries or thematically (especially in the discussion fora of the thematic clusters in MIWP-14), regionally and locally could help this effort.Upon a question by Martin, more than half the participants confirmed that they had communicated internally in their countries on the work of the MIG. Several representatives reported about how the MIG work is communicated and/or coordinated in their countries:
- UK (Alex R): The UK architecture and interoperability board is responsible for both MIG-P and MIG-T - they define INSPIRE infrastructure from the federated countries in the UK. Each country then pushes it to the factory floor... it’s getting there.
- DK (Lars): INSPIRE's role in e-Reporting for environmental Directives is important to explain the benefits of INSPIRE to the ministry of the Environment, e.g. pesticide directive, marine strategy framework directive, marine spatial planning. We talk of use cases, not cross-border but the window to explain benefits is open now.
- NO (Arvid): Communication about INSPIRE is part of the NSDI communication. Communication should focus not only on the data harmonisation aspect of INSPIRE; the other aspects (data sharing, documentation and access) may be more important. NSDI/INSPIRE data is used in many different places, but most of it is no harmonised.
- BE (Joeri): It is easier to communicate about INSPIRE as part of the "open data" discussions - "INSPIRE = 4-star open data"
- SE (Christina): Easier to sell "infrastructure" (which is seen as an asset) than "INSPIRE" (which is seen as a burden).
- SK (Martin): Activities for the OGP (Open Government Partnership) showed that some stakeholders were happy to provide endpoint from INSPIRE because it provided machine-readable content. This already helped with other expectations from e-government.
Paul suggested that we should focus in the MIG-T on better communication with the experts, but also on the involvement of SMEs. However, he also stressed that if we are not able to show those giving money that INSPIRE is providing something useful then the implementers will never get funding or time; therefore it might be nice to have examples of practical implementations for where INSPIRE is of use to business, ideally across countries. +1 by Carlo and Alex R.
Michel G was wondering whether communication should not be a joint activity of MIG-P and MIG-T.
The EEA volunteered to prepare an overview of possible communication topics, audiences, channels and plans as basis for a dedicated discussion at another meeting. [Action EEA]
MIG-T processes¶Christina opened the discussion with a short presentation with open questions around the workflow of an issue as described in the ToR of the MIG:
- Which issues need to go up to the MIG-P? What is a minor change?
- Who will make an open call for a temporary sub-group? When should this take place?
Michael clarified that a distinction should be made between MIWP actions and specific issues that are being addressed within one of these actions. Michael will update the flowchart to reflect issues and actions. [Action Michael]Michael clarified that the process for setting up a sub-group:
- Draft for terms of reference for a sub-group
- Ask for comments (so far from the MIG-T, but potentially also from the MIG-P)
- Once all comments have been taken into account, the MIG-T then adopts the sub-group in a meeting
- The leader of the task (or, on request, Michael) publishes a call for participation according to the procedure for setting up the group as specified in the ToR. In practical terms, this is done by opening an issue in the issue tracker and sending an e-mail to specific (or all) experts in the pool of experts.
Christina proposed to describe this process in some sort of guidance. [Action JRC]
A discussion then started on whether a temporary sub-group, once it has started, can decide on its own on changes in its scope or timing or whether this needs to be approved by the MIG-T and/or MIG-P. It was agreed that, in order to avoid scope creep and slipping deadlines, any change to the ToR that would mean an increase in scope or a time extension should be proposed by the sub-group to the MIG-T for endorsement. Instead of time extension, a decision could also be to reduce the scope and keep the same timing.
There was a further discussion on whether we needed to ensure document QA/QC, in particular regarding proper use of language. It was agreed that this should only be considered for developing/updating TG, less so for reports.
Open comments could be done on Redmine by country.
It was suggested to use consistent naming of sub-projects in Redmine, using the MIWP action number and a short name. Where there is a number of activities around the same topic (e.g. GML), several MIWP action numbers can be combined (11, 12, 18). Michael agreed to make a proposal. [Action Michael]
It was further suggested to develop instructions on how to use Redmine specifically for the work of the MIG, going beyond a simple How-To guide for Redmine in general. This could also be presented in a (recorded) web-conference and get feedback from participants. [Action JRC]
All are invited to make suggestions for improvement or specific questions on how to do certain MIG tasks with Redmine. [Action all]
Kjell summarised the final draft of the ToR for the sub-group to work on MIWP-8.There were a number of questions around the exact procedure for setting up sub-groups:
- Alex R brought up the issue that according to the MIG ToR, only experts from the pool of experts can participate in temporary sub-groups (and not MIG representatives). It was agreed to update the MIG ToR to allow also MIG members to participate in sub-groups (rather than having all MIG representatives register in the pool of experts). [ACTION Michael L]
- It was requested that MIG representatives be informed about applications from the pool of experts. Michael stated that all applications will be posted to the issue with the call for participation in Redmine and that the MIG will be informed through that process.
- It was requested to clarify the procedure for selecting/rejecting experts.
- The possibility to reject experts was introduced in the MIG ToR to prevent domination of sub-groups by industry representatives. The participants agreed that this is currently a theoretical case, and that unless a concern is raised by a MIG representative, the setting up of the group should proceed.
- Paul said a more likely scenario would be that there are too many candidates for a group or candidates without the required expertise; in this case the task leader should decide whether to ask the MIG-T for approval.
- Michael proposed to highlight the boilerplate text in the ToR template for temporary sub-groups. [ACTION Michael L]
- Alex R suggested to set up the group as soon as possible, so that Phase A can be completed in time. It was agreed to publish the call for participation as soon as possible with a final draft version of the ToR (to which still some minor changes could be made) and an initial deadline of 2-3 weeks, but to also accept late applications/nominations. A date for the kick-off meeting should be also fixed as soon as possible, maybe already to be announce in the call. [ACTION Michael Ö & Michael L]
- Theme specific metadata is in most cases DQ metadata and therefore based on ISO 19157. This is an example for possible dependencies between tasks planned for the A & B releases - these should be analysed.
- Metadata for monitoring may have a dependency with work in MIWP-16. Paul felt that this was planning and that the work of MIWP-16 should finish before the end of 2015 when the MD work should finish.
- There is also a potential overlap/dependency between the task on ATS for the Metadata TG and the work on validation (MIWP-5).
- Michael Ö should indicate possible dependencies with other actions. [ACTION Michael Ö]
- Marc suggested that there is a discrepancy between what is required in the MD Regulation on identifiers and what is stated in the TGs. So there may not a lot to do in the TGs.
Michael raised the question whether it was planned to hire an editor to turn the technical solutions found for each issue into easily understandable text or whether Michael Ö going to do this. It was agreed to add a requirement for funding for an editor to the ToR (including an estimate of the resources required) and to ask for proposals for suitable candidates.
The French Metadata Guidelines¶
Marc gave a presentation on the French metadata guidelines, which are now also available in English http://inspire-forum.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pg/blog/read/244973/inspire-metadata-for-dummies-the-french-guidelines-for-metadata-are-in-english. The French metadata for licenses focus on the use of recommended free-text keywords (eg. "open data") rather than licence types which are difficult to understand for end-users.
Martin stated that in SK many providers would like to keep their licensing framework and that he would like guidelines to help decide how to describe licences for datasets and services.
Arvid reported that in NO INSPIRE metadata is harvested by the open data portal in NO will harvest and that they would like a more standardised way for this in Europe. We should accept all licences, even if they do not follow standards. No has a metadata editor and guidance document.
Joeri indicated the problem that in ISO 19115 it is not possible to express that a data set is free for commercial re-use (for example). +1 by Marc.
Darja asked whether the licence work (MIWP-17) should stop completely since the action has not been endorsed. Michael clarified that this is not the case, but that it should be clearly argued for the remaining proposed actions why they should be included in the MIWP (using the additional prioritisation criteria to be defined by the MIG-P).
A controlled vocabulary for Inspire (VocInspire)¶
Benoit presented a vocabulary whose terms could be used in the INSPIRE metadata as additional keywords, which are more precise than just the INSPIRE theme, in order to improve discovery. The vocabulary is based on a combination of the INSPIRE themes, some application schemas (for complex themes like TN), feature concepts and some code lists (where these can be used to define more specific sub-concepts). Thanks to the labels available in the INSPIRE registry, all concepts can be presented in all languages.
It was proposed that Task L in MIWP-8 could explore this topic further. Michael pointed out that most of the information is already available in the INSPIRE registry and should not be duplicated. Rather we should discuss whether additional links are needed between the existing register items.
Martin stated he was planning to have functionality embedded in SK metadata editor.
Zhenya asked whether an API was planned. Benoit answered that the vocabulary was available in SKOS/RDF.
Seminar series on national INSPIRE implementation¶
Michael presented a proposal to have regular seminars about the national approaches to INSPIRE implementation focusing on e.g. organisational aspects, success stories, challenges and opportunities.
During the discussion the question was raised whether such seminars are necessary, because much of the information may already available in the 3-year reports. It was suggested by several people to rather focus on webinars on specific technical issues (as discussed in the morning). Also a possible overlap to the work of the thematic clusters (especially on technologies and examples of use of INSPIRE data/services) was pointed out.
Ultimately, it was agreed to try out the format as proposed - with a first presentation to be given by Sweden and Spain. [ACTION SE, ES, JRC]
INSPIRE Conference / GWF 2015¶
Michael reported that the deadline for submissions of abstracts and workshop/session proposals has been moved to 1 January 2015. Also the copyright statement will be less restrictive and use the Commission one.
A question was raised whether the selection process would be more strict because there will be fewer slots just for INSPIRE-related presentations. In this case this should be clearly communuicated, so that submitters can adapt their proposals accordingly. JRC will investigate this an send around more details on the format and the selection procedure. [ACTION JRC]
In the discussion, a number of topics were proposed, which are captured in the slides [20141001_INSPIRE-GWF_2015.pptx].
There was a proposal to also have a special issue of the International Journal on SDI Research. This will be discussed with the editors in JRC.
There was some discussion about the idea of a hackathon; however, getting a sufficient number of "hackers" to Lisbon for such an event was seen as a problem. ELF seems to be planning a distance hackathon that could be used as a model for organising such an event. ELF members should investigate this. [ACTION ELF members]
It was agreed to open a redmine issue and organise a separate call, if necessary, to collect proposals for planned MIG-related submissions. [ACTION JRC]
MIWP-5: Validation and conformity testing - Status and planning¶
Carlo presented the current state of the planning for the work in MIWP-5, including the ToR for the temporary sub-group and the work plan, which are available on Redmine (#2127). He also pointed out a draft document prepared by Peter Parslow on change management document (Draft Change Management process) and an initial list of existing validation tools).
It was agreed to publish a call for participation in the sub-group. Michael and Carlo will discuss the nomination deadline and a kick-off date. [ACTION Michael and Carlo] Already nominated experts should be confirmed once the call if published. Sulev suggested to add a saved search in Redmine for open calls, so that the related issues are easy to find and can be added to national portals.
Michael presented the planned technical workshop for NS+MD validation and the related call for validation experts and workshop facilitator (#2225). Michael clarified that this work is supporting some of the work items defined in MIWP-5 and that the focus on only 5 experts was deliberate to keep the group small to enable efficient discussions. In any case, the outputs will not be the final result of MIWP5, but just a starting point for further discussion in the sub-group. Joeri suggested to involve a Geonetwork experts in the workshpop. Tim felt that there may be a need for different experts for metadata and network service validation. Nominations are still welcome and should focus on technical experts that have been involved in the definition of national conformity tests. [ACTION all] The selection of experts (including the number) will then be discussed between JRC and the MIWP-5 lead.
Markus S asked if a similar workshop would be organised for the data specification testing. Carlo explained that the situation is different for DS, where we have ATS but no mature executable test and where different themes may require different tests. Markus S and Darja felt that still tools and methodologies could be shared, so a similar workshop could make sense. we should have a similar setup. It was agreed that for data, MIWP-5 will start with the planned pilot approach and, as more data testing solutions are emerging, to discuss about organising a similar workhop.
Status MIWP-18a: Annex I XML schema updates¶
Michael reported about the proposal for updating Annex I xml schemas to make them consistent with the latest IR amendment, which is based on the discussions in the GML workshop in May and a session at the INSPIRE conference. The main difficulty of the task is caused not so much by complexities of GML, but by the aspiration to make the new schemas backwards-compatible and not to break any existing implementations using the current schemas.
The proposal has been out for testing and feedback (on a number of open questions) until 15 September. The aim was to publish the new schemas as soon as possible, but have them thoroughly tested to avoid having to publish bug fixes afterwards. However, there has not been a lot of feedback - including from ELF, who have provided some feedback but not in a very structured form and mainly about issues with extending the schemas for their purposes.
Michael concluded that with the limited feedback the JRC is not confident enough to publish the new schemas and was asking for proposals on how further testing and feedback can be encouraged.The following suggestions were made in the discussion:
- Several participants mentioned that they wouldn't test schemas until they are officially published. Paul cautioned that publishing something that has not been tested could impact negatively on INSPIRE's reputation with software vendors.
- If lack of time or resources is the underlying problem, we should maybe pay a contractor to execute tests and report back.
- Extend the current call for comments and try to actively involve more stakeholders, including ELF and also the private sector (e.g. ETL software providers). There was some discussion between several participants involved in ELF whether it should be ELF's role to support INSPIRE in this case or whether it is purely an INSPIRE customer. JRC will discuss this point with Anja Hopfstock, who is the responsible WP leader in ELF. [ACTION JRC]
- Do a call for sample Annex I datasets that have already been implemented with the old schema, which could then be used (by JRC or a contractor) to do further tests. Several participants said that their organisations should be able to provide such sample data. [ACTION JRC, all]
- Organise a call/webinar to discuss the open issues - inviting the GML experts that have participated in the discussions so far. [ACTION JRC]
To have a more stable expert group on GML-related issues, Michael concluded that he would like to propose ToR for a subgroup around GML to the MIG. Debbie Wilson from OS would be interested in leading such a group. [ACTION Michael]
Status MIWP-14: Call for facilitators of thematic clusters¶
Michael presented the on-going activities for setting up the discussion platforms for the thematic clusters and announced that the following facilitators have been selected:
- Geology, Soil, Natural Risk Zones, Mineral resources, Energy resources (GE-NZ-MR-ER): Tim Duffy (EuroGeoSurveys)
- Land Use, Land Cover (LU-LC): Lena Hallin-Pihlatie (SE)
- Elevation, Orthoimagery, Geographical Grids, Reference Systems (EL-OI-GG-RS): Jorge Escriu (ES)
- Environmental Monitoring Facilities, Observations and Measurements (EF-OM): Alessandro Sarretta (IT)
- Agricultural and Aquaculture Facilities, Production and Industrial Facilities, Utility and Governmental Services (AF-PF-US): Angel Lopez Alos (ES)
- Geographical Names, Administrative Units, Cadastral Parcels, Addresses, Buildings, Transport Networks, Hydrography (GN-AU-CP-AD-BU-TN-HY): Anja Hopfstock (DE)
- Oceanographic Features, Sea Regions, Atmospheric Conditions and Meteorological Geographical Features (OF-SR-AC-MF): Keiran Millard (UK)
- Protected Sites, Area Management/Restriction/Regulation Zones and Reporting Units, Habitats and Biotopes, Species Distribution, Bio-geographical Regions (PS-AM-HB-SD-BR): Brian Mac Sharry (IE)
- Statistical Units, Population Distribution, Human Health and Safety (SU-PD-HH): Miroslaw Migacz (PL) [Miroslaw was only nominated after the MIG-T meeting]
The kick-off meeting will take place on 13-14 October in Ispra. It is proposed to establish a sub-group for the facilitators, where they can exchange information and discuss about their work in the different clusters. It was agreed that there should also be a MIG-T representative for each cluster, who acts as a liaison and regularly reports back to the MIG-T.The following participants volunteered as liaisons:
- GE-NZ-MR-ER: Marc Leobet (FR), Carlo Cipolloni (IT)
- LU-LC: Christina Wasström (SE)
- EL-OI-GG-RS: Markus Seifert (DE)
- EF-OM: Christian Ansorge (EEA)
- AF-PF-US: Paul Hasenohr (EEA)
- GN-AU-CP-AD-BU-TN-HY: Alex Ramage (UK)
- OF-SR-AC-MF: Michael Lutz (JRC)
- PS-AM-HB-SD-BR: Darja Lihteneger (EEA), Benoit David (FR), Martin Tuchyna (SK)
- SU-PD-HH: Michel Grothe (NL)
Darja asked whether the facilitators should be contacted directly for specific questions. Michael clarified that the discussion forums will be open to all interested users (after registration) and that it will not be up to the facilitator to answer all questions, but that this should be done by the community. It is the facilitator's role to encourage the use of the platform in the thematic communities and to consolidate issues, where appropriate, into concrete change proposals for the TGs.
It was also emphasises that it will be important to discuss how to coordinate with other thematic networks, like INSPIRE KEN.
Status MIWP-6: Registers and registries¶
Michael reported about the successful testing of the new candidate releases of the INSPIRE registry and Re3gistry software over the summer. Based on the comments the new release of the service has been published, and the new version of the software will be published soon. The new releases include new features and additional content in the registry. Notably, RDF encoding and versioning support have been added.
The sandbox testing instance will remain live and can still be used for testing the software without having to install it locally.
The next releases of the service and software will include support for csv export and the TG-recommended values of the code lists. Since the latter are only available in English, proposals for translations to other languages are welcome. JRC can make available the terms in an Excel table to support this. [ACTION JRC, all]
SK, ES, NO, FR and the ELF project indicated that they are interested in testing the Re3gistry software for setting up national/project-specific registers.
The ToR for the registry sub-group have been adopted in the last virtual meeting. Michael will publish a formal call for participation, including the already nominated/confirmed experts. The work could then start work in November. [ACTION Michael]
Michael also reported that at the end of September a small study started that will over the next 2 months look into the link between the central and national registries, including proposals on how to extend registers, an API, an exchange format and other organisational topics. These topics will then be picked up and further elaborated by the sub-group. Versioning will not be specifically addressed but could be raised as a topic. Martin suggested that it could be a functional requirement to synchronise the core and the extensions in the MS.
Michael clarified that tools for discussing about and accepting/rejecting change proposals will remain out of scope for the INSPIRE registry work. Other (off-the-shelf) tools, e.g. issue trackers, could be used for this purpose. He confirmed that funding for the registry development and maintenance is available for next two years.
Discussion on required work on identifiers¶
Michael opened the discussion, saying that while the topic of identifiers regularly comes up in different context, e.g. in the ARE3NA study on RDF & PIDs, in questions/presentations on the external object identifier namespace register and in discussions around e-reporting pilots, the scope of the proposed action on identifiers (MIWP-4) is still not very clear. This is why it was agreed in the MIG-P meeting that the action would need to be more clearly defined (including tasks and deliverables and timeframe), before it is endorsed in the MIWP. The elaborated description should also define which artefacts (that are identified by the ids) are included within the scope - i.e. to include ids for spatial objects (inspireId), real-world objects (thematic ids), values of properties (code lists) and/or elements of the data model (spatial object types, relationships, attributes)? He clarified that the scope of the group should be technical/organisational (how to manage ids) rather than discussions on the semantics of the objects identified by the ids (e.g. code list values) - these should be done in the thematic communities.
Emilio said that the action is important and urgent, because clear guidelines are needed now in order to support the transformation of data and because there are other initiatives going on in parallel (e.g. related to open data), and we should avoid ending up with two sets of identifiers. Arvid supported this view and added that the guidelines should address versioning and a methodology for maintenance of ids. Furthermore, there should be work on tools (e.g. registers) and a discussion whether these should be set up at national or European level. Darja said that work on spatial object and thematic identifiers was needed to support data providers in the transformation. She would also like to see a (central) register of namespaces or guidelines on how to manage them at the operational level by providers. This question often comes up in the alignment work in the e-reporting data flows - could a temporary register be set up?
There was a discussion on whether MIWP-4 is an urgent topic that should be added to the MIWP priority actions now. It was agreed that the MIG-T work should focus on aspects that are crucial for the deadlines coming up in 2017 (or already having passed). If MIWP-4 should be included, it should be clearly demonstrated why this task is relevant for the current implementation work (and the 2017 deadline). Paul said that MIWP-4 is a blocker for serveral MS and the EEA at least for PS, so it should be on the priority list.
To come up with a more precise action description, it was agreed to split MIWP-4 into 2 sub-actions: MIWP-4a: Identifiers and MIWP-4b: RDF encodings for INSPIRE. EEA (Paul?) volunteered to draft an update of the action description (and if appropriate the ToR for a sub-group). Martin, Benoit, Markus S, Zhenya, Joeri, someone TBD from Norway and Michael will contribute, (plus Michael as an observer). [ACTION EEA]
Martin asked for the ARE3NA deliverables on Best practices on RDF and PIDs to be shared. [ACTION JRC]
The Danish Geodata Agency's approach to modelling Basic Data using INSPIRE's framework and data models¶
Lars and Heidi presented the Danish eGov Strategy and Basic Data and the Common Modelling Rules and approach used by the Danish Geodata Agency.
Among other things, Heidi reported about their approach to create "flattened" XML structures for distributions, because complex XML is often not supported by clients. The flattened schemas are derived automatically from the UML model using the ShapeChange flattener, which supports a number of flattening options (e.g. for attributes with complex data types or a maximum cardinality > 1). Michael reported that flattening has also been discussed in the GML workshop in May. There, it was concluded that flattening should not be applied across the board, but that thematic communities should discuss if flattening is useful in their domain and what flattening rules to apply. They could then proposed a flattened schema as an alternative encoding. The work on flattening should also include the specification explaining how the flattened schema meets the requirements from the IRs.
Heidi further explained an approach for representing associations to other classes through derived attributes. ShapeChange is also used to generate the database schemas which are used as a basis for the WFS. The data transformation is then done inside the database using (materialised?) views because there are more staff with SQL expertise than with GoPublisher, FME or xslt experience.
She reported that are also plans to publish the data in RDF (through agency for digitisastion) as well as json and other formats in the future.
Emilio asked whether data from different agencies were aggregated in the distributor. Heidi said that all the agencies that have "basic data" are involved in the modelling exercise, and that also municipalities are involved. Lars said that there is an agreement between the national and local level in DK to implement the programme, not a law, but that there is also funding attached to it.
Emilio asked how data conflation is done between e.g. the transport network data coming from different municipalities. Alex said that INSPIRE did not require data conflation [NOTE There is an obligation under Art. 10(2) of the INSPIRE Directive for conflation between Member States, but interestingly not between data sets from organisations within the same Member State.] Emilio said that by providing 8000 individual transport network data sets from Spanish municipalities in compliance with INSPIRE, ES would meet its INSPIRE requirements but no user requirements. Alex felt that still this could make it easier for some company to create a national TN data set for Spain.
Alex asked if the Danish approach would also work in a federated setting, with multiple (rather than one central) data publishers. Lars said that there is a need for data being available at all times at high performance, for which the existing platform is not sufficient. Costs and benefits are well documented. The Basic Data programme aims at making the public setor more efficient. Solutions are not in the scope of the strategy. Arvid reported about a similar twofold strategy in NO: Large organisations can set up their own distributions, and the geoporatl will have a central data base delivering the rest of the information. With agreements between local and central levels we can have cost efficiency gains via the geoportal, which would serve not only as a metadata portal but also for distribution.
Some participants were interested in the Enterprise Architect model, and DK is willing to share this. Avrid said the Norwegian model was also available. [ACTION Heidi, Arvid]
Marc and Benoit propose to study the conformity of such flattened schemas with the regulation.
Proposal for a sub-group/action on communication¶
Michael presented a proposal for an action and temporary sub-group on communication, which were proposed in the Arona meeting in April. Since communication was discussed at length on Day 1, it was agreed to include this proposal as input to overview of possible communication topics, audiences, channels and plans (see action 66).
All are invited to send ideas for this topic to Paul by e-mail.
Proposal for a work item on "technological developments - status and challenges"¶
Arvid gave a presentation proposing an activity for a general technology watch and a yearly report from the MIG-T to the MIG-P. The presentation also raised a number of issues, including the relation between INSPIRE & e-reporting and INSPIRE and pan-European organisations / data sets.
The questions whether pan-European organisations can fulfil the MS' INSPIRE obligations on their behalf, and under which circumstances, and how to reach a better alignment between the INSPIRE and e-reporting data models were discussed controversially. [NOTE The latter question should be further discussed within the scope of MIWP-21].
The proposal for yearly reporting to the MIG-P was welcomed, but it was suggested to not do this in the form of a formal report.
It was concluded that general technology watch is important and among the tasks of the MIG-T (and its sub-groups), but that no specific action should be added to the MIWP. Topics such as those presented by Arvid should be discussed more frequently, but should be introduced by an presentation explaining the background and discussion issues.