15th meeting of the MIG technical sub-group

Thursday, 22nd of January 2015, 10:00-11:30 CET

Virtual meetings - Connection details


Call for agenda items and presentations: #2301

  1. Welcome and approval of the agenda (Michael Lutz)
  2. Minutes of the previous meeting (for discussion and agreement) (Michael Lutz)
  3. Feedback on the Annex I xml schema updates
  4. Prioritisation schema, updated action description template and workflow (proposed by MIG-P)
  5. How to deal with "late nominations/applications" for joining a sub-group (i.e. after the call for participation is closed
  6. Agenda of the Madrid meeting
  7. Issues for discussion from MIWP actions
    • MIWP-8: MD & SDS TGs: Part of the content in the current TG SDS will be included in the new TG Metadata. If we still need a TG SDS, who will update the document?
    • MIWP-5: Decision to focus work on ATS and outsource ETS development
    • Others?
  8. [11:15-11:25]
  9. AOB
    • Next national implementation webinar (PL and NL): Wed, 11/2 10:00-11:30

FINAL Minutes


The minutes are based on the notes taken in the web-conference chat window by the scribe as well as comments made by participants in the chat.

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 97). 

No. Action Link Responsible Due Status
26 Share relevant events with the group   all continuous ongoing
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 open
41j Send suggestions of good examples of web sites to Karen #2244 All 2014-05-30 open
42 Investigate how openly accessible issue trackers can be made available (in Redmine?) for consulations and open discussions #2163 JRC 2014-06-30 open
49 Share the engineering report with the MIG-T   OGC 2014-07-31 open
57 Inform MIG representatives when the OGC wiki page on INSPIRE goes live   JRC when available open
60 Propose good practices for INSPIRE end-to-end implementation wiki page all continuous open
61 Include a section in the MIWP on the standard tasks of the MIG-T and MIG-P, including the sharing of good practices #2245 JRC next MIWP version open
63 Develop a proposal for simplifying Redmine and Redmine MIG instructions #2231 JRC & EEA 2014-11-15 open
66 Prepare an overview of possible communication topics, audiences, channels and plans   EEA 2014-11-15 open
68 Describe process for setting up MIG temporary sub-groups in some sort of guidance   JRC 2014-11-15 open
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 open
71 Make suggestions for improvement or specific questions on how to do certain MIG tasks with Redmine #2231 all 2014-10-31 open
72 Update the MIG ToR to allow also MIG members to participate in sub-groups   Michael 2014-10-31 open
85 Propose ToR for a subgroup around GML   Michael 2014-10-20 open
87 Provide translations of TG code list values wiki page all 2014-10-20 ongoing
90 Share DK and NO Enterprise Architect models DK model Heidi, Arvid 2014-10-31

closed (DK)

open (NO)

91 Draft ToR for MIWP-14 sub-group   Robert 2014-11-28 open
94 Write up the two options for Annex I schema updates   Michael 2014-12-22 closed
95 Consult stakeholders about two scenarios for Annex I schema updates   all 2015-01-15 closed
96 Further elaborate the MIWP-4a action description and sub-group ToR #2292 Christian 2015-01-15 ongoing
97 Describe issue about Service Monitoring of Member State endpoints being consumed by the geoportal in the issue tracker or at the next MIG-T meeting   Alex Ramage 2014-12-15 closed

Welcome and approval of the agenda

The agenda was approved as proposed.

Minutes of the previous meeting

The current list of open issue issues was reviewed.

Alex R reported that he did not receive any further input on issue 97 and therefore proposed to close it.

Christian and Robert reported that there is no progress on issues 96 and 91.

There were no further comments on the draft minutes, and they adopted as they currently stand on the wiki.

Feedback on the Annex I xml schema updates

Michael reported about the feedback on the Annex I schema updates approach that had been received (from around 15 countries and the EEA) and reminded about the deadline on 23/1/2015. Until the meeting, all respondents preferred approach 2 for the Annex I updates at hand, although some said that in the future approach 1 would be preferable.

Michael asked if the MIG-T representatives managed to involve many stakeholders (and what kind) in the consultation and whether the time given was long enough. There was a general feeling that the time (4 weeks) was sufficient (but might be extended in case it includes public holidays). Most participants said they had managed to get responses only from data providers or MIG representatives, but not from data users or application developers.

Michael gave mid-February as a tentative deadline for publishing the updated Annex I schemas according to approach 2.

Prioritisation schema, updated action description template and workflow (proposed by MIG-P)

Michael and Marc presented the proposed updated MIF workflow (Workflow_20141218.pdf) and prioritisation schema (150109_Draft_prioritisation_schema.DOC) proposed by the MIG-P drafting group for discussion at the MIG-P meeting on26-27 January.

Paul (EEA) commented that the prioritisation schema seemed complex and like an application for funding. Also, he stressed that in his view the prioritisation schema comes too late in the process, which may lead to wasted efforts, if an action is not endorsed as a priority action.

Michael agreed and stressed that the action description template and prioritisation schema should be filled at the same time, showing different aspects of an action proposal (technical vs. importance/impact). Alex R agreed that when completing the forms he made the linkage between the forms.

Markus J underlines that the prioritisation schema is not used for deciding about removal of action, but to allow for priorisation of actions (when is what important). If the ToR have been designed and therefore a project plan has been done, the Y/N of the questionnaire should be easy to fill. Paul said that in practice a low priority means that an issue will not be addressed. Marc said that the prioritisation should also help MS to decide where to invest resources.

Marc agreed that it would be better to do the evaluation before the ToR, but also said that sometimes (e.g. GML...) we don't understand all the elements os an issue well enought and some more investigation/analysis is necessary before we can properly describe the action and its impact.

Christian suggested to check the schema again for possible redundancies with the ToR and action description templates.

It was agreed that the  prioritisation should be done early in the process to avoid wasting efforts, but that it will be necessary to have a good understandung and analysis of the problem, both technically and form impact/benefits aspects, before an issue is proposed for endorsement. Marc said that actions could also increase in priority over time, as we better understand what the problems are.

Darja asked to simplify the workflow, in particular for the drafting of ToR, in order to not waste efforts. Michael said that the ToR should "fall out" from the action desctiption and prioritisation template more or less automatically. There is only little additional information (duration, effort) to be added. 

How to deal with "late nominations/applications" for joining a sub-group

It was agreed that it is up to the chair of a sub-group to decide about whether or not to accept late applications/nominations.

Agenda of the Madrid meeting

The facilitators of the thematic clusters will also be attending the 1st day of the MIG-T meeting. It was therefore agreed to focus the first day of the MIG-T meeting to report back from the Thematic Cluster facilitator meeting the day before and about the status of the on-going MIWP actions. The EEA suggested to discuss issues around thematic extension of INSPIRE Data Specs in the Clusters meeting and/or day 1 of the MIG-T meeting. Michael suggested to combine such a presentation with other experienes from thematic extensions, e.g. from ELF (either on 10 or 11 March).

Other topics that were proposed for discussion at the MIG-T meeting:

  • Presentation on the TJS by Michel G
  • Discussion on how to move forward with AAA and RDF 

Michael asked everyone to propose further topics in issue #2321.

Issues for discussion from MIWP actions

MIWP-8: Integrate MD elements from SDS TG in MD TG updates?

Several participants felt that from a user perspective it would be good to have only one TG document that includes all MD elements (from MD, data interoperability and SDS Regulations). However, Robert and Michael pointed out that each of these have different governance and implementation deadlines. This should also be considered.

MIWP-5: Decision to focus work on ATS and outsource ETS development

Carlo and Michael informed that it has been decided in the MIWP-5 sub-group to focus the work on the development of ATS and to outsource the development of executable tests.


Michael informed about the next national implementation webinar (PL and NL) on Wed, 11/2 10:00-11:30 CET.

Marc proposed to organise a webinar for French speaking countries (BE, LU, CH & FR) in French. Michael have to investigate this before to answer.

Workflow_20141218.pdf (297 KB) Michael Lutz, 30 Jan 2015 06:01 pm

150109_Draft_prioritisation_schema.DOC (64 KB) Michael Lutz, 30 Jan 2015 06:01 pm