19th meeting of the MIG permanent technical sub-group (MIG-T)¶
- 19th meeting of the MIG permanent technical sub-group (MIG-T)
- FINAL Minutes
- Welcome and approval of the agenda
- Effectiveness of the work in the MIG-T and the MIG sub-groups
- Usage of "old" schema versions
- Updated version of the white paper on Spatial Data Services
- MIG-T liaisons and national contact points for thematic clusters
Friday, 29th of May 2015, 11:00-12:30 CEST @ INSPIRE/GWF conference, Lisbon
Call for agenda items and presentations: #2443
[11:00-11:05] Welcome and approval of the agenda (Michael Lutz)
[11:05-11:10] Minutes of the previous meeting (for discussion and agreement) (Michael Lutz)
- review of open action items
[11:10-11:30] Round-table discussion on the effectiveness of the work in the MIG-T and the MIG sub-groups (Michael Lutz)
- A lot of the work is progressing relatively slowly unless there is some kind of funding involved
- The MIG-T seems to be spending a lot of time and effort on process-related issues and organising work, rather than actually having "real" discussions
[11:30-11:40] Usage of "old" schema versions
- After the publication of the new schemas, we agreed that we would maintain the previous ones for at least one year (i.e. implementing bug fixes). But this still leaves the question open how long the schemas can still be used or "when would you stop being compliant?"
[11:40-11:50] Updated version of the white paper on Spatial Data Services (Christina Wasstroem)
[11:50-12:00] How to handle issues/errors in the Implementing Rules and Technical Guidelines? (Christina Wasstroem, Michael Lutz)
- From two temporal sub groups I heard that they have noted errors in Implementing Rules. Would it be of interest to discuss in MIG-T how to handle these issues? Can we give some general guidance to the sub-groups?
- How to deal with small corrections (corrigenda) and links to the new schemas in the Technical Guidelines?
[12:00-12:10] Alternative portrayals of INSPIRE services (Christina Wasstroem)
- We have few users on "INSPIRE" services. Can one reason for this be the portrayal? It seems that different producers have interpreted the regulation differently. The default portrayal is to facilitate cross-border use, but another portrayal might be more useful nationally. If I interpret the regulation correctly, both these situations is supported within INSPIRE.
[12:10-12:15] MIG-T liaisons and national contact points for thematic clusters (Robert Tomas)
[12:15-12:25] Initial feedback on the proposed action description, sub-group terms of reference and prioritisation schema for MIWP-21 (Vanda Nunes de Lima)
- Next MIG-T/P meetings
The meeting took place at the GSWF 2015 in Lisbon and was attended by several invited conference attendees besides the MIG-T representatives. The minutes are based on the notes taken by the scribes (Christian Ansorge, Ada Ziemyte and Leda Bargiotti).
Actions are indicated in the minutes using the keyword [Action] and are tracked in the issue tracker.
Welcome and approval of the agenda¶
It was agreed to focus the meeting on the discussion of the main three points:
- Effectiveness of the work in the MIG-T and the MIG sub-groups
- Schema maintenance/update
- Spatial Data Services
and to cover the formal review of action items, MIWP action progress, meeting minutes the following minor points in the next virtual meeting:
- How to handle issues/errors in the Implementing Rules and Technical Guidelines?
- Alternative portrayals of INSPIRE services
- Feedback on the proposed action description, sub-group terms of reference and prioritisation schema for MIWP-21
Effectiveness of the work in the MIG-T and the MIG sub-groups¶
Michael Lutz raised the question the MIG-T members about their perception of the general progress and set-up of the MIG-T as well as their working groups. A further question was on how resources (assuming the availability) could be spent to push the progress. Summary of the feedback from the participants:
- Physical meetings are important and should be kept 1-2 times per year
- The monthly virtual meetings should be kept as well
- Once in a while a (not strictly thematic) topic from thematic clusters should be discussed in a MIG-T meeting. The TC facilitators should be invited to face-to-face meetings where possible.
- External experts could be invited to MIG-T discussions for specific issues
- MIG-T members should be more active in suggesting topics for discussion at MIG-T meetings. A wiki page/issue will be set up in Redmine to continuously collect discussion topics for MIG-T meetings. [Action Michael]
- Progress of MIWP actions/sub-groups
- Heterogeneous progress depending on availability of resources, expert engagement and (too wide) scope of working groups
- Scope of sub-groups need to be sharpened and objectives clearly prioritized
- what are the really burning issues?
- Sub-groups could also start with a relatively limited number of tasks that are achievable in a shorter timeframe; then it could be decided whether to extend the scope for a second phase
- MIG-T processes
- Less weight on procedure and Terms of References for the working groups. Additionally not all actions need to trigger a new working group.
- The regular progress reports from sub-groups are considered useful
- The requirements for implementation and the timelines decided by MIG-T are important for decisions in MS on launching procurements.
- Support could be used to fund a) physical meetings of working groups b) key roles like the facilitator
- External contractors could be used for short timelines and core tasks and/or to develop issues further that are progressing slow (e.g. PIDs)
- The upcoming ISA² programme could provide funding for some of the MIG's activities, but this needs to be well prepared. JRC will get in touch with MIG-T and the ISA SIS WG over the summer on feedback to a proposal for ISA2.
Usage of "old" schema versions ¶
After the publication of the new schemas, we agreed that we would maintain the previous ones for at least one year (i.e. implementing bug fixes). But this still leaves the question open how long the schemas can still be used by data providers or when they would stop being compliant? This is also an important issue for the release planning of software vendors that need to update their solutions to fit the updated schemas.
Michael Lutz presented the effect of a timeline including dates after which
- the v3.x schemas should no longer be used for new implementations [30/4/2015]
- the v3.x schemas will no longer be maintained (e.g. for bug fixes or new minor versions) [30/4/2016] - as agreed in the previous meetings, maintenance may be further extended if deemed necessary
- the v3.x schemas should no longer be used for any implementation [TBD]
It was pointed out that since the schemas are not legally required, these dates can only be (strong) recommendations, but they should be clearly communicated to the stakeholder community. The impact of the change of schema is difficult to assess as it depends on the number of users as on the current status of compliance.
There was no agreement at the meeting by which date all implementations should have moved to the v4.x schemas. JRC will ask for written opinions from the MIG-T representatives. [Action JRC]
There was a suggestion to find a way to document in the metadata, which schema version is used by a data set. Michael Östling and Michael Lutz to discuss and investigate if this could be proposed in the updated MD guidelines. [Action]
Updated version of the white paper on Spatial Data Services¶
Christina Wassström present the current version of the SDS discussion paper [Spatial_Data_Services_v0.5.1.docx] including the feedback given by NO, PL, DE and NL. Main points of the discussion were:
- Clarification received from DG ENV on the deadlines for the SDS provision (2016/2021) - see updated INSPIRE roadmap
- Understanding of "other data" beyond INSPIRE
- Data which links indirectly to INSPIRE data
- It was agreed that "other data" are not relevant for the definition of SDS; the important requirement is that they are related to INSPIRE Annex I, II or III data.
- How to handle Invoke Services
- Marc Leobet suggest to keep the term as such (comes from the legislation) but basically to not use the term in practice and not ask for it explicitly
- Michael Lutz suggests to seek clarification from DG ENV on the requirements for Invoke Services [Action Christina?]
- Daniela Hogrebe points out that the published TG for SDS includes recommendations which contradicts the current agreement of the MIG-T on the implementation of metadata for SDS (which will be included in the next update of TG metadata). Furthermore, the TG for SDS should be checked based on the content of the recent discussion paper. She suggests to at least drop out the metadata section to avoid "wrong" implementations. Probably, a new work package for updating the TG for SDS is needed.
- Next steps:
- Small group to finalise the white paper document [Action Christina]
- Organise specific meeting including DG ENV and MIG-P for follow-up discussion [Action]
MIG-T liaisons and national contact points for thematic clusters¶
Robert Tomas reported that MIG-T liaisons for MIWP-14 sub-group have been found except for the Atmosphere/Ocean cluster. Michael Lutz will act as the liaison for this cluster until another candidate is found.
Robert also reminded the attendees to nominate national liaisons for the Thematic Clusters. The initial deadline for nominations has been extended to end of June, but nominations can also be made after that deadline.
Next face-to-face MIG-T/P meeting¶
The next face-to-face meeting will take place in conjunction with the eENVplus final conference (which will take place on Thursday, 3 December) in order to give participants the opportunity to attend the conference. Also, a MIG-P meeting will take place in the same week. It was suggested to have some time after the conference to discuss any potential follow-up actions for the MIG.
Tentatively, the meeting programme could be:
|Mon, 30 Nov afternoon||MIG-P|
|Tue, 1 Dec morning||MIG-P|
|Tue, 1 Dec afternoon||MIG-P?||MIG-T|
|Wed, 2 Dec all day||MIG-T|
|Thu, 3 Dec all day||(MIG-T)||eENVplus|
|Friday, 4 Dec morning||MIG-T|
MIWP-21 action description, ToR and prioritisation schema¶
Vanda reminded about the open call for comments on the MIWP-21 action description, ToR and prioritisation template. She will send out a reminder and some more specific questions that respondents should provide feedback on.