25th meeting of the MIG permanent technical sub-group (MIG-T)

Logistics (see also ISPRA_Logistics_30_Nov-2_Dec+4_Dec.docx and eENVplus_Logistics_3_Dec.docx)

Agenda (see also attachment:eENVplus_Agenda_Rome_20151203.doc for the agenda of the eEnvplus final conference)

Attendees

MIG-T representatives

Markus Jobst (AT), Wolfgang Fahrner (AT), Ouns Kissiyar (BE), Nathalie Delattre (BE), Nikolay Ivanov Petrov (BG), Jiri Polacek (CZ), Lenka Rejentova (CZ), Daniela Hogrebe (DE), Markus Seifert (DE), Lars Storgaard (DK), Heidi Vanparys (DK), Sulev Õitspuu (EE), Emilio López (ES), Marisol Gómez (ES), Marie Lambois (FR), Marc Leobet (FR), Gyula Ivan (HU), Tamas Palya (HU), Eydis Lindal Finnbogadottir (IS), Carlo Cipolloni (IT), Michele Munafò (IT), Mindaugas Pažemys (LT), Arvids Ozols (LV), Bozidar Pavicevic (ME), Kurt Bonnici (MT), Martin Saliba (MT), Michel Grothe (NL), Arvid Lillethun (NO), Marcin Grudzien (PL), Ewa Surma (PL), Paulo Patrício (PT), Gabriela Dragan (RO), Kjell Hjorth (SE), Christina Wasström (SE), Martin Tuchyna (SK), Tim Duffy (UK), Alex Ramage (UK), Christian Ansorge (EEA), Paul Hasenohr (EEA), Darja Lihteneger (EEA), Joeri Robbrecht (ENV), Michael Lutz (JRC), Robert Tomas (JRC), Vanda Nunes de Lima (JRC)

Thematic Cluster Facilitators

Keiran Millard, Alessandro Sarretta, Jordi Escriu, Miroslaw Migacz, Lena Hallin-Pihlatie, Amelia Baptie, Brian Mac Sharry

Minutes

Agenda item Discussion Decisions Actions

Welcome and approval of the agenda

Michael Lutz welcomes the new MIG-T representatives Nikolay Ivanov Petrov (BG), Lenka Rejentova (CZ), Kurt Bonnici (MT), Martin Saliba (MT) and Marie Lambois (FR) as well as the new facilitator for the Earth Science Cluster Amelia Baptie. The agenda was approved, with the addition of a presentation by Jordi Escriu on a proposal for a revised geographic grid (on Wednesday afternoon, time permitting)  

Report on meeting of Thematic Clusters facilitators

Robert Tomas gave an overview presentation of INSPIRE Thematic clusters activity that has been in operation for 1 year.[miwp14_tc_2015_overview.pptx]

 

Overall the INSPIRE TC has already proven to be:

1) an important source of information for INSPIRE stakeholders (MS implementators);

2) a place to share best practices;

3) a place for INSPIRE stakeholders to ask/get thematic questions/answers.

 

The statistics of TC use (30.11.):

  • 590 registered members
  • 50 groups (groups + sub-groups)
  • 344 discussion topics
  • 795 responses
  • 133 files uploaded
  • 123 dedicated pages 

  

The outlook and 2016 planning:

  • Follow up on the proposal for change/addition proposals.
  • Continue promoting the platform (its content) during thematic domain events.
  • Organize set of webinars inviting registered cluster members (team building, priority settings, burning issues etc.)
  • Better involve MIG-T experts in the Thematic Clusters discussions (e.g. taking responsibility for cross theme technical issues)
  • Complete the EU network of MS thematic contact points (experts) to support facilitators with their effort to get better input as well as to raise awareness.

 

Individual INSPIRE TC Facilitators presentations:

 

Discussion during or after the individual TC presentations:

  • MIWP-14 decided to keep the EF+O&M cluster as a useful focal point for EF and O&M-related discussions
  • EL+OI+GG+RS cluster should be in close contact with MIWP-7b sub-group. This is guaranteed by Jordi, who is a member of the sub-group. Also members have been encouraged to contribute to coverage-related discussions on the TC
   

Discussion of corrigenda and change proposals proposed by MIWP-14

Discussion on the further process for reviewing and endorsing the change proposals from MIWP-14.

  • Robert Tomas presented the work of the MIWP14 that had recieved a list of 72 change proposals.The proposals were already prioritiesed by the facilitators (categories 1-3). During the MIWP14 meeting the time allowed only to go through the most prioritised change proposals (35 of them). After discussion about each proposal a category was assigned according to the following scheme: 
    • 1 - change agreed. No further work needed by MIWP-14/MIG-T before submitting the proposal for MS review
    • 2 - change agreed. Minor discussions/clarification still needed before submitting the proposal for MS review 
    • 3 - change agreed. Major discussions/clarification still needed before submitting the proposal for MS review  
    • 4 - change not agreed
  • Daniela Hogrebe: What time period is planned for MS review of change proposal (after endorsement of MIG-T)? 
    • Michael Lutz: This depends of what type of changes are included in the change proposals. For simple changes (typos, clarificiations of text) maybe 3 weeks are enough. If these require checking details with experts or the expected impact of the change with implementers, more time should be given.
  • Markus Jobst: It would be good to have an idea whether for the review of a change proposal stakeholders need to be involved or not (simple changes)
    • Robert Tomas: Note that there are also simple changes that require IR change.
    • Markus Jobst: We should collect all change proposals that would require an IR amendment
  • Marc Leobet: we could use the opportunity to also change some of the INSPIRE data models / data interoperablility requirements
    • Michael Lutz clarifies that the proposal is to correct errors (i.e. a corrigendum in legal terminology), not to substantially change the content (i.e. an amendment)
  • Examples for changes that would require and IR change
    • Duplicate extent attributes in Sea and MarineCirculationZone (that are inherited from SeaRegion) (issue 2529)
    • Typo in the theme-specific requirements on Land Cover (issue 2551)
    • Harmonise extensibility of code lists (issue 2597) - Category 2
    • Harmonise the name of the inspire identifier attribute (issue 2568)
    • Correct data model so that the Shoreline and ShoreSegment feature types are modelled with an association (issue 2527)
    • Change type DateTime for the attribute legalFoundationDate into type Date (issue 2569)
    • PS - Corrections to definition values for 5.2.2.3.4 IUCNDesignationValue (issue 2565).
  • Marc Leobet: We should inform MIG-P about plans for the consultation (incl. the timetable).
  • Michael Lutz proposes to document for each proposed issue (1) the impact on EC (change to TG, IR, registers, schemas, ...), (2) the impact on implementers, (3) what might happen if we don't do anything, (4) any opportunities/quick wins
  • Marc Leobet: We need to define what are minor proposals and what major ones. For all issues proposed as corrigenda, MIG-P should be consulted to confirm that it will only be a corrigendum, not an amendment.
  • Martin Tuchyna: We need to make sure that the process is followed properly, in order to communicate issues properly to stakeholders during the consultation.
  • Paul Hasenohr: MIWP-14 can only analyse the impact on EC (change to TG, IR, registers, schemas, ...), but not impact in MS.
  • Nathalie Delattre: Why is there an urgency to adopt the changes now. We need more stability. We need a schedule for the versioning of the documents. This should be the task of MIG-T/P.
  • Michael Lutz: MIWP-14 should also propose potential impact for implementers and tool developers
  • Paul Hasenohr: MIG-T should analyse if any information is missing for the change proposals to be submitted to the consultation with stakeholders.
  • Lars Storgaard: We should evaluate the process after it is completed (to learn for next time).

Discussion on the proposals related to the endorsement of extensions, e.g. from ELF project.

  • Christian Ansorge: what would this imply? Adding models to TGs? Adding schemas to main schema repository? Changing the core data models?
  • Darja Lihteneger: Who will be owners of these extensions? How will these be maintained?
  • Marc Leobet: We need to be careful with endorsement of proposals coming from a project. We need to check with MS authorities first and give them enough time. +1 Robert Tomas
  • Jiri Polacek: Don't mix up this discussion with the proposal from CZ around BU extended schemas
  • Christian Ansorge: It would be better to simply have a list/register of extensions rather than including them in the TGs. 
    • Robert Tomas: But there are already extensions in the TGs.

Discussion on the scope of the proposed changes

  • Joeri Robbrecht: Isn't it better to orient discussions around pilots, than just have proposals? This would have the benefits to be able to test whether it works and illustrate it to MS.
    • Robert Tomas stresses that these issues have been raised by stakeholders/implementers. Should not ignore this, just because the priorities of DG Environment with INSPIRE are changing.
    • +1 by Paul. MS need to implement INSPIRE. MS are facing issues. Difficult to argue that we know there are issues, but that we will not do anything about them.
    • Alex Ramage: We could focus on quick win issues, e.g. the ones related to portrayal. 

The proposal containing all discussed and categorized changes will be updated by facilitators according to the discussion taken during the MIG-T TC session. Based on this updated proposal JRC will create a document with necessary information about each proposal (e.g. separating clear typos, IR and TG changes etc.) This document will be sent to MIG-T for a completeness check before it goes for public (MS) consultation.   

Revisit issues collected from MS before the MIG kick-off meeting. Which of these are already addressed by TC or on-going MIWP actions and which ones should be raised in the TC platform? [JRC, 2015-01-15]

Draft clean proposal for change proposals [MIWP-14, 2016-01-15]

MIG-T to check the proposal for understandability and completeness and propose time needed for the MS review [2016-01-30]
 

Review of open actions items

Comments from the review of open action items.

  • All MIG-T representatives are reminded to complete the template for collecting information about national INSPIRE web sites and communication activities with information for their country.
  • The work on the ARE3NA reference platform in 2016, and in particular the vocabulary for INSPIRE (re-)use, can be useful 
  • Examples of extensions should be shared on the Thematic Clusters. After a while, we should review what has been proposed and see if we need a more structured way to capture extensions. 
  • Endorsement of proposed extensions (and what that would mean/imply in terms of maintenance, governance, ...) can be discussed when there is a concrete proposal on the table

Several participants stress the importance of developing guidelines for extensions (related to open action #2475). Michel Grothe volunteered to propose an ad-hoc activity of the MIG-T on this issue.

  Propose an ad-hoc MIG-T activity around guidelines for extensions [Michel Grothe, 2016-01-15]

State of play – geospatial ISA actions

Michael Lutz recommends that all MIG-T representatives should get in touch with their ISA Spatial Information and Services WG counterparts, in order to stay in touch with ISA/ISA2 developments and to ensure the endorsement of the proposed ELISE action for the ISA2 programme.

 

Share info on ITS work in AT with EULF team [Markus Jobst, 2015-12-15]

 

Inform about ELISE proposal once adopted and ask for comments on WP (how can work be made relevant for MIG, how can MIG be involved) [JRC, after adoption]

 

Inform about roadmap for adoption of ISA2 WP 2015 [JRC, 2015-12-11]

SDS discussion paper & TGs update

Comments from the discussion:

  • We should prepare document as quickly as possible, so that implementers have a solid basis for documenting their metadata
  • SDS is clearly not the main implementation priority at this point
  • As with data sets, it is up to each MS to decide which SDS are in scope and which ones aren't

 

Prepare comment resolution table and update documents [MIWP-8/ad-hoc SDS group, 2016-01-15]

 

Launch MIG-P consultation [JRC, 2016-01-15]

MIWP-8 status, roadmap & impact of proposed changes

Michael Östling is presentin the status of the work in MIWP-8 and the forward planning [MIWG-8_Update_TG_Metadata_Status_2015-12-02.ppt].

 

Comments/clarifications from the discussion:

  • Alex Ramage: We need to make sure that the ISO/OGC community make changes, we are being involved / consulted. He proposes that JRC should liaise with the relevant WGs in ISO/TC 211 and OGC.
    • Michael cautions that this could be a full-time job because, to have real impact, one needs to sit in the relevant working groups - it is not enough to just comment on draft documents. JRC does not have the required resources for this. All MIG-T members should be regularly liaising with their ISO reprentatives and inform the MIG-T when important documents are up for commenting.
  • Markus Jobst: AT has contracted the implementation of the new metadata elements in Geonetwork (planned release for Q1/2016)
  • There are different opinions in MS about the new implementation guidance proposed in the TG update. Therefore, there should be a transitional period (e.g. of 3 years) where there are two valid TG versions (1.3 and 2.0), and also the corresponding ATSs and ETSs.
  • The TGs will not include a definition of what is "open data"; this is up for each MS to define.
  • The timeline for final endorsement will be early summer 2016.
  • Paul Hasenohr suggests to develop an XSLT script to automatically convert metadata from 1.3 to 2.0.
  • Paul Hasenohr: How to document against which of the two TG versions a metadata record should be validated?

Michael Östling reports that many of the issues discussed in the MIWP-8 sub-group were actually cross-cutting architectural issues and notes that an architecture document is missing for INSPIRE. This could be something for the MIG-T to elaborate.

  • Joeri Robbrecht reminds that the IOC task force has worked on the INSPIRE domain model. However, this document has never been endorsed. Since this will become more important over time, also for other tasks (e.g. automatic monitoring based on MD), the MIG-T should review the current document and elaborate and endorse a new version.
 

Inform MIG-T about updated Geonetwork version supporting additional INSPIRE metadata elements [Markus Jobst, Q1/2016]

 

Develop an XSLT script to automatically convert metadata from 1.3 to 2.0 [MIWP-8 sub-group, 2016-03-31]

 

Check in the MIWP-8 meeting notes on the agreement for documenting against which of the two TG versions a metadata record should be validated [Michael Östling, 2016-01-15]

 

Circulate the IOC task force's INSPIRE domain model document for comments [Joeri Robbrecht/Michael Lutz, 2015-12-18].

MIWP-16 results & closure

Paul Hasenohr presents the work done by the sub-group MIWP-16 [MIG-T_MIWP-16_closing_20151202.pptx].

 

In the discussion the issue was raised how to ensure the maintenance of the tools developed in the MIG-T, e.g. the MIWP-16 dashboard. This should be discussed with DG ENV.

   

Monitoring issues

Emilio Lopez presents a number of discussion points and principles from the Spanish yearly monitoring exercise, which has led to a continuous decrease of the number of data sets being reported [20151202_Monitoring_issues_Spain.pptx].

 

Comments/clarifications from the discussion:
  • Vanda Nunes de Lima: What about data sets that are created and maintained at the local level? Will these not be reported?
    • Emilio Lopez: It was decided in Spain to remove local data sets from the monitoring data, because they are introducing "noise". Another idea could be to separate "core" from "other" data sets in some way. But it would be good to have clear guidelines for this from the EC. 
    • +1 Marc Leobet: How to find national coverages in the tens of thousands of data sets.
  • Jordi Escriu: Reporting only national data sets is not the best solution. Many data sets are maintained at the level of the regional level. Is this wanted by EC?
    • Joeri Robbrecht: There is no "one fits all" solution. This depends a lot on administrative structure of and the coordination within a MS. Of course it would be easier if everyone just reported aggregated data sets. But this could mean that important information (e.g. observations) are missing.
    • Daniela Hogrebe: What should be included (or not) in the monitoring depends on who the users are. If this is unclear, it is difficult for MS  to decide.
  • Natalie Delattre: What has to be included in the list of data sets to be reported? What does it mean to be "INSPIRE compliant"? Is 75% enough?
    • Paul Hasenohr clarifies .... [add explanation of 75% figure] 
  • Michael Lutz raises the question whether the notion of "data set" is still the most useful one, when data are often stored in data bases and provided as feature types. He agrees to the issue about the "noise" and suggests that this should also be discussed as part of the "priority data set" discussion. 
  • Robert Tomas & Vanda Nunes de Lima: What is the strategy for creating national data sets? 
  • Arvid suggests to discuss the feature vs. data set question further, also in relation to metadata.
   

MIWP-6 status report & planning

Michael Lutz presents the current status and proposed changes to the sub-group terms of reference of action MIWP-6 [20151202_MIWP-6_status+planning.pptx].

 

Comments/clarifications from the discussion:

  • Christian Ansorge: There are a lot of questions from implementers on the extension of code lists / what is a register / how can they be published. These should be addressed in some kind of guidelines or at least an FAQ page.
  • Daniela Hogrebe: The work of MIWP-6 is very important; we would like to see it continue. The German national registry is now up and running. Germany can also provide a number of use cases around code list extensions (in the PS and GE themes).
  • Emilio Lopez: Spain is going to use the Re3gistry software "out of the box" and will not develop anything themselves.
  • Martin Tuchyna: It is difficult to explain the importance of this work at national level. We should go back one step back and focus on communication.
  • Marie Lambois: Also France is setting up a national register and will align it with recommendations from the group.
The proposed changes to the MIWP-6 sub-group ToR are approved unanimously.  

INSPIRE outlook

Joeri Robbrecht presents an INSPIRE outlook based on the INSPIRE REFIT, new Commission priorities (DSM, Better Regulation) and the adoption of INSPIRE as a process for a common reporting framework. [INSPIRE_MIGT_Rome_INSPIREOutlook.pptx].

 
Comments/clarifications from the discussion:
  • Lars Storgaard: What will be the consequences on MIWP actions?
    • Joeri Robbrecht: There will be a revision of the MIWP. Maybe new actions need to be added.
    • Natalie Delattre: I don't see the link to MIWP actions. These are about the implementation of INSPIRE and should not change because of new activities outside INSPIRE. If we are aiming at the better integration of environmental experts, there are further reaching consequences also nationally.
    • Joeri Robbrecht: This is true, but the MIWP orientation may need to be adapted to matach the new vision
    • Alex Ramage: MIG-P should give the overall direction; MIG-T then should re-prioritize the MIWP
    • Joeri: MIG-P should not just send a new priority list to MIG-T to execute; MIG-T should be able to veto on certain topics that are crucial for the implementation of INSPIRE.
   

Proposal for a MIWP action on GML-related issues

Michael Lutz presents the proposal for a new MIWP action related to GML / XML schemas and the comments received before the meeting [20151202_MIWP_action_GML.pptx].

 

Comments/clarifications from the discussion:

  • Paul Hasenohr wants to refine his comment in #2381. He thinks that flattening would be ok as a temporary option.
  • Emilio Lopez suggests to provide both the complete and a simplified encoding as two alternative options, in order to find out what will be requested and used by users. Maybe e-reporting needs only simple schemas.
  • Nathalie Delattre: One schema cannot fit all the needs. The problem is to integrate complex GML into production processes, e.g. artificial unique ids need to be created because of complexity in the model (where there are many feature types and relationships), which will be difficult to maintain. HY is a good example to have different models for different use cases (physical waters, network analysis etc.).
  • Darja Lihteneger cautions that many data providers will wait with their implementation if work on simplified schemas are announced. We need to understand what the impact will be on data providers who have already started their implementation.
  • Marie Lambois: Lacking support for complex GML is not only an issue of clients, but also of applications (which will be less efficient if the schema are complex). Maybe there will also be a need to change the data models if we want to support simple applications. If there are common European applications or use cases (e.g. base mapping), we should agree on a common European model for these applications.
    • Paul Hasenohr: INSPIRE is about a different use case - common EU-wide data exchange.
  • Emilio Lopez: When discussing encodings, we should also consider using other formats, e.g. GeoJSON or even ShapeFile.
  • Alex Ramage suggests putting pressure on vendors to implement the needed GML support or even pay for a reference implementation.
  • Jiri Polacek: In CZ, local vendors have implemented GML support in clients.
  • Christian Ansorge: If we are setting up a sub-group to discuss schema simplifications, it will take 2 years to agree. By that time we will have client support. There may be problems with 1..* multiplicity.
  • Emilio Lopez: Many data providers think "INSPIRE vs. users".
  • Marc Leobet: We will flatten the schemas in FR in any case. But we would like to do it in European framework. He supports the proposal for a sub-group. The work could proceed fast if supported by a contractor
  • Arvid Lillethun: We would like to see a quick guide for simplified schemas, as additional schemas for those who are interested
  • Robert Tomas: We need to take care of implications of the MIWP action proposal.
  Submit a revised proposal based on the discussions at the meeting [Michael Lutz, 2016-01-08].

Feedback on eENVplus project

Michael Lutz asked the present eENVplus project partners and MIG representatives which deliverables or project results they found most relevant for the work of the MIG and how the related work could be continued. The following were named by several participants:

  • Schematron rules & testing framework (Giacomo Martirano (eENVplus), Christian Ansorge (EEA), Hugo de Groof (DG ENV), Eydis Lindal Finnbogadottir (IS), Paul Hasenohr (EEA), Ewa Surma (PL), Christina Wasström & Kjell Horth (SE), Jitka Faugnerová (CZ), Martin Tuchyna (SK), Marisol Gomez (ES), Xavier Demarets (BE))
  • Thesaurus framework & mapping rules (Monica di Martino (eENVplus), Stefan Jensen (EAA), Alex Ramage (UK), Christian Ansorge (EEA), Arvid Lillethun (NO), Martin Saliba (MT), Paul Hasenohr (EEA), Christina Wasström & Kjell Horth (SE), Jitka Faugnerová (CZ))
  • HALE  & geoserver/deegree (Eydis Lindal Finnbogadottir (IS), Lars Storgaard (DK), Michael Lutz (JRC))
  • Metadata editor (Lars Storgaard (DK), Martin Saliba (MT), Paul Hasenohr (EEA), Ewa Surma (PL), Christina Wasström & Kjell Horth (SE), Bozidar Pavicevic (ME), Michael Lutz (JRC))
  • Capacity building (Martin Saliba (MT), Marc Leobet (FR), Vanda Nunes de Lima (JRC), Bozidar Pavicevic (ME), Xavier Demarets (BE))
  • Cross-border harmonisation (Ewa Surma (PL), Nikolay Ivanov Petrov (BG))
  • Mobile apps / REST services (Panu Muuhli (FI), Joeri Robbrecht (DG ENV), Bozidar Pavicevic (ME))
  • Communication / videos (Vanda Nunes de Lima (JRC), Emilio Lopez (ES), Marisol Gomez (ES), Xavier Demarets (BE), Ouns Kissiyar (BE))

In addition, the following comments were made:

  • Giorgio Saio (eENVplus): The eENVplus strategy was to build on top of other projects and use the existing community from previous projects. There should be a push at national level to make national stakeholders aware of and exploit the results from eENVplus and similar projects.
  • Carmelo Attardo (eENVplus): The eENVplus experience around tools could be useful, but also the big focus on capacity building / building knowledge. Understanding IRs/TGs was one of the main problems - not the usage of the tools. The implementation "bricks" are available for re-use, but they are just one possible implementation.
  • Giacomo Martirano (eENVplus): For the validation component, a full & open approach was adopted (e.g. the project's schematron rules have already been contributed to the Thematic Clusters). The INSPIRE community should share their own contributions in the same way. 
  • Monica di Martino (eENVplus): Further vocabularies can be to the thesaurus framework where necessary. 
  • Piergiorgio Cipriano  (eENVplus): The EU Open-Source Metadata Editor (EUOSME) and Geonetwork could both use the thesaurus framework. It could be a quick win to add the thesaurus plugin into the Metadata editor available on the INSPIRE site. +1 Michael Lutz
  • Eydis Lindal Finnbogadottir (IS): What was most helpful was access to experts & helpdesk; We should work on making geodata / catlogues discoverable through mainstream search engines.
    • Michael: There is a study on-going funded by Geonovum (NL) on this topic.
  • Arvid Lillethun (NO): We should reduce the metadata found in a catalogue search rather than adding more search results using query expansion
  • Martin Saliba (MT): We need more marketing of INSPIRE
  • Christina Wasström & Kjell Horth (SE): We should provide an updated version of the metadata editor together with new metadata TGs
  • Martin Tuchyna (SK): Is the source code for web apps available? --> Yes, in a Github repository. 
  • Marc Leobet (FR): The Project results will not be directly useful for FR (we have enough tools). But capacity building/training material is valuable. We also need teachers.
  • Nikolay Ivanov Petrov (BG): The cross-border example is useful not only for cross-border but also inter-departmental or between organisations in one country
  • Stefan Jensen (EEA): We should share the good practices and findings about shortcomings of existing software and to follow them up with vendors
  • Joeri Robbrecht (DG ENV): REST services to apps, reference implementations ("INSPIRE out-of-the-box") so that people can focus on data harmonisation
  • Vanda Nunes de Lima (JRC): +1 to Joeri. The bricks approach is good. We shouldn't reinvent the wheel around validation. Communication is important. The videos of the project are excellent examples for explaining the use of INSPIRE to policy makers.
  • Emilio Lopez (ES): Impressive best practices, that could be provided in the best practices section on the MIG platform. This helps national coordination ("selling INSPIRE in my country"). Why are there so many OSM (and not national topographic map) background maps?
  • Marisol Gomez (ES): Validator very useful for MIG. We need an "official" INSPIRE validator. Communication very important! Web site with examples, further information.
  • Xavier Demarets (BE): It is important that tools are harmonised/certified (e.g. validators are not all validating the same things); Short videos are important (not on the law, but on the usefulness) for politicians and the public
  • Ouns Kissiyar (BE): Technical solutions are useful, but looking to the future we need to sell INSPIRE to the politicians (to get funding for the implementation) - examples are great because they show what we are doing and why we are doing it.

It is not yet sufficiently clear which of the eENVplus outcomes can be re-used or further maintained by the MIG-T and what this would mean in concrete terms.

Make concrete proposals for outcomes/deliverables/tools to be considered for re-use or further maintenance by the MIG-T and concrete follow-up actions that would be needed [eENVplus work package leaders, 2016-02-29]

Work programme evolution

Michael Lutz presented the current status of the MIWP and estimated end dates for the on-going actions [20151202_MIWP_evolution.pptx]. In order to provide input/feedback to the MIG-P for their discussions on the MIWP, he asked the present MIG-T members in a tour de table to comment on the following points:
 
  1. Is the solving of identified technical issues still a top priority? Are you happy with the current involvement of JRC and EEA in the MIWP? 
  2. Which of the on-going actions are “core” and should be continued?
  3. Should any on-going MIWP actions be re-oriented?
  4. Which of the proposed actions are still relevant and should be proposed for endorsement? Which resources would be available?
  5. Should any new MIWP actions be proposed? Which resources would be available?
 
The following comments were made:
  • ES: The focus should be on reviewing the data specifications and the alignment of environmental directives with INSPIRE
  • ME: Did not speak.
  • FR:
    • We are happy with the suppport from JRC and EEA. 
    • There are still technical issues that should be addressed (priorities are registries and PID).
    • We are waiting for EU validation services.
  • BG: Did not speak.
  • SK:
    • We are happy with the support by JRC and EEA, and this is needed. 
    • We are happy with the current MIWP.
    • The issue of data sharing should be addressed - how can we do something pragmatic for users with legal licencing framework?
  • CZ: 
    • +1 to SK to have an additional action on data sharing.
    • There should be a stronger focus on environmental reporting
  • FI: We support any action simplifying set-up and use of SDI
  • SE: 
    • We are very happy with the support from JRC & EEA and especially Michael Lutz.
    • Validation is a top priority, but full implementation of the common validation tools by 04/2017 is late. Is there a way to speed-up the process?
  • PL: 
    • No doubt about the first question (satisfaction with JRC/EEA and need to solve technical issues as top priority)
    • Top MIWP actions: thematic clusters, validation and registers
  • MT: Our main need is assistance to solve technical issues. We need JRC & EEA's support for that.
  • NO: 
    • GML-related issues should become a new action. 
    • Simplification of files and deliverables should become a new action.
    • More involvement of JRC & EEA on thematic content would be welcome (what do we put under each theme?)
    • We very much like the work on priorities from EC. There is a need for a core basis.
  • UK: 
    • Without involvement of JRC & EEA, we would never be where we are today. 
    • Urgent MIWP actions: Training in the understanding of the Generic Models (the UML and schemas) and the specific information for each theme. 
    • The most critical issue is harmonisation
    • The MIG-T meetings should take palce after MIG-P in order to reflect on policy directions.
  • DK: 
    • +1 to UK
    • The core actions are validation (also for data) and the registry
    • We need to strengthen relations between thematic clusters and environmental community.
  • BE: 
    • Solving technical issues is top priority.
    • Thanks to JRC & EEA for their involvement.
    • Validation is crucial. 
    • Harmonisation is another top priority.
  • IT: 
    • +1 to UK
    • JRC is the engine for some work packages of the MIWP.
    • Harmonisation is crucial. 
    • There is a strong need for validation.
   

AOB

Next face-to-face meeting will be in Ispra in sping. The meeting should be coordinated with the MIG-P meeting and roadmap for updating the MIWP.   Fill the doodle at http://doodle.com/poll/u5qk2pv3epr9f65z [all, 2016-01-04]

ISPRA_Logistics_30_Nov-2_Dec+4_Dec.docx (136 KB) Michael Lutz, 28 Oct 2015 06:54 pm

eENVplus_Logistics_3_Dec.docx (948 KB) Michael Lutz, 28 Oct 2015 06:54 pm

eENVplus_ Agenda_Rome_20151203.doc (640 KB) Michael Lutz, 09 Nov 2015 09:11 am

MIG-T_dinner_1_Dec_Info.doc (138 KB) Michael Lutz, 23 Nov 2015 07:51 pm

20151202_MIWP_evolution.pptx (286 KB) Michael Lutz, 02 Dec 2015 12:04 pm

20151202_MIWP-6_status+planning.pptx (182 KB) Michael Lutz, 02 Dec 2015 12:04 pm

20151202_MIWP_action_GML.pptx (252 KB) Michael Lutz, 02 Dec 2015 12:05 pm

20151202_ISA_state-of-play.pptx (6.38 MB) Michael Lutz, 02 Dec 2015 12:05 pm

SDS MIG-T 2015120102.pptx (714 KB) Christina Wasström, 02 Dec 2015 07:17 pm

BiodiversityAndManagementAreasCluster.pptx - BiodiversityAndManagementAreasCluster (1.73 MB) Emanuela Epure, 14 Dec 2015 06:43 pm

EarthScienceCluster.pptx - EarthScienceCluster (871 KB) Emanuela Epure, 14 Dec 2015 06:45 pm

ElevationOrthoimageryReferenceSystemsAndGeographicalGridsCluster.pptx - ElevationOrthoimageryReferenceSystemsAndGeographicalGridsCluster (887 KB) Emanuela Epure, 14 Dec 2015 06:45 pm

EnvironmentalMonitoringAndObservationsCluster.pdf - EnvironmentalMonitoringAndObservationsCluster (387 KB) Emanuela Epure, 14 Dec 2015 06:45 pm

LandCoverAndLandUseCluster.pptx - LandCoverAndLandUseCluster (1.5 MB) Emanuela Epure, 14 Dec 2015 06:46 pm

MarineAndAtmosphereCluster.pptx - MarineAndAtmosphereCluster (861 KB) Emanuela Epure, 14 Dec 2015 06:46 pm

StatisticalCluster.pptx - StatisticalCluster (1.16 MB) Emanuela Epure, 14 Dec 2015 06:46 pm

TopographicAndCadastralReferenceData.pptx - TopographicAndCadastralReferenceData (1.18 MB) Emanuela Epure, 14 Dec 2015 06:46 pm

FacilitiesUtilitiesAndPublicServicesCluster.pptx - FacilitiesUtilitiesAndPublicServicesCluster (863 KB) Emanuela Epure, 14 Dec 2015 06:46 pm

miwp14_tc_2015_overview.pptx (4 MB) Robert Tomas, 15 Dec 2015 12:22 pm

MIG-T_MIWP-16_closing_20151202.pptx (635 KB) Paul Hasenohr, 18 Dec 2015 02:07 pm

20151202_Monitoring_issues_Spain.pptx (2.96 MB) Michael Lutz, 18 Dec 2015 03:21 pm

INSPIRE_MIGT_Rome_INSPIREOutlook.pptx - INSPIRE Outlook (2.48 MB) Joeri Robbrecht, 21 Dec 2015 02:56 pm

MIWG-8_Update_TG_Metadata_Status_2015-12-02.ppt (663 KB) Michael Lutz, 17 Jan 2016 02:00 pm