8th meeting of the MIG permanent technical sub-group (MIG-T)

Tuesday, 17 June 2014 9:00-12:30
Aalborg University
Badehusvej 13/auditorium 5


  1. Welcome and approval of the agenda (Michael)
    [9:00 – 9:10]
  2. Minutes of the previous meeting (for discussion and agreement) (Michael)
    [9:10 – 9:15]
  3. Road map for adopting the MIWP (Hugo de Groof)
    [9:15 - 9:30]
  4. Updates on INSPIRE metadata, DCAT-AP & relevant initiatives (Andrea Perego) [Slides: 20140617-mig-meeting-jrc-inspire-dcat-ap+eurovoc-inspire+licences.pdf]
    [9:30 - 9:45]
    • Mapping INSPIRE metadata elements to DCAT-AP (and other vocabularies)
    • Alignments EuroVoc INSPIRE spatial data themes and feature concepts
  5. OGC procedures for change requests & possible MIG/OGC collaboration [Athina Thrakas (OGC)]
    [9:45 - 10:00]
  6. Proposed terms of reference MIG sub-group for update of the Metadata TGs (MIWP-8, #2166) (Michael Östling)
  7. Proposed terms of reference MIG sub-group on controlled vocabularies (MIWP-19, #2165) (Christian Ansorge) [Slides: MIWP19_CoVoc_ToR.pptx]
    Coffee break
  8. Call for facilitators for the thematic clusters (Robert Tomas, TBC)
  9. Moving MIWP-7 forward for coverage & tabular data
  10. Proposed rules for setting up sub-groups (#2164) (Michael Lutz) [Slides: 20140617_MIG-T_Setting_up_sub-groups.pptx]
  11. Work plan for MIWP-5 (validation & conformity testing) (Carlo Cipolloni, Daniela Hogrebe)

FINAL Minutes


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.

No. Action Redmine issue Responsible Due Done
4 Propose working methods, procedures and tools EC 30/11/2013
23 Propose members for a sub-group on XML schema maintenance MIG representatives 7/2/2014
26 Share relevant events with the group all continuous
40 Investigate whether JRC can transfer collected detailed issues to Redmine JRC 20140328
42 Investigate how openly accessible issue trackers can be made available (in Redmine?) for consulations and open discussions #2163 JRC 20140630
44 Send the ELF list of issues to the MIG / register them in the MIG issue tracker Christina (SE) 20140615
46 Investigate how Redmine could be configured to allow any MIG representative to raise issues in all MIG sub-projects #2163 JRC 20140630 x
47 Clarify detailed procedure for selecting persons to participate in temporary sub-groups on the INSPIRE & MIG web sites #2164 JRC 20140630
48 Set up separate mailing lists for the MIG-P and MIG-T permanent sub-groups JRC 20140630 x
49 Share the engineering report with the MIG-T OGC 20140731
50 Create a list of OGC member organisations represented in the MIG all 20140731 x
51 Update the ToR for MIWP-8 sub-group #2166 Michael Oestling (SE) 20140715
51 Prepare a template for ToR for sub-groups JRC & EEA 20140831
52 Set up a call with Peter Baumann and interested MIG representatives on WCS-based download services JRC 20140704

Road map for adopting the MIWP

Hugo (ENV) reported that after the INSPIRE Committee meeting in March, the updated ToR for the MIG (including 2 permanent sub-groups) were sent around for comments. No further comments were received, so the ToR are considered adopted as such. The MS have been asked to nominate their representatives in the permanent sub-group on policy-related issues (MIG-P). Nominations are still missing from several EU MS (Cyprus, Spain, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Malta, Netherlands and Romania), Accession and candidate countries (Macedonia, Serbia, Turkey and Montenegro) and EFTA countries (Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Iceland). The draft MIWP will be sent to the MIG-P for comments/endorsement and be adopted by "written procedure". If there are other policy-related issues, they could be discussed by e-mail in the meantime.

Markus (AT) suggested that meetings of the MIG techncial sub-group (MIG-T) should not be at the same time as meetings of the MIG-P, because for some countries, the same people may be involved in both groups.

Marc (FR) said that technical and policy issues should be discussed jointly as much as possible, and mentioned the MIG workshop on validation & conformity testing as an example, where both the policy and technical aspects were addressed. He congratulated JRC on the work done on this topic. He felt that it is difficult for the MIG-T to start working on specific issues without an official mandate. Some topics are not very political, but there are questions about the long-term visions, e.g. related to governance of artefacts (registers, schemas). Also, work on M&R is mainly policy-related, even if there are technical issues as well. He suggested to take the opportunity of the conference to have small informal meeting of the MIG-P members present at the Conference to see if there is agreement/disagreement on some of the directions that some of the groups are taking (e.g. monitoring & reporting, validation).

[Action] JRC to set up separate mailing lists for the MIG-P and MIG-T permanent sub-groups.

Updates on INSPIRE metadata, DCAT-AP & relevant initiatives

Andrea presented the mapping between INSPIRE metadata elements to DCAT-AP as well as on-going work done by the EU Publication Office on the alignment between EuroVoc and the INSPIRE spatial data themes and feature concept dictionary (FCD).

Darja (EEA) asked whether there are also mappings to other registers. Andrea answered that the mappings have been done with FCD and INSPIRE Themes.

Benoit (FR) welcomed the mapping with Eurovoc, but that this would only make sense if there was a recommendation to use also the FCD concepts in the metadata. This should be discussed in the work on MIWP-19 and MIWP-8.

OGC procedures for change requests & possible MIG/OGC collaboration

Athina (OGC) presented the recently signed JRC-OGC collaboration agreement (CA) and asked the participants how they envision possible future collaboration between INSPIRE / the MIG and OGC. She mentioned that in the JRC-OGC CA kick-off meeting it was agreed that if certain issues have been flagged to OGC but do not move forward, these should be discussed in the MIG-T and, if necessary, brought to the attention of OGC by JRC.

Marc (FR) mentioned that France is an early adopter of OGC standards, but that they have found some issues with the OGC standards. He would like to be able to provide implementers in France with a "box" for how to most easily implement WMS, WFS, ... - i.e. to develop simple OGC profiles for implementing INSPIRE. He welcomed that OGC and JRC have signed a CA.

Michael (SE) mentioned that OGC standards are usually easy to implement, but difficult to set up and use.

Bart de Lathouwer (OGC) mentioned the UK Plugfest set up by the Ordnance Survey as an example for testing interoperability. The results and recommendations will be presented in an engineering report, which should be published shortly.

[Action] OGC to share the engineering report with the MIG-T.

Bart (OGC) mentioned that Ordnance Survey (UK) commissioned best practice document for implementing WxS (???) in the UK. Marc (FR) felt that we should not have national guidelines – better to work on European guidelines.

Tim (UK) welcomed the collaboration with OGC, but wondered whether, for INSPIRE, it is more relevant to follow ISO. He highlighted that problems can arise if a new standard or a revision of an existing standard (e.g. ISO 19115) does not take into account INSPIRE requirements.

Bart (OGC) presented the joint ISO/OGC/CEN standards tracker. Submitted issues will be fed into the standards processes by OGC, CEN and ISO.

Paul (EEA) asked how we can give more weight to requests coming from the MIG (representing 28 MS) than to other requests from individual OGC members. Would it be possible to give different weights to different accounts. Bart (OGC) said he will take this suggestion back to OGC. Athina (OGC) stressed that, in the OGC process, every member has one vote, so the we would need to coordinate inside OGC (to vote and work in the SWGs) as well as in the MIG.

Michael suggested to start a list of OGC member organisations represented in the MIG, including the Membership status (voting, non-voting, ...).

[Action] JRC to start a list of OGC member organisations represented in the MIG, all to contribute.

A discussion followed on the benefits of bringing INSPIRE TGs or more generic European best practices into OGC.
  • Marc (FR): The idea is not to sell INSPIRE to the world, but rather to have simple European profiles for easier implementation of INSPIRE.
  • Michael (JRC): This is the basic question and would need a longer discussion.
  • Robert (JRC): Bringing INSPIRE TGs ideas/issues to the OGC for seeking global solutions is a good thing, but usually it takes time (MS have deadlines for INSPIRE implementation) and resources to follow it up in order to get the expected result. Also the proposed final "global technical solution" might be in conflict with other INSPIRE components/concepts since INSPIRE has lots of "internal" dependencies (common types, MD etc.) so having a European profile might be sometimes faster and safer.
  • Nathalie (BE) & Benoit (FR): We should set up a procedure for submitting change requests from MIG to OGC.
  • Sylvain: Could we organise an OGC testbed for INSPIRE implementation?

Proposed terms of reference MIG sub-group for update of the Metadata TGs

Michael (SE) presented the proposed terms of reference including the issues to be addressed. The issues were classified according to type (legislation, errors in implementation, more useful metadata, more interoperable metadata) and priority.

It was discussed which of the proposed issues should be addressed first and whether to aim for one update of the metadata guidelines addressing all issues.
  • Alex C. (UK) stressed that in the UK, it will be possible to "sell" only one update of the TG to public authorities. But there could be intermediate versions, if it is made clear, which of the updates contains all of the changes that are relevant for tool development.
  • Nathalie (BE) suggested to focus more on creating more useful metadata. This was supported by Marc (FR), who stated that today MD interoperability is not the major problem, but MD usability. Today, it is still difficult to find relevant data sets and understand their metadata. Maria (PT) suggested that we should put ourselves in the shoes of users and ask ourselves: what doesn't work today? Arvid (NO) reported that Norway has created a user-friendly MD editor [ADD LINK], which has helped boosting both the number and quality of metadata. He also suggested to focus on what users need: a MD search engine (not the MD themselves) that allows "intelligent" search based on inter-connected thesauri.
  • Robert (JRC) agreed to the importance of keywords and good controlled vocabularies and underlined that link to MIWP-19.
  • Darja (EEA) mentioned the additional link to MIWP-18. This work package could yield some recommendations on keywords to use related to licenses. It will be important to ensure that results are available in good time, so that they can be integrated in (one of) the MD TG update(s). Chris (EEA) suggested that MIWP-8 could also focus on those inputs from other WPs that are available soon.
Michael (SE) concluded that it is difficult to decide the priorities for the work of MIWP-8 between updates that
  • improve usability,
  • improve interoperability
  • help meeting the legal requirements and
  • support monitoring and reporting.
He suggested that maybe, the current TGs should be split into
  • TGs (for developers of tools and clients)
  • Good/best practices (BPs) for creating the MD

Michael (JRC) suggested to treat the MD TG update similar to a software development project, i.e. to have a list of features/issues and a release plan (which features/issues will be addressed in each release). Robert (JRC) proposed that alternatively we could set ourselves a deadline (e.g. one year) and only implement what can be done by then.

Michael (JRC) said that the BP should be a living document. Paul (EEA) felt that good tools are more important than BP/guidelines.

[Action] It was agreed that Michael (SE) will update the ToR to reflect the discussion.

Proposed terms of reference MIG sub-group on controlled vocabularies

Christian presented the proposed terms of reference. He clarified that the scope of the work will be limited to thesauri and vocabularies to be used in the metadata.

Benoit suggested that it would be important to suggest using the INSPIRE feature concept dictionary as keywords in metadata.

Comments on the proposed ToR should be added to the Redmine issue #2165.

Call for facilitators for the thematic clusters

This point was not discussed for lack of time. Robert pointed to his presentation on the plans for setting up the thematic clusters in the MIG session on Wednesday.

Moving MIWP-7 forward for coverage & tabular data

Michael (JRC) reported about initial discussions with Peter Baumann (University of Bremen, WCS SWG chair) on moving task 7b (WCS-based download services) forward. A call will be organised in July with interested MIG representatives to discuss how to best proceed.

[Action] JRC to set up a call with Peter Baumann and interested MIG representatives on WCS-based download services.

The planned presentation on Geonovum's work on the TJS [slides: TJS+health_statistics_ELF.ppt] could not be given for lack of time. This topic will be presented / discussed at one of next MIG-T meetings.

Proposed rules for setting up sub-groups (#2164) (Michael Lutz)

Michael (JRC) presented a proposal and a number of open questions around the creation of temporary sub-groups. [Slides: 20140617_MIG-T_Setting_up_sub-groups.pptx]

On the open questions, the following was agreed:
  • A sub-group can only be set up by one of the permanent MIG sub-groups.
  • The terms of reference for a sub-group are adopted by consensus, i.e. all submitted comments should be considered. If there are no further comments, the ToR can be considered adopted.
  • The method and criteria for the selection of sub-group members (e.g. nomination by MIG representatives, appliction of experts from the PoE, or a combination of both) should be defined in the ToR. The ToR should also define criteria for the exclusion of members (e.g. conflict of interest, maximum group size).
  • The sub-group lead should be a MIG representative or someone nominated by the MIG.
  • It is important to have at least on MIG representative in the sub-group in order to ensure that the MIG stays informed.
  • Requirements for funding of certain activities of the sub-group (e.g. the development of the dashboard for MIWP-16) as well as possible sources of funding should be clearly stated in the ToR.

[Action] JRC/EEA to prepare a template for ToR for sub-groups that takes these points into account.

Work plan for MIWP-5 (validation & conformity testing)

This point was not discussed for lack of time.


Vanda (JRC) suggested to discuss the link between INSPIRE implementation and other policies (MIWP-21) in one of the next meetings.

20140617-mig-meeting-jrc-inspire-dcat-ap+eurovoc-inspire+licences.pdf - Updates on INSPIRE metadata, DCAT-AP & relevant initiatives (Andrea Perego) (773 KB) Michael Lutz, 17 Jun 2014 09:45 am

MIWP19_CoVoc_ToR.pptx - Proposed terms of reference MIG sub-group on controlled vocabularies (Christian Ansorge) (94.8 KB) Michael Lutz, 17 Jun 2014 09:51 am

TJS+health_statistics_ELF.ppt - TJS overview and application to health statistics (5.67 MB) Michael Lutz, 17 Jun 2014 02:32 pm

20140617_MIG-T_Setting_up_sub-groups.pptx - Proposal for setting up temporary MIG sub-groups (373 KB) Michael Lutz, 24 Jun 2014 03:26 pm