- 5th MIG meeting 2014-03-12
- FINAL Minutes
- Upcoming events
- Minutes of the previous meeting
- Face-to-face meeting in April
- INSPIRE Conference
- Usage of Redmine for communications and discussions & Presentations of communities to the MIG
- Attendance list
5th MIG meeting 2014-03-12¶
Wednesday, 12th of March 2014, 9:30 – 11:00
- Welcome and approval of the agenda
[9:30 – 9:40]
- Minutes of the previous meeting (for discussion and agreement)
[9:40 – 9:45]
- Face-to-face meeting in April
[9:45 - 10:15]
- Agenda topics (see https://ies-svn.jrc.ec.europa.eu/issues/2122)
- Logistics and organisation
- INSPIRE Conference (see https://ies-svn.jrc.ec.europa.eu/issues/2145)
[10:15 - 10:30]
- MIG side meeting
- Parallel sessions
- Usage of Redmine for communications and discussions
[10:30 - 10:45]
- Meetings agendas, minutes
- Proposals for sub-groups and meeting attendees
- How does INSPIRE MIG accept questions (e.g. on GML, UML and XSD schemas), reports on errors or ambiguities? Which working group, MIG as a whole or JRC?
- Presentations of communities to the MIG
[10:45 - 10:55]
- How can the communities present to MIG or consult with MIG on the development of data models in conformity with the INSPIRE data specifications, e.g. the Urban Waste Water Treatment data model currently being developed under the SIIF pilot
[10:55 - 11:00]
- EIONET National Focal Points (NFP) meeting
- MIWP presentation at the next INSPIRE Committee / MIG policy sub-group
The minutes are based on the notes taken in the web-conference chat window by the scribe (Robin Smith) 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.
|4||Propose working methods, procedures and tools||EC||30/11/2013|
|12||Send to JRC (Robin and Michael) any best practices etc. that may be useful for the ARE3NA AAA study||all||continuous||x|
|13||Send to JRC (Robin and Michael) references to any existing work / best practices (including projects) that may be relevant for the ARE3NA study on RDF and PIDs for location/INSPIRE data.||all||continuous||x|
|23||Propose members for a sub-group on XML schema maintenance||MIG representatives||7/2/2014|
|25||Set up a call on publishing the metadata of the INSPIRE Geoportal in the pan-EU Open Data portal||JRC||31/1/2014||x|
|26||Share relevant events with the group||all||continuous|
|28||Discuss division of roles between MIG and INSPIRE Committee at the face-to-face meeting in April||all||10/4/2014||x|
|32||Publish the Annex I data specifications. Those documents whose schemas need further work should have a note added to them that this is taking place in the MIG.||JRC||28/2/2014||x|
|36||Clarify the status of task MIWP-20 in the minutes of the previous meeting||Michael||20140321||x|
|37||Propose agenda topics for the MIG face-to-face meeting||https://ies-svn.jrc.ec.europa.eu/issues/2147||all||20140328||x|
|38||Send out a Doodle for members to provide planned arrival and departure dates for April face-to-face meetings||Michael||20140314||x|
|39||Propose activities for INSPIRE Conference||https://ies-svn.jrc.ec.europa.eu/issues/2145||all||20140314||x|
|40||Investigate whether JRC can transfer collected detailed issues to Redmine||JRC||20140328|
[To be decided how to keep track of events in Redmine]
|18-19/3/2014||ARE3NA AAA workshop||Leuven, BE||Presentation of intermediate results of ARE3NA AAA study and planning of the test-bed (related to MIWP-3)|
|8/4/2014||SOS workshop||Ispra, IT||Presentation of intermediate results of ARE3NA SOS study (related to MIWP-7a)|
|09-10/4/2014||2nd MIG face-to-face meeting||Ispra, IT|
|11/4/2014||MIWP-16 meeting||Ispra, IT||Discussion and further planning of work on MIWP-16|
|5/5 & 6/5/2014||RDF & PIDs Review workshops||virtual||Presentation by ARE3NA RDF & PIDs study of proposed methodology for UML-to-RDF generation and recommendations for permanent ids (related to MIWP-4)|
|15-16/5/2014||Validation and conformity testing workshop||Ispra, IT||Initial discussions on how to address MIWP-5|
|16-20/6/2014||INSPIRE Conference||Aalborg||Proposal to have a closed MIG face-to-face meeting as a side event. Further MIG involvement and presentation of progress is being currently discussed.|
Minutes of the previous meeting¶
The minutes of previous meeting received some minor comments and notes from Carlo (IT) and others.
Benoit (FR) asked if Task 20 was accepted, as proposed by France. Michael (JRC) said it was included as a separate task in the final draft WP sent to the INSPIRE Committee/MIG sub-group on policy issues, but that this would be in close collaboration with the data specification work (Task 13). Benoit asked that the minutes be modified to clarify this.
[Action] Michael will update the minutes accordingly.
Michael proposed making the minutes process lighter. JRC will publish minutes on the Wiki as a draft for MIG members’ comments to various sections and direct modification of the text. MIG members supported this idea (AT, BE, CH/LI, DE, FR, ES, FI, IT, PL, SE)
Face-to-face meeting in April¶
We should use the Issues in Redmine to collect topics for the agenda. The "Update" in Redmine allows comments to be added to the "notes" section. Private issues are only visible to MIG members. You can add yourself as a "watcher" to any relevant page.
The MIG was asked if they had any topics to share in the teleconference. Tim (UK) proposed discussing the metadata review and was asked to add this to the issue tracker. Darja (EEA) suggested discussing the progress in the groups and their status that could lead to discussion of some topics in detail.
Michael (JRC) noted that Redmine will help to gather these details and their tasks in the issue tracker. The wiki now has an overview and links to tasks and individual issues and he proposed to use this for the different actions in the work programme. These details can be used to prepare the meeting.
Darja also proposed having a short report from active tasks/actions every three to six months. Michael (JRC) said this would be good and that a high level overview should be kept for communicating progress publicly helping to communicate to INSPIRE stakeholders what is going on.
Vanda (JRC) added that the participation in clusters and other policies has some expectations and will take some time to get started. The face-to-face meeting is an opportunity to discuss things further and benefit from initial experiences. This clusters can also help to see how INSPIRE can operate in other policy areas, such as reporting.
[Action] MIG members should use the Redmine issue on the face-to-face meeting to make other proposals
Logistics and organisation¶
Official invitations should be sent in the next few days. Due to other events in the region, the meeting will not be held at the JRC but in a hotel in Arona (the other side of the lake from Ispra) where MIG members should be staying.
[Action] Michael will send a mail with a Doodle for members to provide planned arrival and departure dates, so that booking of reserved rooms can be completed. This will cover the dates for the MIG meeting and other meetings, too (7-12 April).
Issues have started to be added to Redmine for further inputs. Those who have sent previous proposals via e-mail should enter these again in Redmine.
JRC proposes to have reports from the MIG during the parallel sessions, probably involving 2-3 sessions on the same day to cover different topics, so 2-3 topics can be grouped into the same presentation.
MIG members were asked to indicate if they want to present their activities and if they preferred having a closed meeting (2-3hrs) before the main conference (closed meetings on individuals actions/tasks and/or for open workshops).
[Action] The Redmine issues can be used to collect ideas for the meetings/presentations/workshops (open/closed) but individuals must submit proposals using normal conference submission page. The deadline is this Friday (5 March).
Michael (JRC) indicated that the conference will be an opportunity to promote the activities of MIG, explaining its processes and procedures and also allow some presentations on specific actions/tasks performed by them to be shown. Martin (SK) suggested that workshops should have concrete proposals, as discussions and questions could take place in the parallel session presentations. He also suggested that the Commission give a presentation about the relationship between MIG and other groups such as ISA Working Group on Spatial Information and Services.
Christine (CH/LI) said that a workshop on GML topic could be useful but was not sure if it would be open or closed. Alex R. (UK, offline) has also aadded suggestions to Redmine.
Michael (JRC) asked that proposals in Redmine should be as precise as possible, but, if time was running out for the Friday deadline, a placeholder with some details should be submitted for specific topics so that it can be discussed when preparing final programme.
The MIG members were asked if they feel they needed a 2-3 hour side-meeting. BE, CZ, DE, ES, FI, FR, IT, NL, PL, SK, SE, UK and EEA. Carlo (IT) said that this would depend on how many activities would be presented and Lars (DK) suggested that a decision about this issue could be taken following the face-to-face meeting in Arona.
Michael added that the JRC would like to add proposals to promote some ARE3NA activities at the conference as presentations and workshops (and posters) as joint activities co-branded with the MIG such as the RDF/PID work, AAA and registry (to be discussed). SE and FI supported this proposal.
Martin (SK) added to Michael’s suggestions that related ongoing and upcoming projects (e.g. SmartOpenData, sdi4apps) could also have papers and workshop proposals addressing some MIG WPs topics (including Registers, RDF and Data-sharing).
Usage of Redmine for communications and discussions & Presentations of communities to the MIG¶
JRC would like to increase the use of the online tool Redmine to improve the efficiency in communication. The system is ready and is planned to be used as a collaboration tool that should replace email.
Problems with ECAS Authentication, as indicated by Tim (UK), are being addressed. It is necessary to be registered in the system but then a migration to ECAS user profiles can take place to add people to projects. All details on Redmine will be public unless they are made private, meaning that non-registered users can see wiki and issues details. Topics such as internal discussions can be made private, meaning that they are only visible to the "developer" profile (clicking on a topic will identify the relevant developers).
Proposals for meetings, people to work on tasks etc. should be added to _Redmine, and any feedback about the system should be sent to Michael.
Markus (DE) asked if it is possible to add comments (e.g Data Specifications) the way they were used to do in CIRCA. Michael said that this was a good proposal and that questions that have been answered should be reviewed again and logged in Redmine for tracking and future reference. Comments can include specific issues on data specifications and minor issues, including those which were mentioned at the kick-off meeting to keep track of issues that may not be addressed immediately but could become part of future versions of the work programme. It was suggested these should be assigned to existing tasks, where possible.
Christian, Darja & Paul (EEA) asked if issues will be tracked for comments related to Annex I. [Action] Michael (JRC) said this will be discussed with colleagues to see if JRC can perform this task and will inform the MIG if this will not be possible.
Darja (EEA) asked how the pool of experts can be used and proposed experts of sub-groups could have access to Redmine. Michael (JRC) answered that, according to Terms of Reference, it is the task of MIG to set up subgroups and assign experts.
Once set up, MIG members can invite people to join groups, as Paul (EEA) did for Task 16, with nominees added to the project. Michael also did this for the registry sub-group's nominations. It was suggested that, when picking experts, it would be helpful to ask about their expertise and motivation in case there are too many nominations.
The leader of a task should propose the members of a task to the MIG and the MIG should approve the composition of any sub-groups. Although volunteers to sub-group probably can be easily accepted, there could be exceptional cases where conflicts of interest (etc.) could occur,
Michael showed the new version of the website for the pool of experts (currently in beta version) which has a query interface to search for experts with a particular profile. The current public version only has top-level characteristics. The new version will also allow users to search for sub-topics and more detailed filtering/searching will be possible to help find experts for specific sub-groups from across participating countries.
Darja (EEA) asked how the MIG will deal with questions coming from many different sources, if there will be a workflow defined and how questions and answers will be collected. Michael (JRC) said that the some queries may be resolved in subgroups but others may cross activities and that it will be important to share experiences, especially when organisations need relatively quick responses to some implementation questions. Darja (EEA) provided an example of a prototype way to collect this information based on a common database for designated areas.
The MIG was recognised as the only community which can give guidelines and answers to questions raised by such work and Michael (JRC) reminded members that this was discussed at the kick-off. The model used to set-up of the MIG work programme could also be followed for any queries being raised (see slides from MIG kick-off). Individual stakeholders cannot propose directly to the MIG, as it is important communication channels do not flood the MIG, hence the need for official MIG submitting organisations alongside the support from the EEA and JRC. This set-up will help questions to be promoted for wider discussion if one group cannot answer them, where the issue tracker can be used not only for the work programme but also for more technical discussions, including urgent/ad hoc issues.
Questions from a functional mailbox need to be shared with the MIG when the Commission cannot answer them themselves or where an official answer is not being sought from the Commission. Many of these questions are technical and suitable for the MIG. A slide from kick-off showed a forum for discussion which could also be a source to be submitting to the MIG but it could also be a flow the other way to ask questions to the forum. Queries should be assigned in Redmine to particular people for either response or to forward the question to appropriate experts. To facilitate this, it was proposed that MIG representatives’ areas of interest and expertise need to be gathered so that issues can be targeted.
Christina (SE) and Darja (EEA) proposed that this should be discussed further at the face-to-face meeting.
Vanda (JRC) reminded the MIG that Task 14 will also need a group of experts in thematic areas for thematic questions. Darja (EEA) provided an example for the implementation of data models on Urban Waste Water Treatment (UWWT) that need discussion at the modelling level to understand how INSPIRE could meet domain needs, including where many non-mandatory parts may be needed as well as extensions to code lists and their maintenance. Vanda (JRC) supported this and said it is fundamental to go beyond a compliance situation, as it is not always obvious how models should be extended and that we need to be able to say what needs to be done in a pilot in order to be INSPIRE complaint.
Darja (EEA) also raised an issue about governance of such material and if these elements should be maintained in INSPIRE. She proposed a common workshop to discuss data models but recognised that organisational and financial aspects and related procedures for such activities need to be addressed. Michael (JRC) said this should be part of Task 14, reminding the MIG that if there is a need for a meeting/webinar in any Task, then proposals will need to be submitted to the JRC.
Christine (CH/LI), Darja (EEA) and Carlo (IT) agreed that these topics are important and need to be discussed in detail at the meeting in Arona.
EIONET, NFPs and other possible participating organisations¶
Christian (EEA) said that they presented the work of the MIG at the National Focal Points (NFP) meeting in Copenhagen, with many interested in several actions/tasks of the MIG. EIONET/NFPs have asked to be more frequently informed about MIG activities. Michael (JRC) said that most MIG materials are public but asked if additional pointers were needed or if there needs to be more direct contact between the MIG/INSPIRE NCPs and NFP/EIONET? Carlo (IT) proposed that the NFP follow progress in actions/tasks via the public part of Redmine. Christian (EEA) confirmed that better contact should be sought. Vanda (JRC) suggested that the MIG be informed when there is an NFP meeting so that preparations can be made in good time and that the MIG can help put people in contact, with the EEA supporting this idea.
Offline, Alex R. (UK) asked if we other stakeholder groups, like EIONET, should join the MIG, such as ELF, EULF and ARE3NA should become members of the MIG. Martin (SK) added that the ESTAT committee will have the MIG WP presented.
Status of MS participation in MIG activities¶
Michael pointed out that the document was circulated last week on this topic and that the INSPIRE Committee/policy sub-group of the MIG will not disapprove a topic if a Member State is missing. Nomination is still encouraged using the online version of the Work programme that could be sent before the Committee meeting as the latest version. Martin (SK) said that the MIG need to communicate at national level if groups are active or not, noting they are trying to do their best.
Michael (JRC) proposed that the online version can be used to update the programme and that an extract may be needed every 3-6 months for endorsement. Martin (SK) proposed that an online indication of which groups are active and yet to start would be useful.
Lars (DK) asked about participation to the meeting between the MIG and the Committee. Michael explained (following Hugo de Groef’s reply to a question from Germany) that Member of the European Parliament (MEPs) cannot attend committee meetings but, following the Lisbon Treaty, they can participate in meetings relating to the preparation and evaluation of legal acts. We have been asked to ensure that MEPs interested in INSPIRE can attend discussions on implementation/preparation of policies. The proposal, therefore, is to have a group that is not the Committee only but also has the same people as the Committee. The meeting will not have any voting relating to the implementing rules and MEPs interested in the topics. The meeting on the 28^th^ is, therefore, split into a closed meeting for the SDS implementing rule in the morning and an afternoon session that MEPs can attend. Michael (JRC) thought, in principle, MIG members should also be able to attend this meeting but that only one person per country could be reimbursed but he will check this with DGENV.
Christian, Darja and Paul (EEA) also asked when the Annex I DS and schemas will the updated and published but there was not time to discuss this.
|Bulgaria||Lilyana Turnalieva – Tsolova||x|
|Cyprus||Anthi Kakkouri Lakkotrypi|
|Czech Republic||Jiri Kvapil|
|Czech Republic||Jirí Polácek||x|
|Denmark||Ulla Kronborg Mazzoli|
|FYROM (Macedonia)||Bojan Anastasov|
|Iceland||Anna Guðrún Ahlbrecht|
|Iceland||Eydís Líndal Finnbogadóttir|
|Netherlands||Aart Jan Klijnjan|
|Portugal||Maria José Lucena e Vale|
|Romania||Simona Daniela Bunea|
|Spain||Emilio López Romero|
|Spain||María Soledad Gómez Andrés||x|
|EC||Vanda Nunes de Lima||x|
|EC||Hugo de Groof|
|EC||Lorena Hernandez Quiros||x|