44th meeting of the MIG permanent technical sub-group (MIG-T)

30-31 October 2017

JRC, Ispra, Italy

Draft Agenda

Monday, 30 October 2017

9:00 – 9:15    Welcome and approval of the agenda

9:15 – 9:30     Minutes of the previous meetings (for discussion and agreement) and review of open action items

9:30 – 10:15     Roundtable with reflection on INSPIRE 2017 Conference (for exchange of views)

10:15 - 10:30     Planning of INSPIRE 2018 Conference (Ouns Kissyar) (for information)

10:30 – 11:00    Coffee break

11:00 – 12:30    MIWP actions – Status reports (for information)     [DOC 1]

12:30 – 14:00    Buffet lunch

14:00 – 15:30    Annex I implementation approaches and issues (for exchange of views)    [PRES 1]

15:30 – 16:00    Coffee break

16:00 – 17:30    Annex I implementation approaches and issues (continued)

  • Filtering content in the geoportal ("finding the needle in the hay-stack")

19:30 – 22:00      Social dinner (paid by participants)

Tuesday, 31 October 2017

9:00 – 11:00    Proposed changes to IRs on data interoperability (for exchange of views)     [DOC-2_IR-ISDSS_change_proposals_by_MS+EEA.xlsx]

  • Discussion and classification on extracted technical proposals from Member States (in break-out groups)
  • Summary of MIG-T position on the selected proposals

11:00 – 11:30     Coffee Break

11:30 – 11:45      New action: Master guidance (for information)    [DOC-3_Draft_action_mandate_MIWP-2017.1_Master_guidelines.docx]

11:45 – 12:30      New actions: Alternative encodings & Better client software/tool support for INSPIRE data (for information and exchange of views) 

12:30 – 13:00      INSPIRE & spatial data on the Web (for information)    [DOC-7_ELISE_D2.1.1_Spatial_Data_on_the_Web_tools_and_guidance_for_data_providers_v1.0.pdf]

13:00 – 14:30    Buffet lunch

14:30 – 15:30     MIWP actions – Status reports (for information)     [DOC 1]

  • Action 2016.5 List of Priority datasets
    • Report from the 2016.5 kick-off meeting
    • Status and planned tasks (e.g. table update, geoportal identification, code lists etc. )
    • MIWP 2016.5 LOPD.pptx

15:30 – 16:00    Coffee break

16:00 – 16:30     AOB & information points (for information)

  • Global Reference Grid Systems WS
  • INSPIRE & Copernicus

16:30 – 17:00     Conclusions and next steps

Draft Minutes


The minutes summarise the main conclusions and actions from the meeting. Actions are indicated in the minutes using the keyword [Action] and are tracked in the issue tracker.


Wolfgang Fahrner (AT), Nathalie Delattre (BE), Ouns Kissiyar (BE), Andreas Hadjiraftis (CY), Jiri Polacek (CZ), Lenka Rejentova (CZ), Nicolas Hagemann (DE), Lars Storgaard (DK), Heidi Vanparys (DK), Sulev Õitspuu (EE), Emilio López (ES), Marisol Gómez (ES), Panu Muhli (FI), Marc Leobet (FR), Marie Lambois (FR), Tomislav Ciceli (HR), Tamas Palya (HU), Carlo Cipolloni (IT), Arvids Ozols (LV), Rene Agius (MT), Ine de Visser (NL), Wideke Boersma (NL), Marcin Grudzień (PL), Henrique Silva (PT), Anders Rydén (SE), Christina Wasström (SE), Uroš Mladenović (SI), Martin Tuchyňa (SK), Jason King (UK), Tim Duffy (UK), Arvid Lillethun (NO), Morten Borrebaek (NO), Nemanja Paunic (RS), Jose Miguel Rubio Iglesias (EEA), Joeri Robbrecht (ENV), Robert Tomas (JRC), Vanda Nunes de Lima (JRC), Vlado Cetl (JRC), Robin Smith (JRC), Angelo Quaglia (JRC), Karen Fullerton (JRC), Michael Lutz (JRC, chair)

Welcome and approval of the agenda

Michael Lutz opened the meeting welcoming the new MIG-T members and observers Rene Agius (MT), Wideke Boersma (NL), Morten Borrebaek (NO) and Nemanja Paunic (RS).

The agenda was approved without changes.

Minutes of the previous meetings

The minutes of the 43rd MIG-T meeting were endorsed as they currently stand on the wiki.

Roundtable with reflection on INSPIRE 2017 Conference

The participants appreciated the 2017 conference and congratulated the organisers (DE, FR and EC). In particular, participants liked the interactive and practical nature of the workshops and the good discussions for the speed presentations. Also, several participants appreciated the high-level political participation and support in the opening plenary, while there was mixed feedback on the other plenary sessions. Several participants suggested not to mix workshops and conference sessions, but to keep them separate.

See the Annex for detailed comments from the round-table.

Planning of INSPIRE 2018 Conference

Ouns Kissiyar presented the current status of the planning for the 2018 conference jointly organised by NL and BE in Antwerp.

The conference will last only 4 days (from Monday, 17/9 to Thursday, 20/9/2018). However, the conference centre has been pre-booked for Friday, 21/9 and could be used for post-conference events, if needed. The conference topic is still being discussed, but it will most probably focus around users and "Make INSPIRE work for you". Currently, the idea is to mix workshop and parallel sessions in order to mix different audiences (technical, users, policy makers, ...). The conference web site will be online by January.

[Action] All MIG members are invited to interact with the organisers and suggest ideas and provide feedback on the planning.

Status report MIWP 2016.2 – Monitoring and reporting 2019

Joeri Robbrecht presented the current work by DG ENV and JRC on the planned amendment of the reporting decision and the preparation for the support action under the MIWP to kick off in 2018.

The aim is to move to continuous monitoring of the implementation (by using the latest INSPIRE metadata as the basis for the monitoring); however, a snapshot of the metadata/reporting data might still be kept at regular intervals (e.g. on a specific date each year).

NO reminded their interest to be included country fiche systems as well. This was discussed in the last MIG meeting. [Action] NO and DG ENV to check progress.

FR reminded that the current plans for more continous reporting could mean that Article 21 of the Directive would need to be changed. DG ENV clarified that this is an option that will be discussed with the Committee meeting in December. Such a change could be part of a wider legal alignment of reporting obligations (as a follow up of fitness check of environmental monitoring and reporting).

Status report MIWP 2016.3 – Validation & conformity testing

Michael Lutz presented the current planning for the action, Jiri Polacek and Martin Tuchyna presented their experiences with using the reference validator in CZ and SK.

The call for the 2016.3 sub-group will be kept open. In particular, additional experts on data validation would be welcome. The group will kick off its work in December. One crucial function will be to support the helpdesk on the ATS and ETS, in particular for issues on issues related to interpretations of the TG requirments and how to test them.

Contracts for the further development work on the reference validator are being put in place. Taking into the results of the recent survey to the MIG, the order of priority of the work on the missing ATS/ETS will be:

  1. Metatdata TG v2.0
  2. View services (WMS, WMTS)
  3. Annex II+III data
  4. SOS/WCS-based donwload services
  5. Discovery service

One important issue is the scope of the validator instance at JRC, which could be a reference implementation with limited capacity (not aimed to be used widely in operational implementations) or the main reference instance used for operational implementations. Several participants felt that, while it was important to have the option to deploy the software locally, the JRC-hosted instance should also be usable in operational implementations and should support more than the current 4 concurrent requests.

It was underlined that it will be important to keep local deployments in sync with the latest changes to ATS/ETS (automatically), and that deployment should be made easier. 

The user interface is currently only available in English, but multi-linguality is supported. This is especially important for the validation (error) reports. [Action] JRC to open a call for contributions of translations.

DG ENV and JRC confirmed that the new validator will be used for monitoring and, as far as that is possible, for compliance ensurance. The latter, however, may need specific test suites covering the legal aspects.

Status report MIWP 2016.4 – Theme-specific issues / Thematic Clusters

Robert Tomas presented the current status and planning of the action. The reports of the facilitators from the INSPIRE conference meetings of the Thematic Clusters will be available shortly. Important issues that need discussion in the 2016.4 sub-group and/or the MIG will be tracked in the issue tracker of the sub-group. A meeting is planned of the 2016.4 sub-group in early 2018 to discuss the further evolution of the Thematic Clusters platform.

Some participants reported difficulties of INSPIRE stakeholders to publish cross-cutting issues (e.g. on metadata). While these can also be published on the TC platform, the name of the platform suggests that it is limited to thematic discussions only. This (and other) feedback will be taken into account in the on-going discussions in JRC on how to streamline the many feedback and discussion sites currently available.

Annex I implementation approaches and issues

Robert Tomas showed a demo of the new Thematic Viewer application built on top of the geoportal backend (harvesting MS discovery services). Participants welcomed the application and expressed their interest in testing it. The application will shortly be made available to MIG members for testing, once the JRC security assessment has been completed. It will not require EU Login (ECAS) authentication, but will initially not be widely announced. After testing by the MIG/MS, it will be announced publicly. [Action] In the meantime, JRC offered to share the PDF reports generated by the application with interested MS (please contact Robert Tomas).

The aim is then to work with Member States on improving the metadata content and the accessibility of data sets, starting with the priority data sets, but also including Annex I data (if there is interest in the MS). For this, a dedicated contact point should be nominated for each Member States. This contact point should coordinate discussions inside the MS and raise any un-resolved issues or open questions to the MIG or EC. [Action] JRC to launch a call for nominations.

The MIG-T agreed that instead of the current approach of "guessing" priority data sets based on specific keywords and text mining (e.g. "Natura 2000"), agreed keywords from a controlled vocabulary should be used (preferably using a combination of a URI and a human-readable keyword). A first demo version of the controlled vocabulary is already available in the INSPIRE registry: http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/metadata-codelist/priority-dataset. A similar approach could be used to encode spatial coverage (references to NUTS regions and an agreed European data sets for sea regions, if available), thematic domains (reference to a code list in the INSPIRE registry) and legal acts (reference to the identifier of the legal act in http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

[Action] JRC to publish the complete list in the INSPIRE registry as a metadata code list, for the 2016.5 sub-group to check and validate. The code list should include indiviudal pages for each entry and the colloquial names of the Directives in the labels for each entry.

[Action] JRC to share a concrete proposal and example on how to encode a reference to the priority list in the metadata. The proposal will include also proposals for spatial coverage, thematic domain and legal acts (as additional voluntary references).

[Action] JRC(?) to check whether the proposed solution is supported by metadata editors, in particular GeoNetwork.

[Action] JRC to work with volunteers under action 2016.5 to test and improve the approaches.

In the discussion on concrete implementation issues encountered, the following points were made:

  • The exact method used in the geoportal backend for establishing links needs to be well understood, in order to ensure that they are also followed in national guidelines.
  • The user interface could offer a user-friendly interface for accessing data through download and view services (by detecting the type of service). This will be considered for further improvement of the application, but is not currently a priority.
  • The current validation component of the geoportal backend is still in use, but will be repaced by the reference validator in the future.
  • Some MS will never have one data set for the MS, but will still have national coverage (through the combination of the regional data sets) - how can this be demonstrated in the viewer?
  • The application should  be integrated this with monitoring dashboard.
  • It would be good to have access to a snapshot of metadata content at a given date, including a persistent representation of validation results. [Action] MS to share their specific requirements with JRC. This will also be further discussed in the context of M&R 2019 and integration with monitoring dashboard.
  • [Action] JRC to share numbers/pointers to duplicate metadata records per MS

After a discussion implementation approaches for data set series, it was agreed that for the moment no specific MIG-T activity is necessary to harmonise the approaches. However, the issue for collecting current practices in the MS (#3025) will be kept open, and MS are invited to provide further feedback. If the usage of data set series will cause issues in the development of the Thematic Viewer application, the issue may be re-opened or an ad-hoc activity may be proposed in the future.

Also the approach to determine national (and possibly regional) data sets based on the bounding box declared in the metadata should be further evaluated. The proposed approach based on controlled vocabularies could still be implemented in addition.

Proposed changes to IRs on data interoperability

Michael Lutz gave a rough overview of the issues received by MS and the EEA/EIONET. The TC facilitators have already provided an initial feedback on the received issues and pointed out links to ongoing discussions in the Thematic Clusters. Due to the large number of detailed issues (around 50) and the limited time for preparation, no detailed discussion was possible. However, the following clusters of issues were indentified:

  • theme-specific issues
    • very specific issues/bug fixes/corrigenda
    • issues related to code lists
    • issues related to the conceptual model for SU, PD and HH
    • issues to ensure coherence with thematic legislation (e.g. definition of key concepts)
  • cross-cutting issures
    • issues related to CRS and grids
    • issues related to multiplicity / voidability

It was agreed that further MIG-T feedback should be sought on the proposed issues, following an initial clustering (by the EC) and using agreed feedback categories (including e.g. whether the issue is shared in the MS, whether it is clear enough or needs further work or evidence, and what the impact could be on existing implementations).

Given the many comments on code lists, the JRC suggested that a possible change could be to remove all code list values from the IRs and replace them with a reference to the INSPIRE registry and a definition of the process for making/endorsing changes to it (e.g. involving the MIG). This suggestion was generally welcomed as long as the proposal will allow ensuring coherence with definitions in thematic policies.

The following actions were agreed to arrive at a MIG-T appraisal of the proposed changes:

[Action] JRC to elaborate the proposal about code lists and the registry

[Action] EC to group/cluster the issues

[Action] Facilitators to add their evaluation and comments

[Action] MIG-T representatives to share their feedback / evaluation

Depending on the initial appraisal, specific (clusters of) issues could be further elaborated in dedicated workshops, e.g. on

  • SU/PD/HH, involving also ESTAT - interested MIG-T members: Natalie Delattre, Arvid Lillethun, Ine de Visser, Carlo Cipolloni, Vlado Cetl
  • CRS/Grids - interrsted: Emilio Lopez, Marie Lambois

New MIWP actions

Joeri Robbrecht and Michael Lutz presented the draft action mandates for the new actions on master guidance, alternative encodings and better client software/tool support for INSPIRE data. All three new actions were welcomed. The following points were made in the discussion:

  • Master guidance
    • Similar national "master guidance" (e.g. on the link between INSPIRE and main ICT drivers) exists in several members states (SK, NL, FR, SE, UK). [Action] MS to share these with the EC.
    • The guidance should also include FAQs. These could be linked to national FAQs (where available).
    • The document should not only focus on better environmental policy, also include eGov and possible other policies. This could e.g. be achieved by having similar guidelines illustrating the benefits for other domains.
  • Alternative encodings
    • The action should also discuss how alternative encodings should be reflected in existing TGs (and where changes are necessary), e.g. in the DS and D2.7 encoding guidelines
    • The sub-group will be mainly expected to identify priority encodings to be worked upon and to provide input and feedback on the work of the contractor
    • The action should also consider the potential loss of information for certain encodings and discuss whether such "lossy" encodings are meeting the IR requirements
    • [Action] JRC to launch a call for background material and candidates for alternative encodings (once the action has been endorsed by the MIG)
  • Better client software/tool support for INSPIRE data
    • One important task for the action is to collect examples of INSPIRE GML files showing the possible complexity covered. These can then be shared with tool/client developers as reference material for testing their solutions.
    • The ELS project is currently evaluating the usability of WFS in different clients. Contact point: Roy Mellum (NO)
    • Given the planned focus on users, the action should aim at presenting interim results at the INSPIRE Conference

As an example of an alternative encoding rule, Michael Lutz presented the work on an encoding rules for RDF carried out under the ARE3NA ISA action. There is interest in RDF as an alternative encoding in some MS. Robin Smith informed that ESTAT is working on sharing statistical data in RDF and is interested in understanding which countries have an interest in sharing their geospatial data in RDF.

INSPIRE & spatial data on the Web

Michael Lutz presented the work done under the ELISE ISA2 action on "spatial data on the web". Several participants welcomed the document as forward-looking ("could be the basis for the future work programme of the MIG-T"), thought-provoking ("takes a different view on SDI, but from mainly from user point of view") but still pragmatic ("exactly what we need, especially for discussion with the e-Government community"). Some MS are already investigating to move in the directions indicated in the paper.

It was agreed to have a detailed discussion (reserving a full day) of the proposed framework and experiments at the next MIG-T face-to-face meeting. This should include a discussion of the topic of "INSPIRE data sets" vs. different distributions (one of them meeting the INSPIRE requirements) of a data set.

Status report MIWP 2016.5 List of priority data sets

Joeri Robbrecht presented the outcomes from the kick-off meeting, the 2017-2018 work programme for the subgroup and the status of the short and mid-term actions. The work programma focusses on following work items:

  • Manage and update the priority list of eReporting datasets
  • Make data available as is
  • Monitoring the availability of pan-European datasets

The next meeting of the sub-group will take place at EEA in Copenhagen on 23 November back-to-back with the meeting of the National Reference Centers on Environmental Information Systems (NRC EIS). 

Initial feedback on the list was provided by one Member State that highlighted the need for further detailing and cleansing of the list. 

[Action] MIG-T representatives to share information on good practices for identifying priority data sets with EC/EEA by 17/11/2017.
[Action] MIG-T representatives to provide feedback on V1.2 of the priority list by 17/11/2017.
[Action] MIG-T representatives to express their interest in participating in 2016.5 pilots (e.g. metadata tagging) by 22/11/2017.
[Action] EC/EEA to gather feedback on the list, improve the quality and prepare a proposal for the governance of the list to be discussed at the next 2016.5 subgroup.
It was suggested to provide a complete metadata templates for identifying the priority data sets (including title, abstract, … so that only the contact info needs to be provided). This could be useful for those MS that have not yet included the data sets from the priority list in their national discovery services. The on-going EEA study should show whether we start from a low baseline or whether there are already many data sets available in the INSPIRE infrastructure.
[Action] EC/EEA to collect MS methodologies for identifying data sets from the lists.
[Action] EC/EEA to discuss the provision of metadata templates in the 2016.5 subgroup.

AOB & information points

  • Jose Rubio presented the EEA's InScope project, which is looking into the usability of INSPIRE data for the Copernicus Land monitoring and Emergency management services.
  • Michael Lutz reported on the workshop on Global Reference Grid Systems held in July at JRC. As a follow-up, a discussion paper is currently being drafted with workshop participants.
  • The JRC has recently published a Practical Handbook for Regional Authorities, including a chapter on INSPIRE. If there is interest in the MS, we could develop an extended version (to be included in the INSPIRE in your country section on the INSPIRE knowledge base) including also the services provided to regions by the national contact points.
  • [Action] MS/organisations interested in hosting the next face-to-face meeting (in March/April 2018) should contact the JRC.

Annex - Detailed notes from the round-table on the 2017 INSPIRE Conference

  • Arvids: liked the conference, many open source solutions
  • Sulev:
    • workshops were fully booked, but then there was still room - don't limit the number of participants for workshop
    • good contacts to WeTransform, good discussions on ESRI alternatives, in particular for Annex III
  • Marc:
    • open data are crucial, to get to the data
    • workshops were good
    • importance of algorithms/data analytics, get also other than the ususal suspects (GI users) involved as users
  • Marie
    • good to have real workshops with hands-on sessions
    • wider than usual (not just narrow INSPIRE implementation)
  • Jiri: well balanced programme (technical, policy, users, …)
  • Jitka: liked the workshops & technical sessions
  • Morten: modernising web services in OGC/ISO --> new WFS is being worked on; we could have a demo & explanation at the 2018 conference
  • Arvid: ideas for 2018
    • more on examples and best practices for SDW
    • global data models (in comparison to INSPIRE)
    • how do NSDIs do things that "not strictly" INSPIRE
    • how to measure maturity of SDIs
    • what will happen after 2020?
  • Christina:
    • good to start with workshops and then have conference after
    • good to have real workshops
    • sessions on thinking out of the box and speed presentations were good
    • disappointed with plenary sessions (not really inspiring)
  • Anders
    • workshops then conference, not mixed programme
    • workshops good in general, but could have even more discussion and less presentations
    • good to have a focus on simplification
  • Tomislav
    • only attended the conference
    • topics covering connections to other policies were the most popular ones
  • Uros
    • only attended conference
    • basic level is becoming mature
    • how to open data to the web, to other users (not specifically GIS), link to eGov
    • lot of OS software is now available
  • Marcin
    • conference was very technical and tangible - good
    • speed presentations were very good - led to good discussions
    • workshops were good, hands-on
    • workshops should be recorded
    • give 5-10 min to presenters to summarise the outcomes of speed presentation discussions
  • Nicolas
    • programme: it was not always clear what the scope of the presentations was
    • good to have Q&A session with ENV, JRC, EEA
  • Wolfgang: workshops - focus on tools for practical implementation
  • Andreas
    • venue and social event were excellent
    • interesting plenaries
    • workshop space was too limited
  • Wideke:Good: speed presentations and workshops, in particular the e-Reporting special session
  • Ine
    • good: speed presentations and discussion
    • important to have discussions with ENV, JRC, EEA
    • missed: presentation of TC - meetings of TCs should be announced more in advance
  • Lars
    • workshops (e.g. validator, e-Reporting)
    • many new faces working on real implementation
    • several participants had suggestions on simplification, including alternative encodings
    • SDW and linked data perspective
    • INSPIRE- what if… and thinking out of the box
    • Quality of the plenaries was higher in previous years
    • some presentations were too high level
    • Exhibition space felt too big
  • Panu
    • workshops - were interactive, have more of that
    • more focus on evolution of INSPIRE
  • Jose
    • too little time for discussions in the eRep workshop
    • speed presentations
    • more out-of-the box presentation
  • Ouns
    • workshops were excellent. Yes, they were crowded, but it was good to be so close to other participants --> better discussions
  • Natalie
    • workshops were interactive
    • fear of not getting a place, some people didn’t come because of this
    • speed presentations
  • Carlo
    • <sorry, I missed your contribution, please add...>
  • Tim
    • good technical presentations and workshops
  • Jason
    • openness of the workshops should be maintained
  • Martin
    • Thinking out of the box: synergies with open data and egov movement needs to be ensured
    • Measurement of INSPIRE progress
    • good that ppts and videos were published quickly
    • workshops
  • Tamas
    • good connection established with WeTransform
    • plenaries were excellent, in particular opening plenary with EC decision makers --> important for national level
    • missing: presentations on data quality
  • Emilio
    • local organisation was excellent
    • interesting workshops and parallel sessions, but often difficult to decide which session
    • new formats are good, but need good moderators and more active audience
    • important to hear MS representatives
  • Henrique
    • Interest in INSPIRE is not waning, on the contrary
    • interesting technical solutions, e.g. cloud soltuons, interesting for smaller entities
    • many presentation on automation
    • Docker could be helpful approach
    • INSPIRE registry
  • Joeri
    • ENV was very happy with the plenaries, especially messages from top level EC reps (e.g. Viola, DG Connect) and DG of ENV (for implementation of env legislation), creates possibility for roadmap for INSPIRE beyond 2020
    • impressed by software presented by SMEs, e.g. cloud solutions:
    • Connection to other policies: many presentations on synergies with eGov strategies on national level
  • Vlado
    • importance of capacity building
  • Michael
    • The speed presentations and long workshops were appreciated – as they allowed discussion with the participants.
    • 6 parallel sessions were too many
    • Keeping the cost down for the conference dinner worked! 
    • Given the proximity of Brussels it would be good to attract our Policy DGs to attend the 2018 conference
    • Have streams in the programme (e.g. User,  Policy, Technical , Implementation, Thinking out of the Box) over the days of the conference.
    • We could have a call for complete sessions  - similar to the workshop call with a request for a detailed storyboard and agenda.  
    • Limit the number of submissions/presentations per person
  • Robert
    • Good that focus is moving on the data
    • recommend to have a look at the Practicing practical INSPIRE workshop
  • Karen
    • Glad that the speed presentations worked
    • What about the exhibition area?
    • Need to promote the poster session

DOC-7_ELISE_D2.1.1_Spatial_Data_on_the_Web_tools_and_guidance_for_data_providers_v1.0.pdf - DOC 7: ELISE deliverable on INSPIRE & Spatial Data on the Web (1.56 MB) Michael Lutz, 20 Oct 2017 10:27 am

DOC-4_Draft_action_mandate_MIWP-2017.2_Alternative_encodings.docx - DOC 4: Draft action mandate 2017.2 Alternative encodings (47.3 KB) Michael Lutz, 24 Oct 2017 06:24 pm

DOC-3_Draft_action_mandate_MIWP-2017.1_Master_guidelines.docx - DOC 3: Draft action mandate 2017.1: Master guidelines (156 KB) Michael Lutz, 28 Oct 2017 06:11 pm

DOC-5_Draft_action_mandate_MIWP-2017.3_Improved_client_support_for_INSPIRE_data.docx - DOC 5: Draft action mandate 2017.3: Improved client support for INSPIRE data (46.9 KB) Michael Lutz, 28 Oct 2017 06:12 pm

Data_set_series.pptx - Introduction to discussion on data set series (1.73 MB) Michael Lutz, 28 Oct 2017 06:12 pm

2016.3_action_status.pptx - Status report and planning for action 2016.3 (1.73 MB) Michael Lutz, 28 Oct 2017 06:13 pm

DOC-2_IR-ISDSS_change_proposals_by_MS+EEA.xlsx - DOC 2: Change proposals by MS and EEA to the IRs on data interoperability (incl. evaluation by TC facilitators) (41.8 KB) Michael Lutz, 28 Oct 2017 07:18 pm

20171030-31_Implementation_INSPIRE_Coverages_MIGT_JEscriu.pptx (1.08 MB) Michael Lutz, 30 Oct 2017 04:55 pm

Inspire-tc-summary-10_2017.pptx (5.22 MB) Michael Lutz, 30 Oct 2017 04:55 pm

INSPRE_Geoportal_Thematic_views.pptx (5.8 MB) Michael Lutz, 30 Oct 2017 05:00 pm

Spatial_data_on_the_Web_tools_and_guidance.pptx (7.28 MB) Michael Lutz, 03 Nov 2017 08:52 am

INSPIRE-RDF_encoding_guidelines_and_pilots.pptx (3.33 MB) Michael Lutz, 03 Nov 2017 08:53 am

Testing_of_validator_Polacek.pptx (309 KB) Michael Lutz, 03 Nov 2017 08:56 am

MIWP 2016.2 Monitoring and reporting 2019.pptx (2.35 MB) Joeri Robbrecht, 06 Nov 2017 10:36 am

MIWP 2016.5 LOPD.pptx (2.36 MB) Joeri Robbrecht, 06 Nov 2017 10:36 am

MIWP 201x.x Master Guidance.pptx (2.35 MB) Joeri Robbrecht, 06 Nov 2017 10:45 am