kanellopoulos -...

INSPIRE Maintenance and Implementation Group (MIG)

Minutes of the 1st MIG tele-/web-conference, 28 November 2013

Title Minutes of the 1st MIG tele-/web-conference, 28 November 2013

Creator Michael Lutz

Creation Date 2013-12-03

Date of last revision 2013-12-03

Subject 1st MIG tele-/web-conference

Publisher European Commission – Joint Research Centre

Type Text

Description Minutes of the 1st MIG tele-/web-conference, 28 November 2013

Contributor Robin Smith

Format Microsoft Word (docx)

Rights Public

Identifier http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/mif/mig/doc/mom/20131128

Language En

INSPIRE MIG Minutes of the 1st MIG tele-/web-conference, 28 November 2013

PrefaceThe 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. The time stamps are included in the minutes in order to allow participants to identify the corresponding part in the recording.

During the discussion of agenda item 5, participants were asked to indicate their view on the importance or priority of a specific task in the draft work programme by assigning them one of the following values: low, medium, high, very high. The results of this “voting” are presented in these minutes and summarised in section 5.16. It should be noted, however, that not every member of the MIG participated in the conference and that the participating members did not have the opportunity to discuss their views on the priority within their country beforehand. Therefore, the “voting” results presented in these minutes can only be seen as a rough overview or tendency of the tasks that should be addressed with the highest priority and not as a definitive statement.

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 in bold and are summarised in the following section.

Actions

No. What Who When Done

1 Draft minutes of the meeting EC 31/10/2013 x

2 Schedule tele- or web-conference in November for discussion of draft WP

EC 31/10/2013 x

3 Draft WP for discussion at the November tele-/web-conference

EC 15/11/2013 x

4 Propose working methods, procedures and tools EC 30/11/2013

5 Contact Chris Higgins (EDINA) to see if he is interested and available to contribute to Topic 3

ARA (UK) 6/12/2013 x

6 Check with Alex Coley (UK) whether UK documents on registries, linked data can be shared with the MIG.

ARA (UK) 6/12/2013 x

7 Launch a doodle poll for dates in that week to find the best dates for the register/registry workshop.

MLU (JRC) 6/12/2013 x

8 Organise a tele-conference on Topic 16: M&R and metadata

PHA & DLI (EEA)

6/12/2013 x

9 Launch doodle polls for the next virtual meeting and the next physical meeting

MLU (JRC) 6/12/2013 x

10 Revise work programme (based on discussions in the meeting)

JRC 6/12/2013 x

11 Inform about AOB points by e-mail JRC, EEA 6/12/2013


1 Welcome and approval of the agendaMichael welcomed the participants. The following agenda was approved:

1. Welcome and approval of the agenda 9:30-9:402. Introduction to tele-/web-conferencing facilities 9:40-9:503. Minutes of the previous meeting (for discussion and agreement) 9:50-10:004. Process for development of the rolling work programme

(for discussion and agreement) 10:00-10:155. Draft rolling work programme

(for discussion and exchange of views) 10:15-11:15a. Discussion of individual action proposals

i. scope

ii. priority

iii. organisation, lead and participants

iv. timeline & next steps

v. required resources and funding

b. Missing issues / actions

c. Roadmap towards adoption

6. Tools (for information) 11:15-11:30a. Issue tracker

b. Wiki

7. Planning 11:30-11:45a. Upcoming workshops

i. Registers and registries: 21-22 January 2014 (proposed)

ii. Future directions for the INSPIRE geoportal: February 2014

iii. Validation and conformity: February/March 2014

b. Next tele-/web-conference

c. Next physical meeting

8. AOB 11:45-12:00a. Role of MIG in “policy issues” like draft Directive on Marine Spatial Planning

b. “Linking geospatial data” Workshop, 5-6 March 2014, London

c. Update of GEMET – need and priority

2 Introduction to the facilitiesAn overview was given of the facilities. Muting of voice connections is needed. Voting was via the chat and MIG members can ask questions using the appropriate icon to draw attention.

3 Minutes of the previous meeting Responding to colleagues from France, Michael went through proposed changes to the minutes of the kick-off meeting.

Round-table discussed simplifying technical guidelines, creating guides such as a cookbook [accepted with no comments]


For outreach, better guidelines were proposed. Common answers of interest could be an FAQ [no comments, see discussion below]

For open source developments of interest to the MIG, ARE3NA will focus on this topic but it will currently only be funded to early 2015. An extension to ARE3NA’s timeline and funding are currently being discussed with the ISA Programme [no comments]

Involving thematic communities will be discussed in the work programme (WP) [see below] NCPs and MIG should contact other national representatives in thematic areas such as the

EIONET NFPs (as discussed at the Copenhagen meeting) [See below] Table of attendees will be updated

The minutes will be adopted following these proposed changes and uploaded on CIRCABC.

4 MIG Rolling Work Programme Development ------------ (11/28/2013 09:58) ------------

In terms of the process, a proposal was sent with invitation and is detailed in draft WP. MIG representatives will collect issues from national contacts/stakeholders and JRC will set up a system in the near future to allow these details to be shared. The ability to submit this information will be open all the time. Every few months the MIG will review newly submitted actions and fix priorities alongside those in the WP. A new WP will then be prepared.

The WP then has a consultation for one month for Member States/participating countries to talk to their stakeholders. After this consultation, the MIG will discuss the updates and include feedback from the consultation. The INSPIRE committee would then receive a copy of the new WP for adoption

Christina (SE) noted that the MIG has a web conference scheduled once a month and asked if updates would be reviewed at these meetings. Michael (JRC) replied that meeting intended to discuss progress in the WP and that the six month timeline is linked to the INSPRIE Committee and to ensure a stable plan with few changes.

Alex (UK) proposed a shorter review period of 3 months, while Darja (EEA) saw the possibility of having reviews every 9 months to allow review of actions, too.

------------ (11/28/2013 10:10) ------------

Vanda (JRC) noted that urgent items for implementation could occur and that it would be good to have the opportunity to let everyone know about them. She suggested there is a need for some flexibility in the procedure [+1 by Alex Ramage (UK) Emilio Lopez (ES)] and for stakeholders to know how to act for a relevant consultation, including activities requiring additional resources.

Michael (JRC) directed attendees to the workflow in the Terms of Reference (ToR), which is split to address (urgent) quick bug fixes and more substantial tasks that should go into the WP. It was agreed flexibility is needed and that this will be added to the process description.

------------ (11/28/2013 10:14) ------------

Christina (SE) suggested that the process for the creation of the WP itself was not covered in the ToR and that once a stable WP was created that it could be updated once a year. [+1 from EEA]

Michael (JRC) suggested that some urgent issues could go through the MIG route on specific tasks. He pointed to the five points that were circulated for the meeting that add more detail to the filtering tasks and feedback process (contained in the top middle and top right boxes of the workflow’s chart).

------------ (11/28/2013 10:16) ------------

Christine (CH/LI) proposed to add a placeholder to the workflow chart so that the INSPIRE Committee would not have to deal with minor issues. Michael (JRC) added that an alternative is to agree MIG can do things not explicitly mentioned in the WP. He proposed to make a slight change and to use the current 6 month approach to begin with that would then be reviewed and add an element of flexibility.

Hugo (ENV) underlined that we will not call on the INSPIRE Committee for every change to the WP.


5 Draft Rolling Work Programme------------ (11/28/2013 10:21) ------------

Michael (JRC) indicated that the meeting should aim to agree which issues to tackle over the next year what the organisational set-up will be, including who will lead and participate on particular top-

ics

Some of this will involve organising further meetings to fix the next steps of a given topic. Emilio (ES) said that priorities could be established. Michael (JRC) noted some issues could also run in parallel. Some priority is needed if an organisation is involved in several issues, although Nathalie (BE) indicated that this may not always be the case.

------------ (11/28/2013 10:26) ------------

The topics area outlined below with priority setting - very high, high, medium or low.

5.1 Topic 1: accessibility of technical guidelinesThis included a proposal for a document team but there is currently no lead or timeline identified.

Vanda (JRC) noted that Technical Guidelines (TG) v3.0 will be published and should be reviewed first. Michael (JRC) noted that all INSPIRE documents are in scope (not only data specifications) and the proposal is should involve looking into novel ways to read the documents without necessarily proposing changes. Benoit (FR) suggested that the guidelines needing improvement should be selected but they could also need approval.

------------ (11/28/2013 10:31) ------------

Alex (UK) noted that those directly dealing with implementation need to know what their tasks are without trying to understand the documentation and that all documents, therefore, need to be both in scope and understandable.

------------ (11/28/2013 10:34) ------------

Darja (EEA) noted that there are issue in understanding the guidelines and (following Vanda's comment) felt that everything needed to be in line. Once all materials are in good order, she felt that it would be possible to look at new ways of making the documents readily and quickly accessible. INSPIRE was seen as complex and that some people do not know where to start. It would, therefore, be important to avoid creating multiple interpretations.

It was agreed that this is task, therefore, should start after publication of Annex Themes’ updates.

------------ (11/28/2013 10:37) ------------

Emilio (ES) reported that Spain can provide guidelines for the implementation of INSPIRE services with some products.

Hugo (ENV) suggested that this topic was also beyond the MIG, even if members were not interested the pool of experts should be involved and there was a need to identify the resources needed [+1 from Nathalie (BE)]. Nathalie (BE) added that once resources were estimated a candidate to be involved in this work could be found in Belgium, for example.

Topic 1: Votes

Benoit DAVID (FR): very high , Alex Ramage (UK): High, Rui Reis (PT): very high, Emilio Lopez (SPAIN): Very high, Christina Wasström, Sweden: high, Christine Giger (CH/LI): high, Nathalie Delattre (BE): high, Markus Jobst (AT): high, Carlo Cipolloni (IT): high, Michel Grothe (NL): high, tIM dUFFY: Tim Duffy (UK): High, Simona Bunea (RO): high, Marcin Grudzień: high, Lars Storgaard (DK): high, Sulev Õitspuu (ET): high, Ewa Surma (PL): high, Jari Reini (FI): high

5.2 Topic 2: INSPIRE FAQ pageMichael (JRC) said that the JRC will put initial information on INSPIRE website. Karen and Michael (JRC) would lead this activity, with contributions from the EEA and other EC INSPIRE team members. A first draft could be ready by Spring 2014 along with a proposal on how to update it in the future


Topic 2: Votes

Darja L. & Paul H. (EEA): high, Benoit DAVID (FR): normal, Hugo DG: low, Alex Ramage (UK): low, Nathalie Delattre (BE): medium, Daniela Hogrebe (DE) 2: high, Rui Reis (PT): medium, Emilio Lopez (SPAIN): low, Jari Reini (FI) 2: medium :-), Marcin Grudzień: high, Christina Wasström, Sweden: high, Carlo Cipolloni (IT): medium, Michael LUTZ: high, Markus Jobst (AT): medium, Lars Storgaard (DK): high, Simona Bunea (RO): medium, Sulev Õitspuu (ET): high, Michel Grothe (NL): medium, Christine Giger (CH/LI): mediem,

5.3 Topic 3: Guidelines and Best Practices on access controlCurrent interest in participating in the Workshop on access control was indicated by

AT, FI, NL

------------ (11/28/2013 10:46) ------------

Markus (AT) also noted that Austria has done some best practices and work on identity in their e-government activity that could be useful. Benoit (FR) indicated that there are different systems being used in France with different access control.

------------ (11/28/2013 10:49) ------------

Jari (FI) pointed to the recent Eurogeographics two-part webinar about this topic1. Part one has already take place JRC will be participating in the second part on 6 December. Robin (JRC) gave an overview of ARe3NA procurement on Authentication, Authorisation and Accounting (AAA) for INSPIRE data and services (see WP) and noted that existing e-government solutions in this context are of interest to the best practices review, including the federated authentication and e-identify tools being developed through other actions in ISA.

Alex (UK) noted that the UK would like to provide input.

ACTION: Alex (UK) to contact Chris Higgins (EDINA) to see if he is interested and available to contribute MIG members are asked to contact Michael and Robin (JRC) if they are interested in this topic.

Topic 3: Votes

Benoit DAVID (FR): high, Carlo Cipolloni (IT): high, Daniela Hogrebe (DE) 2: very high, Nathalie Delattre (BE): high, Tim Duffy (UK): High, Christine Giger (CH/LI): high, Christina Wasström, Sweden: high, Michel Grothe (NL): ver high, Markus Seifert (DE): high, Jari Reini (FI) 2: high, Hugo DG: medium, Anna Ahlbrecht (IS): high, Simona Bunea (RO): high, Alex Ramage (UK): high, Marcin Grudzień: high, Emilio Lopez (SPAIN): medium, Markus Jobst (AT): very high, Lars Storgaard (DK): high, Rui Reis (PT): high, Sulev Õitspuu (ET): high, Tamas Palya (HU): high,

5.4 Topic 4: http URIs for INSPIRE identifiers------------ (11/28/2013 10:54) ------------

MIG members from the following countries indicated their interest in this topic: BE, FES, I, FR, IT, NL, UK + EEA

Michel (NL) noted that the Netherlands can also bring in experiences from their pilot on Linked Open Data.

------------ (11/28/2013 10:56) ------------

Alex (UK) felt this was closely linked to Topic 6 (Registries) and that they should be linked, as he felt the same communities are involved in registers and RDF/Linked Open Data and Permanent IDs. Michael (JRC) felt that there were relationships between the two topics but that they were fairly distinct and did not always involve the same communities [+1 from Christine (CH/LI)] and it was agreed to keep them as separate items in the WP.

------------ (11/28/2013 10:58) ------------

1 See http://www.eurogeographics.org/event/inspire-ken-service-data-webinar

http://www.eurogeographics.org/event/inspire-ken-service-data-webinar


Darja (EEA) felt that this was an important task, including for the definition of name spaces. She felt that there is a need to include real existing examples to demonstrate how features from datasets are actually defined and maintained by different countries. MIG members were requested to share other real working examples relevant to this topic.

Nathalie (BE) suggested that there should be a MIG sub-group on this topic.

------------ (11/28/2013 11:00) ------------

Michael (JRC) suggested that this work will currently rest with ARE3NA and its current procurement related to RDF vocabularies for INSPIRE and persistent identifiers [+1 Daniela (DE)].

Tim (UK) noted that the UK has new papers on URIs for identifiers and registries. He was asked to provide these to Michael. Tim (UK) also asked if there was no agreement and guidance on URIs and registries, would INSPIRE services be completely correct and conformant?

Topic 4: Votes

Benoit DAVID (FR): priorities, Jari Reini (FI) 2: extremely high, Benoit DAVID (FR): very high, Nathalie Delattre (BE): high, Daniela Hogrebe (DE) 2: high, Darja L. & Paul H. (EEA): very high, Markus Seifert (DE): high, Christine Giger (CH/LI): medium, Carlo Cipolloni (IT): Very high, Jari Reini (FI) 2: Sorry ;), Emilio Lopez (SPAIN): very high, Michel Grothe (NL): very high, Christina Wasström, Sweden: high, Sulev Õitspuu (ET): medium, Markus Jobst (AT): high, Alex Ramage (UK): high, Lars Storgaard (DK): high, Hugo DG: high, Rui Reis (PT): high, Marcin Grudzień: medium, Zhenya Valcheva (BG): very high, Tim Duffy (UK): Very High

5.5 Topic 5: Agreed Metadata Validator and work on dataset validationBenoit (FR) indicated that France has also developed tools for this.

------------ (11/28/2013 11:04) ------------

Carlo (IT) indicated that the quality of metadata is an issue and that validation and quality could also involve a better understanding/documentation of the data and metadata production process that could be discussed with the MIG.

Sulev (ET) had recently circulated a mail asking questions relating to metadata. He felt that metadata testing capabilities could be run by the Member States/participating countries. Michael (JRC) indicated that JRC will look into that, too. Jari (FI) felt that preparation for the proposed workshop could involve reviewing existing tools so that the meeting could be used to agree common approaches.

Robin S. Smith (JRC): Who should be involved in preparation of WS and discussion with different tools?

Emilio (ES) also noted that Spain could contribute with our experience using the API of the INSPIRE validator. Tim (UK) noted that the UK has experience in trying to do this with the various tools. Markus (DE) suggested that data should be addressed as well as metadata.

France (Benoit) and Germany (Daniela) volunteered to prepare the workshop. Participation in the workshop/WP topic:

BG, DK, ES, ET, FI, IT, PT, SE + EEA

Topic 5: Votes

Benoit DAVID (FR): high, Sulev Õitspuu (ET): very high, Jari Reini (FI) 2: high, Christine Giger (CH/LI): very high, Zhenya Valcheva (BG): very high, Daniela Hogrebe (DE) 2: very high, Alex Ramage (UK): medium, Tim Duffy (UK): Very High, Lars Storgaard (DK): very high, Carlo Cipolloni (IT): high, Christina Wasström, Sweden: very high, Darja L. & Paul H. (EEA): very high, Emilio Lopez (SPAIN): medium, Marcin Grudzień: very high, Markus Seifert (DE): very high, Nathalie Delattre (BE): medium, Michel Grothe (NL): very high, Rui Reis (PT): high, Anna Ahlbrecht (IS): high, Markus Jobst (AT): high, Simona Bunea (RO): high

5.6 Topic 6: Registers and RegistriesACTION: Alex (UK) to check with Alex Coley whether documents on registries and linked data can be shared with the MIG.


Nathalie (BE) asked about stakeholders’ requests to extend code lists and how this could be managed, including support for registration and the formal process. She also felt that the registry should allow mappings to be stored between national and INSPIRE codes. Michael (JRC) indicated that model/code list extension for national registers/registries and the INSPIRE register/registry are topics to be discussed at this workshop. He later noted that, as the Re3gistry is part of ARe3NA, the JRC will also explore the e-government/reusability issues of registers/registries and aim to include these topics in the workshop.

The agenda of the meeting contains proposed dates for a workshop. Daniela (DE): Germany is interested in this group but we have a national meeting the same date.

ACTION: Michael (JRC) to launch a Doodle for dates in that week to check suitability. Topic 6: Votes

Alex Ramage (UK): high, Benoit DAVID (FR): very high, Daniela Hogrebe (DE) 2: DE is interested, Christine Giger (CH/LI): high, Carlo Cipolloni (IT): high, Sulev Õitspuu (ET): high, tIM dUFFY: Tim Duffy (UK): high, Michel Grothe (NL): high, Markus Seifert (DE): very high, Zhenya Valcheva (BG): very high, Daniela Hogrebe (DE) 2: very high, Nathalie Delattre (BE): high, Anna Ahlbrecht (IS): high, Darja L. & Paul H. (EEA): very high, Marcin Grudzień: very high, Christina Wasström, Sweden: high, Emilio Lopez (SPAIN): medium, Lars Storgaard (DK): high, Markus Jobst (AT): high, Maria Vale: high

5.7 Topic 7: Extending Download ServicesThis topic involves three main standards Sensor Observation Services (SOS), Web Coverage Services (WCS) and Table Join Services (TJS). Michael (JRC) noted that some work on SOS is about to start in ARE3NA and that the table joining could be looked at by ESTAT and the Netherlands. Benoit (FR) noted that experts from France want to work on WCS and Tim (UK) noted that this is of interest to the UK, too. Tim and Alex (UK) wondered if the final versions of the data specifications would influence this and Hugo indicated that they should be available sometime after the 10th of December 2013. Tim (UK) also indicated that this topic is being explored through the Earth Server project (http://www.earthserver.eu).

------------ (11/28/2013 11:25) ------------

Michael (JRC) asked the MIG if they wanted to look at developing technical guidelines extension or preferred to wait for the outputs of the projects and studies mentioned; asking if observations, coverages and tabular data need to be included, also as developers of relevant software are already dealing with two to three standards for INSPIRE download.

Vanda (JRC) highlighted SOS as an important OGC specification for e-reporting purposes that INSPIRE should contribute to, with Darja (EEA) indicating a definite need for SOS to support Air Quality e-reporting and Zhenya (BG) feeling it should be a priority.

Tim (UK) said that WCS is important to help share the large-volume Annex III datasets. Michel (NL) indicated that the Netherlands see demand for both INSPIRE SOS and WCS.

Nathalie (BE) indicated that there was a risk of running too many things in parallel and that the MIG should wait for the outcomes from ARE3NA. Tim (UK) proposed a workshop and it was suggested that this could take place later in 2014 to avoid parallel activities and await project outputs.

Topic 7: Votes

Tim Duffy (UK): High SOS, Carlo Cipolloni (IT): high SOS, Christine Giger (CH/LI): SOS, WCS: high, TJS: medium, Hugo DG: very high SOS, Benoit DAVID (FR): hight for SOS, WCS and TJS, Michel Grothe (NL): SOS very high, WCS high, TJS medium, , Markus Seifert (DE): SOS: high, Zhenya Valcheva (BG): very high on sos, medium on wcs and tjs, Tim Duffy (UK): very high WCS (for mass data/raster/grids, Darja L. & Paul H. (EEA): SOS: very high / WCS: medium / TJS: low, Alex Ramage (UK): SOS medium, WCS high, TJS medium, Tamas Palya (HU): high, Sulev Õitspuu (ET): very high WCS, Carlo Cipolloni (IT): WCS very high, Hugo DG: very high TJS, Emilio Lopez (SPAIN): WCS high, SOS and TJS medium, Daniela Hogrebe (DE) 2: SOS, WCS: high, TJS: medium, Hugo DG: medium WCS, Markus Jobst (AT): high SOS and high WCS and medium on TJS, Tim Duffy (UK): TJS Medium, Marcin Grudzień: WCS - very high, SOS and TJS medium, Christina Wasström, Sweden: high wcs,

http://www.earthserver.eu/


5.8 Topic 8: Metadata TG updateMichael (JRC) noted that a new version of the INSPIRE metadata guidelines had been published in October. He asked if there is a need for further update, including metadata quality and creation issues. Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden indicated an interest in this topic. Tim (UK) asked when the inter-service consultation on Spatial Data and Services will take place and Hugo (ENV) said it should be launched tomorrow (29/11/2013).

------------ (11/28/2013 11:35) ------------

Tim (UK) felt that the network services need to have metadata available alongside dataset metadata in the guidelines. This could have an impact on the way Member States collect metadata, including service metadata with the risk of duplicated effort. He suggested that the MIG could look at extensions to the guidelines.

------------ (11/28/2013 11:37) ------------

Daniela (DE) asked if there is a change document and if there are details about which issues have been solved with the update, nothing the possibility of the MIG reviewing the update. She felt there are still some open issues that needs to be discussed in a sub-group. Michael (JRC) said he would see if there is a change log available. Markus (AT) also indicated an interest in mappings with metadata for open data and Nathalie (BE) said there would be an interest in linking and national extensions to improve metadata interoperability. Paul (EEA) felt there is a need to link this with Topic 16 on monitoring information, as well as the work in the related working group providing some feedback on the guidelines.

Hugo (ENV) noted that support to thematic legislation is the highest priority for DG Environment for both the implementation of policy and the reporting on policy. He felt that at this stage the emphasis should be on supporting 'reporting' to avoid eventual duplication.

Topic 8: Votes

Benoit DAVID (FR): low, Christina Wasström, Sweden: high, Christine Giger (CH/LI): high, Tim Duffy (UK): very High, Nathalie Delattre (BE): high, Michel Grothe (NL): high, Daniela Hogrebe (DE) 2: very high, Alex Ramage (UK): very high, Jari Reini (FI) 2: high, Emilio Lopez (SPAIN): medium, Zhenya Valcheva (BG): medium, Carlo Cipolloni (IT): high, Markus Seifert (DE): high, Markus Jobst (AT): high, Sulev Õitspuu (ET): high, Darja L. & Paul H. (EEA): high, Lars Storgaard (DK): high, Marcin Grudzień: medium, Maria Vale (pt): high

5.9 Topic 9: Future of the INSPIRE Geoportal------------ (11/28/2013 11:44) ------------

Benoit (FR) felt this was not a MIG task and suggested the MIG could wait for the decision of National Contact Points NCPs. Hugo (ENV) noted the obligation in INSPIRE Directive for a portal at EU level to which the Member States will connect. He felt if things were not working then then maintenance would be needed.

It was agreed to leave this topic in the WP as a placeholder and to clarify the MIG role in the future.

Topic 9: Votes

Alex Ramage (UK): low, Marcin Grudzień: low, Jari Reini (FI) 2: low, Emilio Lopez (SPAIN): low, Christine Giger (CH/LI): low - medium at the moment, Nathalie Delattre (BE): low, Markus Jobst (AT): low, Benoit DAVID (FR): low, Hugo DG: high, Michel Grothe (NL): low, Zhenya Valcheva (BG): low, Carlo Cipolloni (IT): medium, Tim Duffy (UK): medium, Christina Wasström, Sweden: medium, Sulev Õitspuu (ET): medium at the moment, Darja L. & Paul H. (EEA): medium

5.10 Topic 10: Annex I data specicifications update------------ (11/28/2013 11:48) ------------

Michael (JRC) asks for volunteers to look at the documents to ensure there were no (copy-pasting) errors etc.


The following volunteered: Darja (EEA): Protected Sites Alex (UK): Transport Networks

The MIG should contact Michael and Vanda (JRC) to indicate who else could check the documents.

There was no vote on this topic.

5.11 Topic 11 & 12: GML Christine (CH/LI) introduced these two topics of GML versioning and UML, noting that OGC and ISO are not providing enough detail. She said that GML specifications, as a whole, are huge and that information systems are implementing different parts of the specification, impacting on interoperability as exchanged data would be handled by different systems. Tim (UK) felt, however, that the differences and possible difficulties between GML 3.3 and 3.2 were not problematic. Christine (CH/LI) proposed a workshop to discuss this in March 2014. Michel (NL) said that the Netherlands would like help prepare the workshop and France, Spain, the UK and the EEA are interested in participating. Michael (JRC) noted that the pool of experts should be involved.

Jari (FI) noted that the next ISO/TC211 will take place in Berlin in the first week of June and that, as JRC is a liaison member, outcomes of a workshop could be presented here.

Topic 11 & 12: Votes

Benoit DAVID (FR): high, Zhenya Valcheva (BG): high, Christine Giger (CH/LI): very high, Emilio Lopez (SPAIN): medium, Darja L. & Paul H. (EEA): high, Simona Bunea (RO): high, Rui Reis (PT): high, Michel Grothe (NL): very high, Jari Reini (FI) 2: high, Markus Jobst (AT): high, Sulev Õitspuu (ET): medium, Lars Storgaard (DK): high, Daniela Hogrebe (DE): high, Carlo Cipolloni (IT): medium to high, Christina Wasström, Sweden: high, Hugo DG: high, Tim Duffy (UK): medium , Alex Ramage (UK): medium (topic 11 &12)

5.12 Topic 13: Theme specific issuesChristina (SE) suggested that elevation should be added. Markus (DE) felt that this is an urgent issue and that more than one sub-group could be needed. Lars (DK) asked if this work would influence the implementing rules. Michael (JRC) suggested that there is a need for stability in the IRs, and although bugs/errors in them would need to be fixed, emphasis should be placed on making fixes in the thematic guidelines; noting that the JRC will make a more detailed proposal for this topic.

Topic 13: Votes

Alex Ramage (UK): Topic 13 - very high, Benoit DAVID (FR): high, Carlo Cipolloni (IT): high, Nathalie Delattre (BE): very high, Emilio Lopez (SPAIN): medium, Christine Giger (CH/LI): high, Michel Grothe (NL): high, Markus Seifert (DE): very high, Rui Reis (PT): high, Hugo DG: high, Daniela Hogrebe (DE): very high, Zhenya Valcheva (BG): high, Maria Vale (pt): high, Darja L. & Paul H. (EEA): high, Lars Storgaard (DK): medium, Marcin Grudzień: high, Simona Bunea (RO): high, Jari Reini (FI) 2: high, Markus Jobst (AT): high, Sulev Õitspuu (ET) 2: medium

5.13 Topic 14: Exchanging domain experiences in implementation------------ (11/28/2013 12:03) ------------

Michael (JRC) noted that external experts will be involved, plus a MIG member to follow discussion and report regularly to the MIG

------------ (11/28/2013 12:05) ------------

Darja (EEA) felt this was a good proposal from an INSPIRE point-of-view but that it should be more open for other users to participate [+1 Hugo (ENV)]. Hugo (ENV) also felt that this work should be use case driven and that themes relevant for a specific use should be considered that could be a link to any planned extensions and value added applications. He also felt this was a high priority, including for reporting in thematic domains, as contractors are currently designing new schemas for reporting [+1 Christine (CH/LI), Maria (ES)].

------------ (11/28/2013 12:09) ------------


Maria (PT) reported that Portugal is very interested in developing thematic applications related to climate change, the reporting of emissions and Land Use/Land Cover. There is also an interest in water management and land-use planning issues from a watershed management perspective and public health using GI together with the implementation of Annex III. Darja (EEA) noted that lessons from the Air Quality Pilot show the unique IDs are important for managing objects such as industrial facilities. The associated policies have roadmaps/deadlines and it was suggested that these should be reflected in the MIG WP. In addition, work on reporting schemas should be accompanied by INSPIRE expertise to aid alignment

Michael (JRC) also noted that European umbrella organisations should also be involved [+1 Christina (SE)] and Robert (JRC) added that, in the initial phase, there is a need to define the directions being taken with these partners and that the approach is not a fixed structure. Vanda (JRC) said that the clusters involve related themes, and this is also reflected within Member States including where applications are being developed. She said that this is an opportunity to exchange best practices and indicate where problems are being encountered, including for new communities join and using INSPIRE for the first time, linking to both INSPIRE implementation and use.

------------ (11/28/2013 12:18) ------------

It was suggested that, for each thematic policy, there will be a sub-group, where participants can join from other clusters and that pilots could be involved with the clusters and Hugo (ENV) felt that thematic policies would be a good way to support clustering but he was not sure about the approaches being proposed to explore this and felt that agreement on the topic had not been reached.

Carlo (IT) saw the use cases as important but that the thematic clusters would be a good starting point to collect them and Darja (EEA) proposed a matrix approach to illustrate where thematic clusters and use cases were distributed.

Michael (JRC) indicated that this part of the programme will be updated based on the discussion in the tele-/web-conference and that further written comments are welcome.

Topic 14: Votes

Benoit DAVID (FR): priority high, Darja L. & Paul H. (EEA): very high (WWP14), Zhenya Valcheva (BG): for 14 - high, Robert TOMAS: for 14 very high, Markus Seifert (DE): 14: very high, Hugo DG: vote for 14: very high, Maria Soledad: 14 very high, Lars (DK): very high

5.14 Topic 15: Overview of tools and architectureA request will come for more details via surveys in the near future.

Topic 15: Votes

Alex Ramage (UK): priority high, Markus Jobst (AT): high, Sulev Õitspuu (ET) 2: hugh, Christine Giger (CH/LI): high, Michel Grothe (NL): high, Carlo Cipolloni (IT): high, Rui Reis (PT): high, Lars Storgaard (DK): very high, Maria Soledad: very hight, Maria Vale (pt): high, Christina Wasström, Sweden: high

5.15 Topic 16: Monitoring informationPaul (EEA) asked the MIG if there were any particular comments. Lars (DK) noted it was the first time he had seen this topic. Darja (EEA) said that the monitoring and reporting workshop in October had proposals for automated reporting based on metadata that should be included in the MIG WP.

ACTION: Organise a tele-conference before Christmas to discuss this topic furtherTopic 16: Votes

Benoit DAVID (FR): WP16 high, Marcin Grudzień: high, Christine Giger (CH/LI): high, Markus Seifert (DE): WP 16 high, Darja L. & Paul H. (EEA): high, Zhenya Valcheva (BG): high, Sulev Õitspuu (ET) 2: 16 very high, Carlo Cipolloni (IT): high, Alex Ramage (UK): WP16: high, Maria Vale (pt): high, Michel Grothe (NL): medium, Christina Wasström, Sweden: high, Daniela Hogrebe (DE): 16 very high, Lars Storgaard (DK): medium, Maria Soledad: 16 high


5.16 Overview of the voting (by country)The following table shows the voting results aggregated by country.

Topic AT BE BG DK DE ES ET FI FR HU IS IT NL PL PT RO SE CHLI UK DG

ENV EEA

Topic 1: accessibility of technical guidelines

3 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3

Topic 2: Making an INSPIRE FAQ page2 2 3 3 1 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 1 1 3

Topic 3: Guidelines and Best Practices on access control

4 3 3 3.5 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 2

Topic 4: http URIs for INSPIRE identifi-ers

3 3 4 3 3 4 2 4 4 4 4 2 3 3 2 3 3 4

Topic 5: Agreed Metadata Validator and work on dataset validation

3 2 4 4 4 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 3 4

Topic 6: Registers and Registries 3 3 4 3 4 2 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 4

Topic 7a: Extending Download Ser-vices: SOS

3 4 3 2 3 3 3 4 2 3 2.5 4 4

Topic 7b: Extending Download Ser-vices: WCS

3 2 3 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 3.5 2 2

Topic 7c: Extending Download Ser-vices: TJS

2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 4 1

Topic 8: Metadata TG update 3 3 2 3 3.5 2 3 3 1 3 3 2 3 3 3 4 3

Topic 9: Future of the INSPIRE Geo-portal

1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1.5 3 2

Topic 10: Annex I specs update (No vote - for information only)

Topic 11 & 12: GML versions and UML 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 2 3 3

Topic 13: Theme specific issues 3 4 3 2 4 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3

Topic 14: Exchanging domain experi-ences in implementation

3 4 4 4 3 4 4

Topic 15: Overview of tools and archi-tecture

3 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Topic 16: Monitoring information 3 2 3.5 3 4 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3

- 12 -


------------ (11/28/2013 12:26) ------------

6 ToolsThis item was not discussed at the meeting for lack of time. It was proposed to cover this in the next tele-/web-conference.

7 Planning ACTION: Michael (JRC) to send out doodle polls for

the next virtual meeting (either wk1 or wk2 of January, or potentially after the registries workshop) and for

the next physical meeting

8 AOBAll Any Other Business items will be discussed via e-mail or at the next meeting.

MIG members were requested to send comments on the WP. MIG members requested the updated work programme to be sent out before the end of the year.


List of Participants

The people shown in grey are not MIG representatives, but participated in the meeting as observers.

Country Surname Name Acronym Organisation Present

Austria Fahrner Wolfgang WFABundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft

Austria Jobst Markus MJO Austrian Federal Agency for Metrology and Surveying x

Belgium Delattre Nathalie NDE National Geographic Institute x

Belgium Robbrecht Joeri JRO Flemish Geographical Information Agency

Bulgaria Turnalieva – Tsolova Lilyana LTU Electronic communications

networks and information system

Bulgaria Valcheva Zhenya ZVA Infologica x

Croatia Ciceli Tomislav TCI State Geodetic Administration

Croatia Hećimović Željko ŽHE State Geodetic Administration

Cyprus Kakkouri Lakkotrypi Anthi AKA Ministry of Interior

Cyprus Hadjiraftis Andreas AHA Ministry of Interior, Department of Lands and Surveys

Czech Republic Kvapil Jiri JKV CENIA, Czech Environmental

Information Agency

Czech Republic Poláček Jiří JPO Czech Office for Surveying,

Mapping and Cadastre

Denmark Kronborg Mazzoli Ulla UKR Danish Ministry of the

Environment

Denmark Storgaard Lars LST Danish Ministry of the Environment x

Estonia Krusberg Peep PKR Estonian Land Board

Estonia Õitspuu Sulev SÕI Estonian Land Board x

Finland Reini Jari JRE National Land Survey of Finland x

Finland Vertanen Antti AVE Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry

France David Benoît BDA Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy x

France Leobet Marc MLE Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy

FYROM (Macedonia) Anastasov Bojan BAN

Agency for Real Estate Cadastre, Department for International Cooperation, European integration, projects and trainings

Germany Seifert Markus MSE SDI Coordination Office x



Germany Hogrebe Daniela DHOKoordinierungsstelle GDI-DE - Bundesamt für Kartographie und Geodäsie

x

Greece Grigoriou Eleni ElGR Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change

Greece Grigoriou Evgenia EvGR Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change

Hungary Ivan Gyula GIVInstitute of Geodesy, Cartography and Remote Sensing

Hungary Palya Tamás TPAInstitute of Geodesy, Cartography and Remote Sensing

x

Iceland Ahlbrecht Anna Guðrún AAH National Land Survey of Iceland

(Landmælingar Íslands) x

Iceland Finnbogadóttir Eydís Líndal EFI National Land Survey of Iceland (Landmælingar Íslands) ?

Italy Munafò Michele MMUIstituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale

Italy Cipolloni Carlo CCIIstituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale

x

Latvia Antonova Sarma SAN Geospatial Information Agency

Latvia Ozols Arvīds AOZ Geospatial Information Agency

Liechtenstein, Switzerland Giger Christine CGI Federal Office of Topography x

Liechtenstein Jehle Peter PJE Amt für Bau und Infrastruktur, Vermessung und Geoinformation

Lithuania Pažemys Mindaugas MPA National Center of Remote Sensing and Geoinformatics

Lithuania Špūraitė Jurgita JŠP Ministry of Agriculture

Malta Gatt Matthew MGA Malta Information Technology Agency

Montenegro Ljumovic Mirjana MLJ Real Estate Administration of Montenegro

Montenegro Božidar Pavićević PBO Real Estate Administration of Montenegro

Netherlands Grothe Michel MiGR Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment x

Netherlands Klijnjan Aart Jan AKL Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment

Norway Kyrkjeeide Kåre KKY Norwegian Mapping Authority

Norway Lillethun Arvid ALI Norwegian Mapping Authority

Poland Grudzień Marcin MaGR Head Office of Geodesy and Cartography x

Poland Surma Ewa ESU Head Office of Geodesy and Cartography x



Portugal Lucena e Vale Maria José MLU Direção Geral do Território x

Portugal Reis Rui RRE Direção Geral do Território x

Romania Bunea Simona Daniela SBU National Agency for Cadastre

and Land Registration

Romania Dragan Gabriela GDR National Agency for Cadastre and Land Registration

Slovakia Tuchyňa Martin MTU Slovak environmental agency x

Slovakia Žiačik Marek MŽI Slovak environmental agency

Slovenia Petek Tomaž TPE Surveying and Mapping Authority

Spain López Romero Emilio ELÓ Ministry of Infrastructures and Transports x

Spain Soledad Gómez Andrés María MSO Ministry of Agriculture, Food and

Environmental x

Sweden Hjorth Kjell KHJLantmäteriet, the Swedish mapping, cadastral and land registration authority

x

Sweden Wasström Christina CWALantmäteriet, the Swedish mapping, cadastral and land registration authority

x

Switzerland Buogo Alain ABU Federal Office of Topography

UK Coley Alexander ACO Department of Environment, Food & Rural Affairs

UK Ramage Alex ARA Transport Scotland x

UK Duffy Tim TDU British Geological Survey x

EEA Hasenohr Paul PHA European Environment Agency x

EEA Lihteneger Darja DLI European Environment Agency x

EC Lutz Michael MLU Joint Research Centre (JRC) x

EC Nunes de Lima Vanda VNL Joint Research Centre (JRC) x

EC de Groof Hugo HDG DG Environment x

EC Tomas Robert RTO Joint Research Centre (JRC) x

EC Millot Michel MMI Joint Research Centre (JRC) x

kanellopoulos -...

Documents