INSPIRE Reports May 2010
Quality Knowledge Exchange Network
Page 2
INSPIRE reports –why?
• Knowledge exchange
• Reports might lead to further actions for Q-KEN
• Group work
• Deeper knowledge exchange
• Comments or other input to COM, JRC and others
• Presentations
• To learn more
Page 3
Report from Q-KEN member
No report this time
Corresponding Q-KEN member
Page 4
• Quality requirements missing in the specification• The committee agreed on the specifications for annex I in December, do
the specification fulfil the needs concerning quality?
• Major challenges for implementing INSPIRE• We are now facing the phase of sharing data and implementing the
infrastructure. Is this easily achieved? If not, what are the major
challenges?
• An INSPIRE (external) presentation I would like to listen to• At some of our plenary meetings we have had external INSPIRE
presentations. What presentation would you like to hear in a coming
plenary meeting?
INSTRUCTIONSOrganisation/CountryPeriod Covered
Page 5
Quality requirements missing in the specification?
GermanyThe question suggests that it is possible to introduce new requirements but the aim of INSPIRE is to use existing data sets,
GreeceNo clear understanding of the selection criteria for the feature types and corresponding quality measurements
HungaryImplementation of the data security (authentication and encryption)
Spain (IGN)Yes, but there is a lack of actual experience evaluating data quality elements
DenmarkInconsistent requirementsPossibly create common set for all specifications
Czech Republic Simplified data information about positional accuracy of pointsMore mandatory quality elements similar to DQM
Spain - ICCMost of the elements proposed are optional - Why?
Great BritainIt’s not that they are missing but that they are optional, and there’s no requirement (yet) to create data if you don’t have it
MaltaCompleteness, Positional Accuracy, Temporal Accuracy and Thematic Accuracy are optional elements and not for all Themes
PolandQuality evaluation procedures
Sweden Quality evaluation procedures
Page 6
Major challenges for implementing INSPIRE (1/2)
HungaryNo state budget for the INSPIRE implementationHarmonisation of the INSPIRE regulation with the more strict national regulations
IrelandTechnical challenges absorbs costs!Gap between current datasets and mandatory requirements Identifying datasets and authorative dataset owner
NorwayAchieve enthusiasm for Inspire in to ensure to get the dataData to be distributed from centralised data base at first, technology and capacityOrganisation and financing
PolandData transformation and updateHarmonisation of services between MS
Spain (IGN)Harmonisation of data ,national and among Europe, EuroRegionalMap is a good example
DenmarkMain challenge is to organise the implementation and the involvements of data owners/providersDevil is in the detail…
GreeceData sharing
SwedenData sharing (concerning security, integrity and confidentiality).
Page 7
Major challenges for implementing INSPIRE (2/2)
AustriaSemi-automated actualisation and maintenance of metadata GRM until August 2011
Czech RepublicAdjustment of boundariesEdge-matchingGeographical names data model
Spain (ICC)Provision of conformant datasetsSemantic differences between descriptionsConformant network service architecture in MS
GermanyWe have long experience with EuroGeographics products, we transform national datasets according to the commonly agreed EuroGeographics specs. What’s the difference to transforming data to the INSPIRE specs?
Within the EuroGeographics products we are doing more than INSPIRE requires: we are harmonising datasets and offering the data at unified licensing and pricing conditions.
To me the position and strategy of EuroGeographics with regard to its own products and the INSPIRE process seams unclear
Great BritainLack of leadership within the UK
MaltaLack of real understanding of what needs to be doneProper infrastructure for implementing INSPIRE not yet in place
Page 8
What presentation would you like to hear in a coming plenary meeting?
Czech RepublicHow to coordinate responsibility for data sets maintenance on national level?Use of data and services license agreements
GreeceAdvances in the INSPIRE transformation modelNMCAs: State-of-art in data harmonisation
HungaryA presentation from Frieda Brepoels (EPP-ED) Member of the European Parliament and Rapporteur the INSPIRE Directive (The topic: results and an outlook)
IrelandQuality Evaluation Web Services
NorwayUse of Inspire-dataCadastre parcels
PolandINSPIRE data harmonisation model in different MSHow to measure quality of INSPIRE services?
Spain (ICC)INSPIRE Network Services – Types, requirements, architecture Process of development of Annex II and III DS (now starting)
Spain (IGN)How is an Inspire European Services Catalogue/Registry going to be implemented
DenmarkHow will the spatial data infrastructure look like in year 2020? Visions and scenarios..
MaltaINSPIRE discovery services – implementation and end-user reaction
Sweden Who is doing what and how are different actors linked (COM, JRC, GMES, ESDIN, etc)
Page 9
• Major challenges for implementing INSPIRE• Establishment of an institutional Metadata-Database and MD-Editor for a semi-
automated actualisation and maintenance of the metadata for INSPIRE in 2010.
• Development and Implementation of a Digital Rights Management-Layer
(Authentication, Authorization, fees…) until August 2011.
BEV, AustriaFrom November 2009 to May 2010
Page 10Page 10
• Quality requirements missing in the specification• Simplified data information about positional accuracy of points
• More mandatory quality elements similar to DQM
• Major challenges for implementing INSPIRE• Adjustment of boundaries in large scales
• Edge-matching of data sets
• Improvement of common geographical names data model
• An INSPIRE (external) presentation I would like to listen
to• How to coordinate responsibility for data sets maintenance on
national level?
• Use of data and services license agreements
COSMC, Czech RepublicFrom December 2009 to April 2010
Page 11Page 11
• Quality requirements missing in the specification
The question suggests that it is possible to introduce new requirements but the
aim of INSPIRE is to use existing data sets, see
DIRECTIVE 2007/2/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 14 March 2007
establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE)
“(13) This Directive should not set requirements for the collection of new data, or for reporting such information
to the Commission, since those matters are regulated by other legislation related to the environment”
This means the specification has to consider the different levels of data
quality within the member states. It has to be a compromise between
what the countries can deliver to get a complete coverage of Europe
and what is nice to have.
BKG, GermanyApril 2010
Page 12Page 12
• Major challenges for implementing INSPIRE
Since the late 90’s we have experience with EuroGeographics products
(SABE=EBM, ERM, EGM), i.e. we transform national datasets
according to the commonly agreed EuroGeographics specs. What’s the
difference to transforming data to the INSPIRE specs?
Within the EuroGeographics products we are doing more than INSPIRE
requires: we are harmonizing datasets, cross border match them and
offering the data at unified licensing and pricing conditions.
To me the position and strategy of EuroGeographics with regard to its
own products and the INSPIRE process seams unclear.
BKG, GermanyApril 2010
Page 13
• Quality requirements missing in the specification• As it was also pointed out from the Q-KEN benchmark exercise concerning
Quality evaluation of the ESDIN Quality model for the INSPIRE ANNEX I
themes of GN, AU, CP, TN and HY, the INSPIRE Specifications do not provide
clear understanding of the selection criteria for the feature types and
corresponding quality measurements (this will be provided in the ESDIN ExM
specifications).
• However, potential problems occur also in the definition of the domains and
the universes of discourse of the quality elements / sub-elements that will be
measured for each Feature Type (FT) / Feature Attribute / (association).
• An INSPIRE (external) presentation I would like to listen to
• Advances in the INSPIRE transformation model
• NMCAs: State-of-art in data harmonisation
KTIMATOLOGIO S.A (Hellenic Cadastre) GREECE
From November 2009 to April 2010
Page 14
• Major challenges for implementing INSPIRE
At the data sharing phase, the major challenges could be regarding:
• Licensing of data and services produced by self-funding and / or European co-funded
projects.
• Minimum quality requirements of shared data products among different NMCAs of the
same MS.
• Further, more detailed clarification / explanation of the term “harmonised conditions of
access to spatial data sets and services.
• Data sharing among public authorities within the country , according to Article 17 of the
Directive, has not been arranged or resolved yet. As a general remark, there is a lack of
cooperation for planning and implementation of similar data collection and processing
projects as well as lack of data sharing agreements among public authorities. Regulating
this situation according to INSPIRE Directive would be a major step towards data sharing
with European authorities as well.
• Major restrictions for data sharing are: intellectual property rights, protection of privacy,
public security, national defence, confidentiality of statistical information, competition ,
needed official approvals, unspecified digital data policy.
KTIMATOLOGIO S.A (Hellenic Cadastre) GREECE
From November 2009 to April 2010
Page 15
• Quality requirements missing in the specification• Implementation of the data security (authentication and encryption)
• Major challenges for implementing INSPIRE• Not any Hungarian state budget for the INSPIRE implementation
• Harmonisation of the Regulation of the Data and Service Sharing (EU 268/2010) with
the more strict Hungarian Regulations
• An INSPIRE (external) presentation I would like to listen
to• A presentation from Frieda Brepoels (EPP-ED) Member of the European Parliament
and Rapporteur the INSPIRE Directive (The topic: results and an outlook)
FÖMI, HungaryFrom November 2009 to April 2010
Page 16
• Quality requirements missing in the specification• Nothing to report
• Major challenges for implementing INSPIRE• Meeting technical challenges absorbs costs!
• Identifying and addressing the gap between current datasets and mandatory requirements
• Identifying datasets and authorative dataset owner e.g. road network in Ireland
• An INSPIRE (external) presentation I would like to listen to• Quality Evaluation Web Services
Ordnance Survey Ireland, Ireland From Jan 2010 to May 2010
Page 17
• Quality requirements missing in the specification
• Major challenges for implementing INSPIRE• Achieve enthusiasm for Inspire in different special fields to
ensure to get the data
• Data to be distributed from centralized data base at first. Technology and capacity
• The national implementations must build on existing cooperation such as the Norway digital cooperation
• Organisation and financing
• An INSPIRE (external) presentation I would like to listen to• Use of Inspire-data
• Cadastre parcels
Norwegian Mapping AuthorityNorwayFrom November 2009 to April 2010
Page 18
• Quality requirements missing in the specification• Quality evaluation procedures
•
•
• Major challenges for implementing INSPIRE• INSPIRE data transformation and update
• Harmonisation of INSPIRE services between MS to achieve interoperability
•
• An INSPIRE (external) presentation I would like to listen to• INSPIRE data harmonisation model in different MS
• How to measure quality of INSPIRE services?
Head Office of Geodesy and Cartography, PolandFrom December 2009 to May 2010
Page 19Page 19
• Quality requirements missing in the specification• Although list of quality requirements in INSPIRE DS is considered quite
comprehensive, most of the elements proposed are optional.
• Why? - Situation in Europe is mostly below whole INSPIRE DS DQ expectations
• ESDIN QM is perceived as a nice opportunity to specify which quality measures
should be applied and to fix concrete requirements for each range of scales.
• Major challenges for implementing INSPIRE• Provision of 100% conformant datasets. Is really INSPIRE conformance something which
should be Boolean or maybe X%?
• Best practices to address semantic differences between descriptions in both source and
INSPIRE target models (feature types, attributes, relationships)
• Provision of a conformant network service architecture in Member States
• An INSPIRE (external) presentation I would like to listen to• INSPIRE Network Services – Types, requirements, architecture
• Process of development of Annex II and III DS (now starting)
ICC, Catalonia - SpainFrom December 2009 to April 2010
Page 20
• Quality requirements missing in the specification• Yes, but there is a lack of actual experience evaluating data quality elements.
• Major challenges for implementing INSPIRE• Harmonization of data among Mapping Agencies of Spain
• Harmonization among Europe: EuroRegionalMap is a good example
• An INSPIRE (external) presentation I would like to
listen to• How is an Inspire European Services Catalogue/Registry going to be
implemented
IGN, SpainFrom December 2009 to May 2010
Page 21
• Quality requirements missing in the specification• Quality evaluation procedures.
• Major challenges for implementing INSPIRE
• Data sharing (concerning security, integrity and confidentiality).
• An INSPIRE (external) presentation I would like to
listen to• Who is doing what and how are different actors linked (COM, JRC,
GMES, ESDIN, etc).
Lantmäteriet, SwedenFrom December 2009 to May 2010
Page 22
• Quality requirements missing in the specification• One problem is inconsistent requirements
• No common set of quality elements among all specifications
• Possibly create common set for all specifications • Some specifications would have to be “extended” but could be done by profiles
• Major challenges for implementing INSPIRE• Main challenge is to organise the implementation and the involvements of data
owners/providers
• Devil is in the detail… • A lot of technicalities are not clear at the moment and even inconsistent (especially among the
various regulations and guidelines)
• Some problems arise only when the technical implementation start
• An INSPIRE (external) presentation I would like to listen to• How will the spatial data infrastructure look like in year 2020?
• Visions and scenarios..
KMS, DenmarkApril 2010