1 / 6

Marc Leobet - Mission de l'information géographique-CGDD/DRI

A feedback about implementing INSPIRE schemas for Flood directive. Marc Leobet - Mission de l'information géographique-CGDD/DRI. Context. A standard established in September 2012 after intense work at national level Direct implementation of the TWG Natural risk zone through its editor

ckawamura
Download Presentation

Marc Leobet - Mission de l'information géographique-CGDD/DRI

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MIG/LBT - 27.01.15 A feedback about implementing INSPIRE schemas for Flood directive Marc Leobet - Mission de l'information géographique-CGDD/DRI

  2. MIG/LBT - 27.01.15 Context • A standard established in September 2012 after intense work at national level • Direct implementation of the TWG Natural risk zone through its editor • An initial challenge for European reporting via the INSPIRE infrastructure • A production delegated to State services at regional level (DREAL) • Very constrained deadlines, heavy organization, a major challenge for the ministry => heavy pressure

  3. MIG/LBT - 27.01.15 Method • November 2014: the ministry is concerned about compliancy issues using the TRI standard • 12/12: the Spatial Data Office calls for feedback under an open question • 31/12: 13 DREALs answered, and 3 later • Finally, the survey got answers from 60% of the DREALs

  4. MIG/LBT - 27.01.15 The main feedbacks • 2/3 of DREALs encountered real difficulties in implementing the model. • A heavy organization, outsourced for 2/3 of DREAL. • The data model is considered complex (6x), especially given existing skills, • open to interpretation (5x), • not very exploitable with existing tools (as Qgis/Mapserver). • How to produce the standard tables is not defined. • Only 14% of datasets are compliant, according to the national validator. • No questioning about the principle of a national standard

  5. MIG/LBT - 27.01.15 Analysis and discussion • The complexity has been overcome by the DREALs with additional costs and time • It could not be expected at lower level (departements and municipalities) • This delay has led to give up INSPIRE for reporting in 40% of cases (in favor of PDF) • This leads to a double effort to diffuse under INSPIRE format. • A relative mismatch between experts (French and European) and producers • “What is the value of this complexity?" • Opposition expressed as "conform vs exploitable"

  6. MIG/LBT - 27.01.15 Conclusions ? • Standards are not adapted to skills and tools affordable in most public authorities. • We have to produce less relationnal (flattened) standards. • A validator checks ONE implementation, not the data model. • How to give a frame to decentralized data production? • Idea : a specific tool for each standard, to produce conformant data, as an overlay of a generic data management system • Raising skills through training is desirable but will not solve the underlying problems in time.

More Related