1 / 3

Discussions - Day 1 - Group 2

Discussions - Day 1 - Group 2. Contributions from: Compiled by : Manfred Oster Thomas Cajthaml Jesus Celada Paul Frederiksen Gitte Winkler Françoise de Blomac Hakon Heier Karl Haussteiner Pierre Femenias Christina Wasstrom Antti Jakobsson Jean-François Hangouët.

cooper
Download Presentation

Discussions - Day 1 - Group 2

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. Discussions - Day 1 - Group 2 Contributions from: Compiled by : • Manfred Oster • Thomas Cajthaml • Jesus Celada • Paul Frederiksen • Gitte Winkler • Françoise de Blomac • Hakon Heier • Karl Haussteiner • Pierre Femenias • Christina Wasstrom • Antti Jakobsson • Jean-François Hangouët

  2. Discussions - Day 1 - Group 2 Research needs on QA and data usability • How to assess costs and benefits of Quality? Is Quality assessment costly? • How to implement better measures?What samplings?What field inspection? • How to move from « Q assessment in expert terms »to « usability in users terms » ? (cf. Gary Hunter’s presentation) • What GML for communicating data on GI Quality? • Relative roles of producers’ data and users’ tools in usability? • MetadataAre ISO 19113 Q elements and sub-elements enough? Is there an algebra of errors on these elements and sub-elements? (cf. Jorma Marttinen’s presentation)Timeliness : beyond uptodateness (cf. Jorma Marttinen’s presentation)How to measure thematic accuracy? (ontologies of producers and users, semantic web and dictionaries)

  3. Discussions - Day 1 - Group 2 Feedback on EuroSpec Quality policy • Model of Quality management process in EuroSpec (fig. 1 in “EuroSpec Programme - Quality Policy”) : • General enough • Applicable • Lacks loop and users • National bodies in charge of controls? And possibly providers, if added value. • Is “EuroSpec Programme - Quality Policy” realistic? Only even in terms of metadata? • Presentation and document here without shocking effect => may be acceptable by NMCAs • Inspire, MGCP, OGC… : many efforts multiplied?What coordination with NATO’s MGCP (Multinational Geospatial Co-Production)? At least on principles?What coordination with OGC standards?Yet not by the same communities. More interactions?User communities not much represented at this WorkshopTwo kinds of users with EuroSpec: end-users (promoted by Inspire) & governmentsInspire: ambitious content, and tight scheduling

More Related