1 / 7

Summary of the discussion on Vision document

Summary of the discussion on Vision document. Group 2. Chair - B.Kjellson, rappoteur – S.Urbanas. General comments. Content is good, but the vision is not a “visionary” enough Set clear goals (that has to be reached in a long term), instead of assumptions or descriptions

lynda
Download Presentation

Summary of the discussion on Vision document

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. Summary of the discussion on Vision document Group 2. Chair - B.Kjellson, rappoteur – S.Urbanas

  2. General comments • Content is good, but the vision is not a “visionary” enough • Set clear goals (that has to be reached in a long term), instead of assumptions or descriptions • Vision should be shorter and more concrete - one page document • Vision - highlights from the benchmarking questionnaire • The current draft document could be used as a recycling for the vision • Vision should be understandable in wide public (even by politicians)

  3. Other general advises • Support from academic sector (research industry) on setting the vision shall be elaborated • Put positive and negative aspects, derive conclusions • Security of individual’s property rights to be respected • Repetitions in articles to be removed

  4. Questions formulating the vision • What shall we provide in the near future? • Different starting points in different countries exist. Shall the objectives be formulated for reaching a minimum level of development in Europe or different wheels strategy to be considered? • Are we limited only with functions of Cadastre or serving users with cadastral information? (change the title?)

  5. Introduction • Corrections in 1st and 3rd sections are necessary: • More clarity on EuroGeographics strategy • Land registry is not a part of INSPIRE • Statement: cadastral information facilitates or makes possible the overall land administration as such

  6. Trends section • Minimize or avoid abbreviations • Cooperation and collaboration trend to be added • European trends shall not limit only within the EU regulations. National experiences should be taken on board • Application development – quality of services • European (international) standardisation is the main target • Metadata is missing • 4th section in “organisation” is confusing and to be re-formulated

  7. Last chapter • Content is ok, but editing is necessary • Business lines for Cadastre are not necessary within priorities in some countries • Integrity can be measured for example through performance indicators (not time or cost as present)

More Related