1 / 22

INSPIRE Reports May 2010 Quality Knowledge Exchange Network

INSPIRE Reports May 2010 Quality Knowledge Exchange Network. 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. Report from Q-KEN member.

trygg
Download Presentation

INSPIRE Reports May 2010 Quality Knowledge Exchange Network

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. INSPIRE Reports May 2010 Quality Knowledge Exchange Network

  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

  3. Report from Q-KEN member No report this time Corresponding Q-KEN member

  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? INSTRUCTIONS Organisation/Country Period Covered

  5. PolandQuality evaluation procedures • 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 • Czech Republic • Simplified data information about positional accuracy of points • More mandatory quality elements similar to DQM MaltaCompleteness, Positional Accuracy, Temporal Accuracy and Thematic Accuracy are optional elements and not for all Themes Sweden Quality evaluation procedures Quality requirements missing in the specification? • DenmarkInconsistent requirements • Possibly create common set for all specifications GreeceNo clear understanding of the selection criteria for the feature types and corresponding quality measurements GermanyThe question suggests that it is possible to introduce new requirements but the aim of INSPIRE is to use existing data sets, HungaryImplementation of the data security (authentication and encryption) Spain (IGN)Yes, but there is a lack of actual experience evaluating data quality elements

  6. Greece • Data sharing • SwedenData sharing (concerning security, integrity and confidentiality). Major challenges for implementing INSPIRE (1/2) • IrelandTechnical challenges absorbs costs! • Gap between current datasets and mandatory requirements • Identifying datasets and authorative dataset owner • PolandData transformation and update • Harmonisation of services between MS • NorwayAchieve enthusiasm for Inspire in to ensure to get the data • Data to be distributed from centralised data base at first, technology and capacity • Organisation and financing • 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/providers • Devil is in the detail… • HungaryNo state budget for the INSPIRE implementation • Harmonisation of the INSPIRE regulation with the more strict national regulations

  7. Major challenges for implementing INSPIRE (2/2) 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 • Spain (ICC)Provision of conformant datasets • Semantic differences between descriptions • Conformant network service architecture in MS • Czech Republic • Adjustment of boundaries • Edge-matching • Geographical names data model • Malta • Lack of real understanding of what needs to be done • Proper infrastructure for implementing INSPIRE not yet in place • Austria • Semi-automated actualisation and maintenance of metadata • GRM until August 2011 • Great Britain • Lack of leadership within the UK

  8. What presentation would you like to hear in a coming plenary meeting? • Denmark • How will the spatial data infrastructure look like in year 2020? Visions and scenarios.. • NorwayUse of Inspire-data • Cadastre parcels • Czech Republic • How to coordinate responsibility for data sets maintenance on national level? • Use of data and services license agreements • Greece • Advances in the INSPIRE transformation model • NMCAs: State-of-art in data harmonisation Spain (IGN)How is an Inspire European Services Catalogue/Registry going to be implemented • Poland • INSPIRE data harmonisation model in different MS • How to measure quality of INSPIRE services? IrelandQuality Evaluation Web Services HungaryA presentation from Frieda Brepoels (EPP-ED) Member of the European Parliament and Rapporteur the INSPIRE Directive (The topic: results and an outlook) • Spain (ICC)INSPIRE Network Services – Types, requirements, architecture • Process of development of Annex II and III DS (now starting) • Malta • INSPIRE discovery services – implementation and end-user reaction • Sweden Who is doing what and how are different actors linked (COM, JRC, GMES, ESDIN, etc)

  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, Austria From November 2009 to May 2010

  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 commongeographical 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 Republic From December 2009 to April 2010 Page 10

  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, Germany April 2010 Page 11

  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, Germany April 2010 Page 12

  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

  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

  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, Hungary From November2009 to April2010

  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

  17. Quality requirements missing in the specification Major challenges for implementing INSPIRE Achieveenthusiasm 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 Authority Norway From November 2009 to April 2010

  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, Poland From December 2009 to May 2010

  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 - Spain From December 2009 to April 2010 Page 19

  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, Spain From December 2009 to May 2010

  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, Sweden From December 2009 to May 2010

  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, Denmark April 2010

More Related