Revision of IPR AQ schema version 1.0 – Working document IPR Technical meeting 29/11/2016
Date: 10/11/2016
Initial author(s): Jaume Targa and Tony Bush (ETC/ACM)
Revisions comments by: Artur Gsella and Michel Houssiau (EEA), Jaume Targa, Tony Bush, Katharina Scheleidt, Barbara Magagna, Rune Ødegård, Patrick van Hooydonk, Wim Mol (ETC/ACM)
Since its publication on 31/03/2014, theschema version 1.0has been used to implement Decision 2011/850/EC. These 2 years have provided experience to users.
The ETC/ACM and EEA have reviewedschema version 1.0 for dataflows A to G. In the table below, summary of findings and possible improvements are included. The table below includes:
- Element investigated
- Element number according to IPR mapping document
- Comment
- Change/Possible impact
- Opinionfrom the redacting and reviewing team on whether to implement the changes
Please note that the decision about a possible upgrade of the schema, keeping in mind to maintain backwards compatibility and to remain in line with the IPR decision, will be discussed with the Member States and the European Commission at the IPR Technical meeting to be organised in Brussels on 29th November 2016.
Element investigated / No. / Comment / Change/Possible Update / Possible Impact / OpinionAQD_ReportingHeader (A) / aqd:change / A.1 / As e-Rep is not managed following the initial idea of “management by change”, is the Boolean (TRUE/FALSE) needed?
[Should we attempt to review if management by change is possible? Or at least, NO CHANGE management) / Update 1:
False = 1st ever delivery
True = any update of the data
Update 2:
Update element to code list to specify
…change/new (1st delivery)
…change/update (update)
… / Update 1:
EEA / Small impact on QA
JRC / Need to investigate
Countries / Very small
Update 2
EEA / Medium impact on QA
JRC / Need to investigate
Countries / Update required
/ Agreed by team
NO CHANGE
aqd:changeDescription / Need to agree that this is the place for CHANGE description of reasons for update with the Commission! / Negligible for all / Agreed by team
NO CHANGE
aqd:changeDocumentation
(NEW) / A.2 / DG Environment seems to require a physical document describing any updates on XMLs. / ADD new element (0 to 1) which allows URL link to change document / Negligible to current system.
EEA / Medium impact on QA
JRC / Need to investigate
Countries / Update required
/ Agreed by team
NO CHANGE
aqd:delete / A.3 / Following ticket #18607 and #70052, this was added
(similar to aqd:content with cardinality 0..* as for <content>)
This is not used by EEA. / This is not used (difficult for EEA to use and difficult for countries to implement). Should we deleted to avoid confusion? OR ensure that countries are clear we don’t use it. / Negligible to current system.
EEA / Medium impact on QA
JRC / Need to investigate
Countries / Update required
/ Agreed by team
ELEMENT KEPT.
Need to make it clear to countries
New element ? / Do we need element to distinguish preliminary vs retrospective? / Agreed by team
NO CHANGE
Zones (B) / No change / - / Dataset might need discussion in the future to maybe only include geometries / - / -
AQD_AssessmentRegime (C) / aqd:assessmentMethods/aqd:AssessmentMethods/aqd:assessmentTypeDescription / C.4.5.2 / Agreed by team
ELEMENT KEPT
…/aqd:zone / C.1 / In order to improvereporting for pollutants with monitoring objectives at MS level (e.g. AEI, ozone precursors, deposition, additional PAH), aqd:zone should be improved
#18061 / Make aqd:zone in C voidable in the schema
Countries already use:
<aqd:zone nilReason="inapplicable"/> / Impacts on existing systems negligible. This change will ensure that all MO assessments at a national level are reported in the same way. Highly beneficial.
EEA / Low
JRC / None
Countries / Low
/ Update to voidable if not already
Barbara to check with Michael (JRC) on voidability
CompetentAuthority (C) Related ticket #13563 -
aqd:inspireId / C.2 / Add to schema / -
- add aqd:zone (see below) / Beneficial going forward, in its current state the information cannot be utilised meaningfully.
EEA / Low
JRC / None
Countries / Medium
Beneficial going forward, in its current state the information cannot be utilised meaningfully.
EEA / Low
JRC / None
Countries / Low
assessmentAirQuality
approvalMeasurementSystems
accuracyMeasurements
analysisAssessmentMethod
nationWideQualityAssurance
cooperationMSCommission / C.5.2 – C.5.7 / Competent authorities responsibility is repeated for ALL these elements. A lot of redundant information for majority of countries and small flexibility for regional countries / - Remove all elements
- Add new element aqd:domainResponsability (0..*) to xlink to a new codelist (assessmentAirQuality; approvalMeasurementSystem;…) to allow the declaration of Authorities role / Provide a full example in IPR meeting
RelatedParty (NEW) / If the above elements are removed, relatedParty is required at this level in order to provide information on the Competent Authority / - add RelatedParty to specify information
…/aqd:zone / C.3 / Update AQD_CompetentAuthority / Add link to Zone with cardinality 1..*
Allows MS to report different Competent Authorities for each assessment regime, as requested by MS at the IPR meeting. / Beneficial going forward, in its current state the information cannot be utilised meaningfully.
EEA / Low
JRC / None
Countries / Medium
/ Agreed update – add element (0 to many)
Assessment methods –fixed/indicative measurements (D) / AQD_SamplingPoint/ aqd:assessmentType / D.4.2 / Definition of fixed/indicative can vary depending depending on data coverage. Currently, it is recommended to use the intended type, however, this is not very stable and can cause confusion if country updates it every year…
(Indicative measurements are likely to be stay indicative unless important configuration is done (better process; more measurements etc…). / assessmentType is already defined in C taking into account yearly variation. Delete this element it will be clear from the process information what sort of measurement it is. / EEA / Low
JRC / None
Countries / Low
/ Agreed to change cardinality to 0
(cannot be deleted to keep backward compatibility)
AQD_SamplingPoint/ aqd:usedAQD / D.5.1.8 / Team’s views this element as largely redundant. DfC defines what is used for compliance, EOI etc. DfD is just a list of measurements that have been operating / Delete make voluntary / EEA / Low
JRC / None
Countries / Low
/ Agreed to change cardinality to 0
(cannot be deleted to keep backward compatibility)0
AQD_SamplingPoint/ aqd:environmentalObjective / D.5.1.9 / Redundant/duplication of information / This is already in C. This information is essential in C not D / This simplifies reporting. However, it is included in the IPR Decision / Agreed to change cardinality to 0
(cannot be deleted to keep backward compatibility)
AQD_SamplingPoint
AQD_SamplingPoint/ aqd:changeAEIStations / D.5.1.10 / This is a free text element which does not add much value. #69311 The way D & C are implemented / Any updates on AEI stations should be tracked via dataflow C were MS provide clear link for SamplingPoints used for AEI calculation / Agreed to change cardinality to 0
(cannot be deleted to keep backward compatibility)
AQD_SamplingPoint/aqd:assessmentMethodWSS / D.5.5.1 / Not appropriate element. This was solved in v1.0 adding aqd:adjustmentMethods / aqd:adjustmentMethods added in v1.0
Should this element be deleted? / Agreed to change cardinality to 0
(cannot be deleted to keep backward compatibility)
AQD_SamplingPoint/aqd:assessmentMethodNS / D.5.5.2 / Not appropriate element. This was solved in v1.0 adding aqd:adjustmentMethods / aqd:adjustmentMethods added in v1.0
Should this element be deleted? / Agreed to change cardinality to 0
(cannot be deleted to keep backward compatibility)
aqd:adjustmentMethods / D.5.5.3 / This element is there to be able to link (for example) a SamplingPOint with the method used for NS or WSS. However, this must be provided at G level. Is it necessary at SPO. Specially when the ajustmentMethod might change every year
#70173 / Agree on a methodology in reporting those Assessment Methods for WS & NS. Current guidance is to use. Currently in UG “The ef:involvedIn element is a voluntary INSPIRE information element which provides information on activities the Sampling Pointis involved in. Within AQ e-°©Reporting it can be used to indicate where a sampling point is involved in e.g. estimation of the AEI,
winter-°©sanding or –salting, nature sources calculation, EMEP monitoring etc.” / Agreed to change cardinality to 0
(cannot be deleted to keep backward compatibility)
AQD_SamplingPoint/ aqd:zone / D.4.3 / As discussed since day one this element is wrongly placed.
Also it generates redundant information / This should be deleted. A samplingPoint may belong to different zones. Linkage between SamplingPoints and Zones are done in C. / However, this is included in IPR (Annex II, Part D,i,4) / Agreed to change cardinality to 0
(cannot be deleted to keep backward compatibility)
AQD_SamplingPointProcess
…/aqd:measurementType / D.5.1.6.3.1
…/aqd:measurementMethod / D.5.1.6.3.2 / Need to review in conjunction with experience & proposed comments from AT (specially for Sampled data and manual) / Maybe we should provide more flexibility using blocks like ompr:parameter in AQD_Models (any future updates would be independent to schema / More discussion is necessary. This should be done when major change of schema are done.
…/aqd:samplingMethod / D.5.1.6.3.4
…/aqd:analyticalTechnique / D.5.1.6.3.6
…/aqd:samplingEquipment / D.5.1.6.3.5
…/aqd:measurementEquipment / D.5.1.6.3.3
aqd:dataQuality / D.5.1.6.5 / Not mandatory if not AQD_used / Should be made voidable / Need to investigate if voidable
aqd:documentation / D.5.1.6.5.2 / Free text / Should be change to URL ? / Negligible for all / More discussion is required
aqd:report / D.5.1.6.5.3 / URL OK / Fixed in QA
Time coverage / Already removed / Reported in E1a
Data capture / Already removed / Reported in E1a
aqd:duration / D.5.1.6.6.1 / OK
aqd:cadence / D.5.1.6.6.2 / OK
AQD_Sample
…/sam:sampledFeature / D.5.1.7.2 / This element is used to link to AQD_RepresentativeArea.
This element is Mandatory from INSPIRE point of view / As AQD_RepresentativeArea is not mandatory, a code list to briefly describe the area in AQ terms should be created (this code list will also be useful within AQD_RepresentativeArea) / Beneficial going forward, currently the information is of NO USE.
EEA / Low
JRC / None
Countries / Low
…/sams:shape / OK, this provides latitude,longitude inlet / No change
AQD_RepresentativeArea
…/sam:shampledFeature / Latest guidance suggests to use
sam:sampledFeature xlink:href="
sam:sampledFeature nilReason="unknown" xsi:nil="true"/> / A code list to briefly describe the area in AQ terms should be created (this code list will also be useful within AQD_RepresentativeArea) / Beneficial going forward, currently the information is of NO USE.
EEA / Low
JRC / None
Countries / Low
/ This to be implemented via new code list.
…/sams:shape / This is to provide better description of the RepresentativeArea via geometry
Assessment methods – model/objective estimation (D1b) / AQD_Model
…/aqd:environmentalObjective / D.7.2.8 / Redundant/Duplication of information / This is already in C. This information is essential in C / This simplifies reporting. However, it is included in the IPR Decision / Agreed to change cardinality to 0
(can not be deleted to keep backward compatibility)
…/aqd:assessmentType / Essential information to distinguish model & Expert Judgement / Need extra guidance. When does a model become Expert Judgement and vice versa / Example:
UK has a model for NO2 annual mean. However, if not sufficient SamplingPoints with adequate data capture, an empirical relationship between NO2 annual/NO2 max hourly is used to assess against this / Kept to distinguish between model & expert judgement
…/aqd:used / new / This element is missing in AQD_Model #20643 / Agreed. NO NEED for new element
…/ ef:operationActivityPeriod / new / Not included #20593 / Agreed. Skip it for now.
…/ef:purpose (0 .. *) / This element already exists under Env Monitoring Facilities / FAIRMODE has suggested to add “model application” in the code list list[1] and we could use this element to describe model’s purpose / Negligible for all / Review of code list is needed.
…/ef:involvedIn/@xlink:href / - / Page 282 of Userguide: we propose <ef:involveIn xlink:href=" / Need to revise & agree usage of ef:involveIn – see #70283 / Agreed. No change required. Guidance needs reviewing
AQD_ModelArea
aqd:inspireId / D.7.2.9.1 / This element was added in v1.0 to facilitate re-usage / Should this element be moved further up (rather than at the end)? / This is a cosmetic amendment / Agreed to keep it as it is. Only cosmetics.
…/sam:sampledFeature / D.7.2.9.3 / Model area and geometry usually comes with model results. / This could be made voidable as for AQD_Model, the geometry is in the data.
A code list to briefly describe the area should be created (this code list will also be useful within AQD_RepresentativeArea) / Negligible for all / Agreed.
…/sams:shape / D.7.2.9.2 / Full geometry of model
Or xlink to 1 zone only (not a short cut) / Negligible for all / Agreed to keep as it is.
AQD_ModelProcess
…/ompr:processParameter / D.8.7 / - Better guidance to ensure correct reporting
- Take out example p.248 UG
- Improve modelParameters code to include all characteristics; add type / Negligible for all / Agreed to use code list. Need to review with update of guidance
…/aqd:spatialResolution / D.7.4 / Free text / Could be improved using unit and value like aqd:temporalResolution / HOWEVER, could leave it as it is to keep stability / Agreed to keep as free text
…/aqd:dataQualityDescription / D.7.5.1 / Need to make progress towards adapting the schema storing the model uncertainty outputs of the FAIRMODE delta tool / TB to consult UK representative on Model uncertainty work under FAIRMODE to better define if this element is ok
…/dataQualityReport / D.7.5.2 / OK
Primary data (E1a) / om:resultQuality (for data capture) / E.7.2 / This was moved from D to E1a. A Boolean TRUE/FALSE is not very useful from country/EEA perspective / Remove boolean, should follow uncertainty style providing % / Negligible for all
…/om:resultQuality (for uncertainty) / E.7.3 / OK. It allows to provide unit (%) and value
…/…/gml:quantityTypeReference / new / Following AQUILA guidance, uncertainty can/should be reported per each Reporting metric (For example: NO2 Hourly & NO2 annual mean) / This element could be used / Those country that have uncertainty disaggregated to such level may report it
//resultQuality not harvested yet (I think)
Model data (E1b) / OM implementation updated in User Guide to XML
/om:OM_Observation/om:parameter / E.8 / Where does Model calibration/verification come from? (we believe it was included in the original XMLs examples from UBA-V) / Is this really mandatory? / Agreed to remove element
AQD_Attainment (G) / Aqd:percentileExceedance / new / Currently it is not possible to declare exceedance due to 90.4%ile / Add new conditional element / Negligible for all / Agreed to add element on percentile 90.4
…/aqd:stationUsed / A.2.5.6 / Wrong name / Should change to aqd:samplingPointInExceedance / EEA / Medium
Countries / Medium
/ Need to keep to ensure backward compatibility
…/aqd:modelUsed / A.2.5.6 / Wrong name / Should change to aqd:ModelInExceedance / EEA / Medium
Countries / Medium
/ Need to keep to ensure backward compatibility
…/aqd:sensitivePopulation / A.2.6.3 / Not in IPR / Remove / None
…/aqd:infrastructureServices / A.2.6.4 / Not in IPR / Remove / None
End
1
[1]