INSPIRE Conference 2017: Biodiversity & AM Cluster Activity Report

‘’Practicing Practical INSPIRE” workshop

The workshop focused on INSPIRE network services setup: issues, workaround and best practices illustrated through real-world examples. There was a very good number of attendees, for the most part also contributing actively to the discussions.The workshop presentationsare available on the TC platform.

Below a list of hot topics:

  • Simplification (Data Specifications and data provision)

Some presentations expressed the need fora shift ‘from the complex to the simple’, getting rid of unneeded complexity in order to focus ondata users’ needs. Simplification would be important to lower the entry barrier and to ensure more commitment from stakeholders.

  • PID management

the creation of persistent identifiers for the spatial objects is one of the most crucial challenges in the implementation of INSPIRE. Agreed (mandatory?) rules for the management of PIDs are essential for the reuse of INSPIRE data, and necessary to put in practice the “once only” principle underpinning the INSPIRE Directive.If we really want third parties to use INSPIRE PIDs, they must be trustable and long-term persistent! Are we ready for minting resolvable PIDs for thousands of spatial datasets and billions of spatial objects in Europe and, at the same time, fulfil long-term persistence and trustrequirements?

  • Issues with software toolsfor thesetup ofINSPIRE network services

currently no software seems to be able to fulfil all INSPIRE Requirements.

However, the ideaof sharing implementation experience through informal excel sheets (issues, available workarounds, ongoing bug fixing …) has been welcomed very warmly both by the INSPIREimplementers and the software vendors.

The latter declared they are fine with having these excels available on JRC platform (e.g. INSPIRE in practice or Thematic Cluster).

Currently, we make available spreadsheets for GeoServer and deegree, but I was asked -by FME representatives- whether we could provide a similar spreadsheet for FME software, should cluster members report any issue related to the use of FME in the INSPIRE context.

Meeting the members of the Thematic Clusters:

Several contacts with the Thematic Clusters members, not just the Biodiversity & AM ones, (manyof them stopping me during the breaks – conversely the Biodiversity & AM Cluster meeting had only three participants).

Most frequently addressed topics/questions:

  1. True usability of INSPIRE data
  • impacts of metadata on data discovery.How to make spatial datasets and services easily searchable on general data portals using standard web search engines? What about GeoDCAT-AP?
  • A smart, commonly agreed PID management could greatly help the user getting the desired INSPIRE data – very interesting best practices from Spain (national PID management) and Romania (harmonized access to data through short URLs using INSPIRE WFS download services).
  • issues related to deployment of INSPIRE network servicesandcreation of stored queries (request to make GeoServer and degree excels publicly available)
  • issues related tovisualization/management of INSPIRE data in GIS environment.

Upcoming (next November?) QGIS v3.0 very well welcomed.

  1. Area management / restriction / regulation zones & reporting units data theme:

What is in the scope of AM theme?

How to handle overlapping with PS and LU data theme?

I decided to take a quick informal survey asking cluster members whether their MS are preparing to (starting to think about) transformation of datasets according to AM data theme.

Survey results:

  • MT – tender for data transformation according to INSPIRE Annex I,II,III (so AM datasets as well) awarded
  • FI –starting investigation on datasets falling under AM
  • RM , IT – notyet
  • NL, CZ – don’t know
  1. ‘Maturity levels’ of INSPIRE implementations

Will there ever beanoption to implementbasic/ essential/ advanced?

Are there validation issues – for dataset s and services - that could be considered ‘less important’?

  1. Extension of INSPIRE data models

‘Canonical’ extension (Annex F of the INSPIRE Generic Conceptual Model – e.g. EU Registry) vs Linked Approach e.g. CDDA 2018. Pro and cons.

BP & examples:

Good implementation examples for datasets and services are available (Romania, Finland, Czech Republic, Spain, Portugal).

Good example of extended code list for Czech Cultural Heritage Protected Sites (the link to the national register implementation will soon be available on the Cluster).