Annex 1
INSPIRE Dashboard
------
D-B 1) Do you think there should be a common dashboard between MS?Yes / 16 / 100%
No / 0 / 0%
D-B 2) Where should the dashboard be implemented?
a) at central level only / 7 / 44%
b) at central level and (extended) at Member State level / 7 / 44%
Other / 2 / 13%
Spain: yes
Belgium: at central level, and at MS level WHEN resources are available
UK: At Member State level and collated at central level (ie indicators harvested by Commission)
D-B 3) The dashboard should contribute to monitor INSPIRE implementation process and progress of EU
countries
Agree / 14 / 88%
Disagree / 0 / 0%
Other / 2 / 13%
Denmark: The dashboard should show which data sets and services each Member States they provide to INSPIRE and which of them are INSPIRE compliant. This overview can inspire other member states in their affords in identifying data sets in scope of annex 1, 2 and 3.
Uk: Agree - but on condition that Member States can control when indicators are calculated.
D-B 3.1) If "disagree" on the above assertion, could you explain why?
UK: As National Contact Point we would be concerned if dynamically calculated indicators in a dashboard were to be used as a basis for enforcing INSPIRE compliance.
Therefore we would propose that the dashboard harvest indicators that are calculated in local dashboards, on a cycle determined by Member States with a minimum specified frequency. (Would suggest annually inline with regulations). Indicators could be harvested in the XML format already specified for returning monitoring information or an updated version of it.
D-B 4 - a) One role of the dashboard should be to monitor the implementation status of INSPIRE in the Member States at a certain time, i.e. the dashboard reflects the content of the INSPIRE discovery services on that certain time
Agree / 14 / 88%
Disagree / 1 / 6%
Other / 1 / 6%
D-B 4 - b) If "disagree" on the above assertion, could you explain why?
Finland: Not sure if certain time means here the real time monitoring. It should contain a view of monitoring status of the end of each year but also real time (for example daily or weekly) status monitoring. Yearly monitoring status view for seeing the long term picture and real time status for seeing the current status.
UK: The time at which the dashboard is monitored should be controlled by each Member State National Contact Point, to avoid mis-reporting.
D-B 5) Which is the main audience of the dashboard?
a) European Commission / 1 / 6%
b) Member States / 1 / 6%
c) Spatial data user community / 1 / 6%
d) all of them / 11 / 69%
Other / 2 / 13%
D-B 5 - b) If "b" on the above assertion, please elaborate on the type of information which could be interesting - useful to the spatial dataset and services users community
Spain: with the abstract (the same as the abstract element of the metadata file)
Finland:
- list of national INSPIRE datasets and services
- availability of dataset and service metadata and link to available metadata
- metadata conformity and a validation report if not conformant
- dataset availability in services and link to those services
- service conformity and a validation report if not conformant
The Netherlands: It is usefull to know if there is data on a specific theme (not yet available in the portal) for a region
Sweden: The information in the Excel monitoring sheets are of great interest, as well as the custodians of the different datasets. It would help the NCP’s to follow and present the progress and availability of data within the country as well as identifying new cross-border datasets and to find contact organisations in other countries for these. It will also give a good overview on how different countries defines their datasets and what data is available from a cross-border perspective.
UK: Progress in other Member States, particulary information about the types of data that have been published for each theme, achieving consistency accross territories is proving difficult. It will become more difficult as we move into transformation. So it would be useful to have this information.
D-B 6) Which information the dashboard should provide?
a) monitoring information only / 5 / 31%
b) monitoring and reporting information / 1 / 6%
c) conformity issues of metadata, data and services (e.g. validation results) / 2 / 13%
d) all of them / 4 / 25%
Other / 4 / 25%
Spain: in two parts:
- with dataset and service compliance metadata
- with dataset and service non-compliance metadata
Italy: a) & c)
Belgium: monitoring information including validation results (Y/N or even more detailed?) IF all MS use the same validation tools which should be provided by the EC
France: a) & c)
The Netherlands: a + c
D-B 7 - a) The dashboard should function completely automatically by requesting the INSPIRE discovery services that are registered in the INSPIRE registry and deriving the monitoring information from the metadata the services provide
Agree / 5 / 31%
Disagree / 1 / 6%
Agree but this is not feasible presently / 9 / 56%
Other / 1 / 6%
Belgium:Agree IF metadata is adapted when it should appear that other information is useful/necessary for the dashboard/monitoring (which is at the moment not yet included in the metadata). Also: not all information can be included in the MD (e.g. use of services during a certain period). Therefore it is necessary to allow data input into the dashboard manually or from other sources than the metadata.
D-B 7 - b) If it is currently not feasible, could you explain why?
Denmark: A result of an automatically process would rely of the quality of metadata. And from the Danish point of view the quality of metadata is in some instances varying quality.
Italy: because of the heterogeneous status of implementation in public authorities and it is difficult to have an automatic derivation of monitoring information
Greece: Because in Greece we do not yet have discovery services for all the data and spatial data services that fall under the scope of the INSPIRE directive. We therefore would like to be able to monitor the progress of our data producers manually and we want to know which datasets and services exist and should be compliant to INSPIRE. We think that not compliant data and services should be part of the monitoring list and we want to know that they do not have metadata, they are not INSPIRE compliant and there are not access services for them. The complete automatic monitoring of the implementation of the directive is correct and it is the only way to actually be sure that the monitoring information is real. Unfortunately, it is not feasible yet.
Belgium: -metadata does not contain all the necessary information for automatic monitoring: (1) some fields required for monitoring are not present (yet) in metadata, (2) metadata is not always kept up-to-date by the data provider, (3) some metadata fields which will be necessary for the dashboard are not mandatory. Data providers will have to complete these metadata fields. (2) and (3) will be difficult since metadata is by most data providers considered as a burden and has low priority.
-implementation cost to integrate the dashboard in own geoportal (if wanted), and if wanted to extend it with additional information.
Finland: At least in Finland the discovery service includes also INSPIRE conformant metadata of non-INSPIRE datasets and services. There should be a commonly agreed mechanism how to separate the non-INSPIRE data from INSPIRE ones.On the other hand, all INSPIRE datasets and services don't (at least not yet) have metadata documents in the national discovery service. Anyway the existence of these datasets and services should also be indicated in the dashboard.
France: Some indicators (about area & use of infrastructure) are not in the metadata.
Germany: Some of the required monitoring information could not be derived from metadata (use of services, relevant and actual area).
UK: We disagree and this is not currently feasible.We disagree because we think Member State National Contact Points should have an opportunity to validate their indicators before they are presented to a dashboard. This is particularly so if it is to be used to monitor legal compliance.It is not feasible because not all indicators can be calculated programatically, and particularly not in a federated SDI (such as that implemented in the UK). (See also responses on indicators).
Slovak Republic: Not all of Slovak obliged organizations has registered their discovery services in INSPIRE registry and not all of them are completely in accordance with requirements of INSPIRE.
Anonymous: not all monitoring info is kept in the metadata (e.gsevice requests, actual/relevant area)
Datasets/services with no existing metadata are excluded
D-B 8) Describe the main benefits you perceive from having a dashboard
Analysis of the answers: This question was interpreted and answered as “what is the function/role you perceive/want the dashboard to have.”
Perceived Roles functionality:
a)Reduce through dashboard automated – real time processes, MS monitoring and reporting obligations and associated administrative burden.
b)Improved, user friendly, accessible, comparative information regarding progress in implementing INSPIRE which would motivate wider, INSPIRE compliance by public authorities.
c)Facilitated access and search services, to datasets and metadata according to different themes by different countries.
Spain: The statistical knowledge of dataset and services in all country
Cyprus: Monitoring the current status of SDI at any time.
Estonia: Generates automatically reportsWill reduce development costWill help conformity testing
Denmark: The dashboard will be a tool for the member states to inspire them in their affords in identifying data sets in scope of annex 1, 2 and 3. E.g. to answer the question "which data sets has my neighboring countries identified in scope of annex 3 US?"
Italy: easier recovery of information related to INSPIRE Monitoring; full pan-european landscape on INSPIRE monitoring activities easily accessible; help EC to focus on MS weakness or lacks
Greece: The main benefit would be the real time information on all the components of the member states' and European infrastructure.
Belgium:
- automatic and up-to-date (semi real time) monitoring
- use of metadata (+ stimulus for data providers to update their metadata)
- link between metadata, data and its services (should be implemented in the dashboard)
- user friendly and easily publicly available
- clear overview using graphics
Finland: Automatizing the collection of monitoring information saves a great amount of yearly work.
Showing an up-to-date status of INSPIRE implementation makes it easier for organisations to see what they still have to do to fulfil INSPIRE requirements.
Dashboard gives a more visible and concrete view to the monitoring information and INSPIRE in general.
France: An easier way to show monitoring's results to managers and politics; a way to compare national results with the one of European countries.
Germany: Transparency about the implementation status of INSPIRE in the member states.
The Netherlands: efficiency, collecting the information by hand is a lot of workcomparable information, it is collected the same wayactual, it is the situation, not the wish
Sweden: The possibility to get at quick overview of all available datasets and services within different countries would be a major benefit, as well who the data custodian in respective country is. Currently, each separate Excel monitoring sheet have to be downloaded and manipulated in order to get an idea of a specific aspect. It will also give a good overview on how different countries defines their datasets and what data is available from a cross-border perspective.
UK: Greater transparency on the progress in delivering INSPIRE.
Greater visability on extent of data published and performance and use of data services - enabling thebenefits of these services to be demonstrated.Reduced burden on each MS to provide data if dashboard is implemented correctly, and provided it is combined with changes to monitoring indicators.
Slovak Republic: eliminating manual copying information from metadatareducing the errors in monitoring and reportinggraphical user more friendly interfaceexchange of standards for M&R between member states, clarification of requirements for M&R
Anonymous: simplification of the national monitoring process
D-B 9) Describe the main difficulties you perceive in having a dashboard
Analysis of the answers: The key difficulties described concern feasibility issues regarding the development of the dashboard, due to its reliance on metadata
Current metadata problems can be summarized as:
a)Some fields required for dashboard and monitoring missing from metadata or currently not mandatory
b)Poor quality metadata (eg: not updated, incomplete, unverifiable, different interpretation of description fields)
c)Absence of metadata for many datasets
Additionally the issue of potential financial burden to MS for the implementation of the dashboard in National geoportals was mentioned as a potential difficulty.
Spain: The lack of feedback the Inspire communityIt is necessary examples, guidelines, or rules more explain (the numeber of records is very differents in each country for the same theme). For instance: Is ainventary of plants a dataset?
Cyprus: N/A
Estonia: developing user-friendly interface
Denmark: The dashboard shall show member states monitoring-information based on data sets and services metadata. The quality of metadata plays a huge role in this process.The dashboard should not be used as a control tool to check for conformity and progress in each member states INSPIRE implementation - there can be several reasons for why the number of available data sets can increase or decrease. E.g. organizational changes, new data-production-cooperation etc.
Italy: Implementing and management (economically and technically) the dashboard at national scale; difficulties to apply standards for interoperability between National And central node; lack of a national endpoint node
Greece: If I have understood the structure of the dashboard well, one difficulty will be the fact that many of our datasets and services that fall under INSPIRE are not accessible by network or spatial data services, so it would be difficult to have real time information on them.
Belgium:
-metadata does not contain all the necessary information for automatic monitoring: (1) some fields required for monitoring are not present (yet) in metadata, (2) metadata is not always kept up-to-date by the data provider, (3) some metadata fields which will be necessary for the dashboard are not mandatory. Data providers will have to complete these metadata fields. (2) and (3) will be difficult since metadata is by most data providers considered as a burden and has low priority.
-implementation cost to integrate the dashboard in own geoportal (if wanted), and if wanted to extend it with additional information.
France: To reach consensus on functionnalities (quite easy) and on design (much more difficult).
Germany: The dashboard could lead to a "competition" between the member states.The dashboard could be used as a control instrument by the commission.
The Netherlands: not all indicators can be automatically generated out of the metadata
Sweden: Metadata is not always correct, partly because of human errors entering faulty information, partly due to communication between the national geoportals and the INSPIRE geoportal. This may be a source for erroneous information in the dashboard system. This will, however, eventually be corrected as errors are discovered and data custodians can be enlightened on the errors. Another problem might be to differentiate between INSPIRE datasets and other national datasets (and products).
UK: Getting appropriate data from the metadata records to provide the information, particularly as the qualityof metadata is variable,particularly with some of the less mature data publishers.A lack of underpinning standards for the exchange of monitoring information.
Slovak Republic: governancelicensing frameworkmanual input still needed
Anonymous: the potential difficulties with the metadata quality (in the initial phase) will lead to better metadata quality later
D-B 10 - a) Do you think it is necessary to modify any of the existing indicators?
No / 2 / 13%
Yes / 13 / 87%
Other / 0 / 0%
D-B 10 - b) If "yes" on the above question, please indicate which indicator(s) and why.
Poland: DSi1, NSi3,
Denmark: Area indicators are irrelevant - so far their existence in the monitoring is unknown.The indicator for metadata existence is irrelevant if the monitoring is based on metadata.The indicator for metadata compliance to Metadata IR is irrelevant if the monitoring is based on metadata in discovery services.The indicator for data set / service is available in Discovery Service is irrelevant if the monitoring is based on metadata in discovery services.
Italy: DSi1; DSi1.1; DSi1.2; DSi1.3 - not relevant
NSi3; NSi3.1; NSi3.2; NSi3.3; NSi3.4; NSi3.5 –comparability issues
Greece: I believe that the relevant and actual area do not give any valuable information on the implementation of the directive. This indicator has a meaning if it is reported for a dataset that has not been completed yet. Since the directive does not set requirements for the collection of data, counting the completion of the dataset might be out of the scope of the directive.
Finland: DSi1 indicator (Geographical coverage of spatial data sets)NSi3 indicator (Use off all network services). Information needed to calculate these indicators needs to be manually collected from data providing organizations.
France: DSi1- NSi3
Germany: The indicators "Use of services" (NSi3) and "Geographical coverage" (DSi1) are quite difficult to calculate and don't say anything about the implementation status of INSPIRE.
The Netherlands: calculation of the actual area and coverage more metadata is needed. At least the administrative unit it covers.
the use of the services, it's not in the metadata also not in the new elements described in the SDSS. Use monitored at the EU INSPIRE portal can be an alternative.
Sweden: The information for “relevant area” and “actual area” in particular. The indicator doesn’t provide much information at all. Assume there are 250+ datasets on the list, which I think is a very modest assumption, all being captured to 100 % of its intended coverage. The overall indicator will then also show 100 %. One additional dataset will, for the short time data capture is in progress not change that overall 100 % significantly (20 % captured = 99.7 %, 50 % captured = 99.8 %, etc.).
Also the indicator for usage of services need to be considered. This indicator cannot be captured automatically from the metadata.
Some indicators are also redundant as they obviously exists, for instance will metadata always exist if it is extracted from the INSPIRE geoportal
UK: We think a comprehensive review of the indicators is required. It is clear that several indicators are redundant and that others offer little value to Member States, and indeed we struggle to see how they offer value to the Commission. We think this activity should be prioritised over a dashboard but done with the aim of delivering a dashboard in mind.