DIRECTORATE-GENERAL
ENVIRONMENT
Directorate D–Water & Environmental Programmes
ENV.D.2 – Water and Marine /
Meeting of GIS Expert group
for the WFD Common Implementation Strategy
15January 2008 from 09:00 to
16 JanuarY 13:00
in DublinCastle, DublinIreland
Draft Minutes
(version of 31/01/08)
Tuesday 15.1.2008
The WISE-GIS workshop was introduced by Tom Stafford (EPA IE), Stefan Jensen and Violeta Vinceviciene DG-ENV
Stefan Jensen (EEA) gave an overview of purpose, structure and expectations for the workshop.
Session 1General issues for a distributed WISE
INSPIRE architecture – recommendations for WISE(Stephen Peedell, JRC, IT)
SP gave an overview about the INSPIRE IR development and the progress so far. INSPIRE will not provide a detailed implementation guide; this is what is done now with the WISE GIS guidance. Some material is now quite mature like the discovery services and view services – mature area of standardisation. The download services are dealt with now, no material available by now. INSPIRE needs some practical testing (case studies); to test how INSPIRE and WISE fit together. Guidelines for encoding of spatial data is ready.
General discussion (Q/A):
Has RISE been taking into consideration in the generic conceptual model?
SP: yes, this is more or less RISE recycled
SP: what are the needs for web coverage services (raster) in WISE?
Exchange standards for water data - outcomes of the inaugural WaterML workshop
(Keiran Millard, HR Wallingford, UK)
KM presented the outcome of the MOTIIVE (finished by the end of 2008; focus on feature catalog development in marine community) and WaterML projects. Within MOTIIVE “observation” feature types have been developed. They are now available in release 2 (CSML)
The output of the Water ML workshop is available at: and a summary of the workshop is available in the meeting folder of the WISE GIS workshop.
General discussion (Q/A):
RH: mentions the NOKIS project in Germany
MS: when will WaterML be ready to be used in WISE
KM: in 2 years probably
Distributed systems – what does it mean? (Rombout Verwimp, Geosystems, BE)
RV presentation focused on the questions – what do we want? What are we focusing at? What do I want to share with whom? Services might not always be the solution. The actors and actors' perspective has to be taken into consideration and services need to be integrated in something useful. Don’ strive for the ideal world – the technology is anyhow changing at different pace in multi-tier systems. Furthermore it is important to define the boundaries of the system.
General discussion (Q/A):
SP: there is a need for practical solutions
Possibilities for free and open source software in developing distributed systems (Peter Mooney, EPA, IE)
PM gives an overview of free and open source software available for (Web)GIS purposes & briefly describes their possibilities of use for distributed systems
Session 2a & 2b Developments and expectations from national perspective
MS presented developments concerning information systems and reporting in their countries and expectations from national perspective concerning WISE. The developments of the last years have been quite impressive, many MS put great efforts to develop their own systems to collect, manage, analyse, distribute and report water related data.
The following presentations have been given:
WISA - on the way to decentralize data integration (Ingrid Roder, UBA, AT)
The development of the Austrian Water Information System WISA started in 2003 and it was launched in March 2007. It is organised as a datawarehouse, where a central database is fed by various sectorial databases. A reporting system is now under development. Within the reporting system a link to WISE will be established.
Vann-Nett - the Norwegian WISE node (Lars Stalsberg, NVE, NO)
LS presented Vann-Nett and the technology chosen – ArcGIS server (AGS). Since all WFD-relevant hydrological data are managed by one institution in Norway, there is no national need for a distributed system. Have an application with direct links to documents about WBs. Will redesign the system according to new guidance from INSPIRE. It is important to be able to handle WB code history. Serve interactive links via WB’s.
Questions and answers:
Q: how are you dealing with RBM plans
LS: don’t have templates by now
INSPIRE/ Hydrography anddistributed geographical databases architecture
(Eva Sovjakova, CZ Ministry of Environment)
ES presented the CZ surface water data used for their work. The working level is 1:10.000 and 3 objects of surface water bodies are used – point, line, and polygon. The work is based on CEN recommendations and CZ would like to find these recommendations also in the upcoming WISE GIS guidance. CZ stresses that in a decentralised system, no national data should be duplicated on a centralised server.
Furthermore CZ was addressing the letter from AT concerning the detail of reporting to EC(no duplication of national data at EU level, decentralised system) which was addressed to water directors last year. The letter/content of the letter was supported by water directors. CZ question is now, what consequences does this letter have and how does the WISE development takes this into consideration?
SJ was explaining that the WISE development is going towards the direction of a distributed system. However now there is a need to have more standardised data at EU level (reference dataset).
National and regional spatial infrastructure and information services related to WISE
(Ralf Busskamp & Armin Müller, DE)
RB presented developments in DE concerning the establishment of a spatial data infrastructure. He demonstrated the distributed search for data via a web catalogue services and the display of distributed data in a web mapping client. RB also raised the issue of the reporting of data to WISE: Will there will be fixed periods of reporting or will reporting/update be possible at any point in time? Can data be retrieved via a pull- rather than a push mechanism?
RB noticed that he next steps for decentralised WISE architecture from German perspective would be: implement WMS (define topics where WMS is of interest), define implementation standards (scale, feature information, symbolisation); implement WFS (define GML schema for relevant WFD data).
Questions and answers:
NN: Are there business rules for updating data in WasserBlick?
RB: There are templates for all data exchanges. Await INSPIRE IR for web services.
AM presented Information services related to WISE – The relation between the various information services seen from a länder perspective and a model for a regional open web-application - the collaboration platform vitoC.
Germany has templates for all requested data under WFD to upload to the system; at national/federal level still all data are collected in a centralised way.
The Spanish water information system
(Javier Fernández Pereira, Conf. Hydr. Duero, ES)
JF presented the water information system of the Duero river basin ( The system is storing and managing information, accessible through web interface; to be unique data source for water plan, national and local reports, standardised platform for data exchange in Spain. On top of it a decision support system will be developed (making assessments, scenarios, pressure-impact analyses). The data model for the water data is based on the GIS guidance which was amended to suit their needs. Now they are working on WMS, WFS, harmonising symbology (SLD – styled layer descriptor); on a WFD Report Server and a Report tool. Furthermore they are building a version control and they are working on a methodology for metadata.
Questions and answers:
KM: How many WFD data models are there around? And is there a need for harmonisation?
Meeting the data management and reporting requirements of the WFD - A National perspective (Fiona Lawlor & Deirdre Kirwan, EPA, IE)
WFD has triggered national collaboration in particular developing national GIS system. In IE different systems have been developed to improve the WFD data collection that involves a large number of bodies. EDEN is the Environmental Data Exchange Network it is a central repository for data upload. The objective of the EDEN project is to allow submitting environmental data remotely and sharing these data with all authorised parties. Aquarius in EPA's own system to manage water quality data coming from different organisations via EDEN. It provides reporting data to WISE/SEIS. Furthermore there is a Web-based River Basin District Management System in place.
Web service requirements for WISE data exchange
(Duncan Taylor and David Edwards, Scottish EPA, UK)
DT and DE presented their two approaches used in N.Ireland (semi-automatic) and Scotland(automated) approach concerning WFD Article 8 reporting. All data (from Scotland) are stored in an Oracle DB, database procedures are created to generate xml files that are automatically validated against a schema. This procedure has several advantages (automated process, immediate validation against schema, xml can be viewed in several ways and exposed as web services). According to DE, input required from WISE are the schema definitions.
Challenges with distributed systems like WISE (Jan Bliki, EEA)
JB presented the experiences of the EEA concerning distributed systems. The EEA joined recently OGC and JB is member of the OGC. It is necessary to focus on open standards and to have good partnerships. Furthermore decision is needed on which service level the distributed system is established – the application level (human to system) or the data distribution level(system to system). Clear use cases need to be developed and there needs to besome understanding how the data should be visualised.
Live data flows will be quite different from the data flow now in place at EEA. Not every DEM is now ready for live data flows.
Session 2cCommon elements to be developed for WISE – summary discussion
SJ pointed out that metadata proposal is in line with INSPIRE. next steps is to built some tools, schemas, etc. Challenges for next few years are to get art.5 data right and to explore with Member States a distributed reporting under article 13 and art.5 as a pilot. He also made the proposal to start testing how a distributed system could work and take one of the upcoming reporting exercises like the resubmission of WFD Article 5. There was the concern that this might be too ambitious and only one or two data flows should be taken for the test for the beginning like water bodies or monitoring stations.
On top of this, it was highlighted that the coming challenges for WISE are more on proving a distributed system to allow easy on-line updates of data – not necessarily “life” (daily or even hourly) exchange. If this calls for push- or pull-based architectures needs to be explores.
During the following discussion there were several arguments reflecting on the relationships and complexity between the above areas which may make it difficult to use them as pilots for a distributed system. The best thematic area to turn to in an initial phase (and continue stepwise from there) is most likely the Art.8 reporting which has some dynamic (updates of stations) but also a manageable complexity.
RB had the concern that a parallel process to the INSPIRE implementation rules will be opened. The timeline for the INSPIRE water topics should be taken into consideration. IR for Hydrography ready by May 2008! Furthermore decentralised system and centralised systems should not be handled as if there are conflicts between theses systems. This is not the case what we currently have at national levels vs Reportnet data repository. Therefore it is completely compatible.
KM mentioned that there should be analyses were things are overlapping, e.g. INSPIRE water topics. There are so many developments going on and a lot of data models concerning water developed (see WaterML). The interface level is important to allow integrating the countries' data models to a European level.According to him, WISE data model shall be developed at EU level as a platform for data exchange at EU level.
From SP point of view it is the right time now to develop a data model for water.
RH addressed two questions: Is WISE only a system to report data? How will WISE deal with data changes and updates? To his opinion it should be a living system (always up-to-date data available) and it has to be organised what has to be delivered when.
SJ: WISE does not want to give only reporting snapshots (data which have been reported at a certain point in time) but it should be a “living” system.
GV: reporting snapshots are important as well – necessary to have both
RH: important to guarantee connection between datasets (e.g. waterbodies in 2005 not the same as 2015)
There was clearly the need expressed to be able to update data already submitted. MS: To start with the distributed system, infrastructure components (technical components) need to be defined; also: define what data should be digitally available (other than pdf/xml)
OG: There should be a common symbology (SLD) e.g. for Art. 5 data
SJ: a "live system" will not be possible for all/everything, but still: are other methods than WMS thinkable?
OS: CSW would be interesting to discover data on the regional/national level; WFS
SP: clearinghouse function would be interesting (service registry)
SJ: is there a business case for WFS?
AdJ: The use case for WFS is simply the update of asynchronous datasets - updates of Art. 5 or 8; pull mechanism would be interesting/innovating – many countries already have systems in place where that would work. Priority for EC: quality of Art. 5 data (waterbody status at some fixed time/snapshot)
(Slovenia): have experience with WFS, developed metadata portal
ES: CZ is now simplifying data – will not fit the Art. 5 data that have been reported;
MN: ID management should be discussed; important experiences from UWWTD reporting should be taken into account for WISE
KM: expressed that GML needs to be developed from current XML reporting schemas for WFS services.
RB: It does not make sense to translate xml schemas of Art.5 of Art.8 to GML now. We should be careful not to duplicate INSPIRE IR.
In summary, the necessary link to INSPIRE implementation activities can only be underlined and is recommended to be followed.
Session 3WISE SDIC items and new developments under WISE
INSPIRE issues for the Water/WISE SDIC (Stephen Peedell, JRC, IT)
SP gave an update of the data specification work under INSPIRE and explained the roadmap for INSPIRE water, what has been done so far and what will be the next processes. Furthermore he explained how to get involved as WISE SDIC in the process now. Hydrographic themes are handled now and material can be provided now (until mid February). NMCAs (national mapping and cadastral agencies) have provided a lot of material by now. The environmental perspective is underrepresented. Also 1-2 two strong experts bringing in the environmental view are missing. Later on the papers can be commented and tested.
WFD Art. 13 reporting schemas (John Cima)
GV presented for JC the Art. 13 data schema, that provides information on the River Basin Management Plan, the Programme of Measures and Recorded statuses of waterbodies (Art. 3, 5, and 8 submissions provided infrastructure; Art. 13 the details). The method to develop and QA Art.13 schemas was presented and the schema links to Reporting Sheets explained (RBD, SubUnit and Surface Water and GW Bodies). The Art. 13 Schema and Guide are now available, comments from all Member States welcome (until 15 February 2008 to ) Final schema and schema guide to be released in March 2008 after Commission acceptance.
Questions and answers:
ES: subunits not approved politically, CZ can not fulfil this task per subunit
VV (post meeting clarifications on sub-units): the reporting sheets for deadline of 2010 (art.13) that contains sub-unit issue has been already endorsed by Water Directors. Therefore Art.13 schemas are the technical implementation of the politically agreed reporting sheets.
(Scotland): Is there a principle of reuse of already defined concepts from previous schemas?
MS: Yes
WISE reference data (Stefan Jensen, EEA)
SJ presented the activities of the EEA concerning reference datasets. The upcoming reference data sets will be the RBDs, the main rivers & lakes, and the monitoring stations. Later the water bodies will be joined in. Concerning RBDs there will be 4 GIS datasets (national and international RBDs entirely within the EU, non-EU national and international RBDs) and 1 tabular dataset available by March 2008. SJ also raised the problem of different accuracy of the data provided by now (expressed in scale) and there was some confusion about a table presented. MS will react to this table and correct the accuracy of data given there (some MS mentioned that information given in the table needs clarification). A general remark was given by RB that data accuracy should be used and not the scale. For main rivers and lakes there will be 2 GIS datasets (rivers, lakes) and 1-2 tabular datasets available late 2008. For monitoring stations, 2 GIS datasets (surface water, groundwater) will be available in March 2008.
Wednesday 16.1.2008
Session 3 continuedWISE SDIC items and new developments under WISE
A proposal for visualisation in WISE (reference data sets, centroids, scales, codes, river stretches, …) (Violeta Vinceviciene, DG Env)
VV presented the findings of the analysis of the data reported so far (Art. 5, Art. 8) in particular the main rivers (as reference dataset) and the water bodies. The main points of the proposal were: only main rivers (> 500 km²) will be used for visualisation and water bodies on main rivers; water bodies on main rivers should be presented as river stretches and not as points (but waterbodies should also be reported as centroids to allow RBD, subunit or national analysis); for statistics, information of all water bodies will be needed (minimum centroids); various datasets should be connected through coding(taking into account that in the future, a more detailed main rivers reference dataset – e.g. > 100 km² - should be developed). Workshop participants were invited to provide comments and views on this proposal by 15 February.