MIWP-16 Workshop minutes

2014-04-11

Agenda

  1. 08:30-08:40 (Paul Hasenohr)
  2. Welcome and approval of the agenda
  3. 08:40-09:00 (Paul Hasenohr, everybody)
  4. Discussion/approval of the minutes of the last web-meeting
  5. Review of the tasks listed in the Terms of Reference
  6. Review of the project plan
  7. 09:00-09:30 (Paul Hasenohr, everybody)
  8. Review of the monitoring indicators against the metadata elements (from a theoretical point of view)
  9. Identification of gaps
  10. 09:30-10:30 (Daniela Hogrebe [DE], Marc Leobet [FR], Paul Hasenohr [EEA])
  11. Presentations by Member States
  12. INSPIRE monitoring in Germany
  13. Presentation by France about the way monitoring results can be presented to policy makers.
  14. Presentation of a concept of dashboard (to be used possibly as a starting point for further discussions)
  15. 10:30-11:00 BREAK
  16. 11:00-12:30 (everybody)
  17. Review of the survey, extraction of needs and practices
  18. Sections DB, Rep, Inf
  19. Sections MDi, DSi, NSi
  20. 12:30-14:00 LUNCH
  21. 14:00-15:30 (everybody)
  22. Drafting of a functional analysis for the dashboard
  23. 15:30-16:30 (everybody)
  24. Planning of next steps
  25. AOB
  26. 16:30 END OF MEETING

[1] Welcome and approval of agenda

This workshop took place on Friday 11 April, just after the MIG meeting held on 09-10/04. The day started with the 16 participants introducing themselves. The agenda got approved without change. No items have been added under AOB.

[2a] Approval of the minutes of the 6th web meeting

The minutes of the 6th web meeting held on 25 April 2014 have been approved without any modification.

Action: Paul to upload them to redmine.

[2b,c] Review of the Terms of Reference and of the project plan

Terms of Reference

The participants went through the tasks assigned to the sub-group. It was agreed that the sub-group may not need to wait until all the tasks listed in the ToR as belonging to the first phase of work have been completed in order to propose evolutions of discovery metadata or monitoring data even if, according to the ToR, this activity should take place in a second phase.

Project plan for MIWP-16

It was agreed to move the task Review of the XML schema used for monitoring to a later phase of the project, once the functional analysis of the dashboard will have been completed.

We are still on track but have to be aware that the planning is very ambitious and it will be difficult to stick to the agreed timetable.

[3] Review of the monitoring indicators against the metadata elements and identification of gaps (theoretical mapping)

The participants reviewed a first proposal prepared by Paul. The agreed document is annexed to these minutes.

During this review, it became very clear that MS have various approaches to the population of their metadata catalogues and to the compilation of the monitoring sheets:

  • Some MS rely exclusively on the content of their catalogues to provide the monitoring information, which leads to values of 100% for MDi1.
  • Some MS only allow conformant metadata to be in the catalogue(s) they use to provide the monitoring information, which also influences the value of MDi2.
  • Regarding DSi2, it is not possible for a dataset to be conformant to two INSPIRE Data Specifications at the same time. Therefore some MS do not allow more than one INSPIRE theme to be assigned to the dataset. This situation should improve as the datasets will have to be transformed to become actually conformant with INSPIRE data specifications at some point in time.

[4a] Presentations by MS about monitoring dashboards and communication of monitoring results to policy makers.

Daniela (DE) presented how the monitoring information is collected in Germany and the simple, yet very useful, dashboard available today to display it together with the INSPIRE indicators and other ones of interest. In addition to this online dashboard, maps are prepared to show the contribution of the various local and regional authorities to INSPIRE. Then Daniela presented the plans for a new GDI-DE registry including an advanced dashboard (registry client) which, among other features, will allow to see for each DS/NS the declared conformance next to the evaluated conformance (against a validator operated at central level). The status of development of the GDI-DE Registry will be presented at the INSPIRE conference. The software will be available under an open source license. The presentation is available on redmine.

Marc (FR) presented how he communicated the results of the 2013 monitoring exercise (on 2012 data) to policy makers in France. This was mainly based on the use of maps of France showing with regions of various colours depending on how advanced they were in the implementation of INSPIRE (e.g. based on the number of services/datasets available and/or conformant). These maps are immediately understood and taken into account by policy makers.

The participants agreed that maps of the EU with the indicators per country should be made available.

[4b] Presentation of a concept of dashboard (to be used possibly as a starting point for further discussions)

Paul presented a concept of dashboard aimed at describing the information flows which are needed between MS systems and a dashboard backend in order to collect the elements needed to calculate the indicator variables and thus the indicators themselves. It was agreed to use it as a basis for further discussions. The proposal is annexed to these minutes.

[6] Analysis of the survey results

The participants thanked Nico for all his work done to set-up the survey aimed at collecting feedback from MS about the various indicators and about the design of a dashboard.

When the meeting took place, 14 MS had answered the survey. The participants considered that there were enough answers to proceed with a first analysis of the results. Nevertheless, in order to collect as much feedback as possible, it has been decided to leave the survey open for a longer period of time and to send a reminder to the INSPIRE Reporters. In addition Nico proposed to compile the answers once the survey will be closed.

Actions:Paul to send a reminder to the INSPIRE Reporters.
Nico to compile the answers once the survey is closed.

During the discussions related to the analysis of the answers and the decisions to derive from them, the participants agreed on the importance of the following two key points:

  • participation in the dashboard is voluntary
  • data provided to the dashboard by a MS (and the indicators derived from those data) cannot be used by the EC in lieu of the official monitoring of this MS (driven by Commission Decision 2009/442/EC) unless the MS explicitly requests it.

Questions related to the implementation of the dashboard (questions D-B 1-13)

Code / Question / Statement / Decision / Conclusion
D-B 1 / Do you think there should be a common dashboard between MS? / Proceed with the implementation of a dashboard.
D-B 2 / Where should the dashboard be implemented? / At central level and (extended) at Member State level.
D-B 3 / The dashboard should contribute to monitor INSPIRE implementation process and progress of EU countries. / Agreement provided that the dashboard does not replace the official monitoring (unless a MS requests it for himself)
D-B 4 / 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 / The dashboard should provide near real time information and provide the possibility to create snapshots of the situation at a given time upon request by a MS.
D-B 5 / Which is the main audience of the dashboard? / European Commission, Member States, Spatial data user community
D-B 6 / Which information should the dashboard provide? / Focus on monitoring information and conformity issues of metadata, data and services (e.g. validation results)
D-B 7 / 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 / Agreement that this is the goal but we will face difficulties while trying to achieve it.
D-B 8 / Describe the main benefits you perceive from having a dashboard / To be reviewed later
D-B 9 / Describe the main difficulties you perceive in having a dashboard / To be reviewed later
D-B 10 / Do you think it is necessary to modify any of the existing indicators? / EC/EEA to use the answers as an input to the INSPIRE policy evaluation in an anonymous way.
D-B 11 / Should the dashboard be linked to National Geoportals? / Disregarded due to too many interpretations of the question.
D-B 12 / How do you deal with data sets and services that are not described with metadata yet? / To be reviewed later
D-B 13 / Are there only INSPIRE metadata accessible through your national discovery service? / INSPIRE and non-INSPIRE datasets and services are mixed in the same catalogues

Questions related to the inclusion of reporting elements (Art. 11 to 16) into the dashboard

Most of the respondents answered that they did not want to have reporting elements provided to the dashboard. From discussions amongst meeting participants, it appears that the main issue lies with the provision of information in a way which is relevant for a dashboard.

On a side note, the MS representatives expressed their wish for more precise guidelines about the content of the various sections of the report.

Action: All participants to provide suggestions on how to provide the information in the questions Rep 1 to 5 in a useful way for a dashboard.

Questions related to the current and foreseen use of monitoring information at European and Member state level.

It was decided to go back to the people who answered “currently active” or “foreseen” to get more details about their plans and practices in order to extract good practices to be shared across MS.

Action: Analyse the answers and contact the relevant MS to get more details about their plans and practices.

Review of the monitoring indicators

Code / Question / Statement / Decision / Conclusion
MDi1
MDi1,x / Should the indicator MDi1 (existence of metadata) be included in the dashboard? / To be included in the dashboard.
MDi2
MDi2,x / Should the indicator MDi2 (conformity of metadata) be included in the dash board? / To be included in the dashboard.
Comments associated with answers “Yes under certain conditions” to be analysed
DSi1
DSi1,x / Should the indicator DSi1 (geographical coverage of spatial data sets) be included in the dash board? / NOT to be included in the dashboard.
DSi2
DSi2,x / Should the indicator DSi2 (conformity of data sets) be included in the dash board? / To be included in the dashboard.
For each data set, provide the conformity status as stated in the metadata and the conformity status as reported from the commonly agreed validators to be provided under MIWP-5.
NSi1
NSi1,x / Should the indicator NSi1 (accessibility of metadata through discovery services) be included in the dashboard? / To be included in the dashboard.
NSi2
NSi2,x / Should the indicator NSi2 (accessibility of spatial data set through view and download services) be included in the dash board? / To be included in the dashboard.
Information to be retrieved automatically from metadata or to be provided as AI (ref. dashboard concept) for some data sets if needed.
NSi3
NSi3,x / Should the indicator NSi3 (use of all network services) be included in the dash board? / To be included in the dashboard.
Comments associated with answer c at question NSi3c to be reviewed
NSi4
NSi4,x / Should the indicator NSi4 (conformity of all services) be included in the dash board? / To be included in the dashboard.
For each service, provide the conformity status as stated in the metadata and the conformity status as reported from the commonly agreed validators to be provided under MIWP-5.

[8] Drafting of a functional analysis for the dashboard

This topic was not discussed due to lack of time. It was agreed to do it in writing and through web-meetings.

[9] Planning of next steps

This topic could not be discussed extensively and will be discussed at the next web-meeting.

Action: Paul to arrange the next web-meeting.

[10] AOB

No topic under AOB.

Participants

MS / Surname / Name / Present
BE / Delattre / Nathalie
BE / Robbrecht / Joeri / X
BG / Turnalieva / Lilyana
BG / Baychev / Martin
CH/LI / Giger / Christine
DE / Hogrebe / Daniela / X
DK / Storgaard / Lars / X
EE / Õitspuu / Sulev / X
ES / Abad Power / Paloma / X
FI / Koistinen / Kai
FI / Rinne / Ilkka / X
FR / Grellet / Sylvain
FR / Leobet / Marc / X
FR / Lory / Pascal / X
FR / Taffoureau / Étienne / X
GR / Grigoriou / Elena
GR / Pediaditi / Kalliope
IS / Ahlbrecht / Anna Guðrún
IT / Bonora / Nico / X
NL / de Visser / Ine / X
NL / Grothe / Michel
PL / Surma / Ewa / X
SE / Rydén / Anders
SK / Tuchyna / Martin / X
SK / Kliment / Tomas
SK / Tobik / Jan
UK / Dixon / John
UK / Ramage / Alex / X
EC/Eurostat / Reuter / Hannes
EC/JRC / Fierens / Freddy / X
EC/JRC / Quaglia / Angelo / X
EC/JRC / Schade / Sven
EEA / Ansorge / Christian
EEA / Hasenohr / Paul / X
EEA / Lihteneger / Darja