From: Stefan Jensen Sent: 08 April 2019 16:43 To: 'Wideke Boersma'; anders.o.ryden@lm.se; carlo.cipolloni@isprambiente.it; elromero@fomento.es; eriveram@magrama.es; gabriele.vincze@umweltbundesamt.at; Hernan.De- Angelis@Naturvardsverket.se; Jana.Basistova@cenia.cz; Jason.King@defra.gsi.gov.uk; Jitka.Faugnerova@cenia.cz; joaquim.costa@apambiente.pt; lars.christensen@miljodir.no; Lenka.Rejentova@cenia.cz; Marco.Hohmann@uba.bund.de; riitta.teiniranta@ymparisto.fi; mariagabriella.simeone@isprambiente.it; martin.tuchyna@sazp.sk; ouns.kissiyar@kb.vlaanderen.be; renata.grofova@sazp.sk; voet@irceline.be; elaine.fenech@era.org.mt; dirk.hinterlang@lanuv.nrw.de; Ine de Visser; Rydén Anders O; Vincze Gabriela; RADavid@mapama.es; JMVillares@mapama.es; Järvenpää Elise; Repo Riikka (riikka.repo@ymparisto.fi) Cc: inspire-wt@jrc.ec.europa.eu; Ibolya Bunda; Darja Lihteneger; Chris Steenmans; Jose Miguel Rubio Iglesias Subject: RE: MINUTES of the March 12th WebEx of the MIG subgroup 2016.5 on "priority datasets for eReporting" Dear Wideke, In your email, you are addressing items beyond what can be covered in the minutes. We will thus provide you replies as possible next to your text below. Depending feedback, we will then decide how and where to updated the minutes. We can already say upfront that we are discussing the comments you made into the methodology document separately – also including the recent MIG-T discussions. Joeri may want to complement as he sees needed. Best regards Darja and Stefan From: Wideke Boersma Sent: 27 March 2019 14:44 To: Stefan Jensen ; anders.o.ryden@lm.se; carlo.cipolloni@isprambiente.it; elromero@fomento.es; eriveram@magrama.es; gabriele.vincze@umweltbundesamt.at; Hernan.De-Angelis@Naturvardsverket.se; Jana.Basistova@cenia.cz; Jason.King@defra.gsi.gov.uk; Jitka.Faugnerova@cenia.cz; joaquim.costa@apambiente.pt; lars.christensen@miljodir.no; Lenka.Rejentova@cenia.cz; Marco.Hohmann@uba.bund.de; riitta.teiniranta@ymparisto.fi; mariagabriella.simeone@isprambiente.it; martin.tuchyna@sazp.sk; ouns.kissiyar@kb.vlaanderen.be; renata.grofova@sazp.sk; voet@irceline.be; elaine.fenech@era.org.mt; dirk.hinterlang@lanuv.nrw.de; Ine de Visser ; Rydén Anders O ; Vincze Gabriela ; RADavid@mapama.es; JMVillares@mapama.es; Järvenpää Elise ; Repo Riikka (riikka.repo@ymparisto.fi) Cc: inspire-wt@jrc.ec.europa.eu; Ibolya Bunda ; Darja Lihteneger ; Chris Steenmans ; Jose Miguel Rubio Iglesias Subject: RE: MINUTES of the March 12th WebEx of the MIG subgroup 2016.5 on "priority datasets for eReporting" Dear Stefan, Joeri and members of 2016.5, Thank you for the draft minutes of 5th meeting of MIG subgroup 2016.5. During the meeting and in the email with the minutes Stefan gave the possibility to submit additional comments via e-mail. Hereby we send our comments. Agenda item 1. Manage and update the priority list of eReporting datasets In the Netherlands the tagging of the datasets is finished for the available datasets. But we still see some mistakes, we will ask the dataproviders to adjust these. Not all datasets can be delivered, because: * Some datasets concerns a new obligation (EU registry, Flood directive). These datasets will be added after the reporting obligation of the thematic directive. * For some priority datasets no spatial data is reported for the Netherlands (for instance shale gas and the Waste directives). We looked at the machine translated metadata code list for INSPIRE priority data sets. For the Netherlands we have already a Dutch manmade translation available. This manmade translation is already in use in all the Dutch tagging. This machine translation is reasonable but unfortunately not consistent. For example, if you select only the valid labels, see a difference in the translation of the Noise Directive: * Agglomeraties (richtlijn omgevingslawaai) * Bevolking (geluidsemissierichtlijn) In the manmade translation we, at Geonovum, checked the code list for these inconsistencies and made the codelist consistent and uniform. For instance for the same two datasets: * Agglomeraties (Richtlijn Omgevingslawaai) * Bevolking (Richtlijn Omgevingslawaai) Our proposal is therefore to retain the translation that is currently in the INSPIRE registry and not to use the machine translation. We asked our Dutch speaking Belgium colleagues if they can agree with this. You raise very valid examples why your translation should overrule the proposals from the machine translation. Since the machine translation was meant to be a support/suggestion only, it is within the range of options and actually the best to go with your national translation version. Agenda item 2. Make data available as is Paper with Methodology for regular progress evaluation: It is a good development to monitor the progress of the implementation of the priority datasets and also by an automated way. But it is desirable to merge it with the monitoring for INSPIRE and to use the same indicators, definitions and calculations as in the INSPIRE monitoring and only specify additional indicators specific for the environmental acquis if they are really needed and also possible to calculate based on the existing metadata. The paper contains on this moment only two proposals for new indicators which can derived automatically: * Percentage of PDS tagged with national and/or regional spatial scope; Information on national and regional spatial scope will be included in the new INSPIRE monitoring indicator and it can be used also for the priority datasets. If you have no regional PDS data this would not apply to you. * Degree of accessibility to the PDS. Only one of them gives useful information (Degree of accessibility to the PDS). We understand you add an indicator about the number of PDS which is used for other calculations. But only the number as described in section 2.1 says nothing. You must see it in in relation to the spatial coverage. The Netherlands only provides national datasets, so the number will be low even if everything is provided. Also the level of dataset combination plays a role, the number should be seen in relation to the PDS keywords used by the different levels as defined in the PDS codelist (level 1: indication of legislation, level 2: originally defined spatial data set, level 3: specific topic - identified specific data set, level 4: specific sub-topic - identified specific data set). We will clarify the above separately as part of an updated methodology document. For the degree of accessibility, it is important the EU INSPIRE Geoportal implements the SOS and WCS-services. All the air quality data in the Netherlands is served via an SOS- service and otherwise these datasets are never accessible through the INSPIRE Geoportal even if they are INSPIRE compliant. The document does not discuss the type of download services. As discussed during the meeting for the degree of timeliness it is important to make uniform guidelines to find the authoritative, official data which is used in the reporting obligation. All the metadata elements proposed will not give you the right answer. If you put this information in the abstract or lineage field, it is not searchable because of the metadata is often in the own language and those elements also contain other information. Maybe it is better to extent the PDS codelist with the different reporting years or cycles for each keyword. For all keywords in the PDS codelist the reporting year (or cycles) must be added. For instance: * Surface water bodies (Water Framework Directive) 2011 * Surface water bodies (Water Framework Directive) 2015 See also the attached paper with some more detailed comments. This would call for continuously updated code lists – we consider the time reference proposals in the methodology documents as more useful to choose from. However, for this specific purpose, additional guidelines on how to provide information about the reporting cycle in INSPIRE metadata, might be needed. Agenda item 3. Common and interoperable European data models For the testcases we advise to use the datasets of annex I. These datasets must already meet the dataspecifications. There are examples from Copernicus in-situ work and some other activities to inform on that. For annex II and III this is not yet mandatory. So it is not certain how the dataproviders will implement these datasets for INSPIRE this year. Darja presented in the meeting the testcase for the MSFD marine reporting units with the extended AM datamodel. We will contact the Dutch responsible dataprovider to ask them about this development and if they are already implementing this extended AM datamodel, but we have the question: is this already formalized in the reporting flow of the MSFD directive? MSFD reporting units: The test case of alignment of the marine reporting units with INSPIRE data specifications was presented to the MSFD TG DATA working group in December 2018. The test case demonstrated the alignment with the INSPIRE spatial data theme “Area management / restriction / regulation zones & reporting units (AM)”, GML encoding, metadata of dataset, and view and download service. The main purpose of this work was to identify and correct gaps in source data (improve harmonisation of source data), present a common basis for data transformation according to the INSPIRE AM schema and demonstrate use of different tools. The test case in 2018 used only a subset of foreseen marine reporting units. It had been completed before the results of the INSPIRE MIWP 2017.2 were available and had implemented a few simplification approaches, e.g. flattening of complex data types into a set of single attributes (e.g. INSPIRE identifier). However, once the common INSPIRE guidelines on alternative encodings and simplification are available, they can be used in further work. The MSFD reporting guidelines are available at: https://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/help/msfd/MSFD%20Schemas. Marine reporting units (spatial data) are designed on the basis of INSPIRE Area management spatial data theme (AM). The template can be used to prepare source data and for data transformation into INSPIRE encoding (GML). In the paper with Methodology for regular progress evaluation (see agenda item 2) in the introduction is written: The realisation of the proposal for possible streamlining of reporting obligations and if applicable INSPIRE IRs/TGs is out of scope since this role is attributed to the Committee or the co-legislator if reporting obligations have to be amended in EU law. However, as a result of this work, suggestions can be made which will be transmitted to the relevant units in the Commission dealing with these issues. Is this correct? If this is correct, it would be nice that we, the workgroup members of 2016.5 are informed in time through this working group about possible changes in the e- reporting obligations related INSPIRE. And that we can read along and submit any INSPIRE comments via the intended channels. At this moment the working group website informs us partly through task 3. We would like to see the link to the MSFD marine reporting units. And also the timeframes and how and when we can submit our INSPIRE comments. In the presentation of Darja there was a remark about flattening for the MSFD marine reporting units. The INSPIRE working group 2017.2 who are working on this are not yet finalized. We find it better to first wait to the final results of this working group before using draft and not complete rules already in an implementation for a specific directive. See MSFD point above About the blueprint document Wideke said (and not Ine; so a change in the draft minutes) that it is a good development that for different reporting obligations nice steps are taken to also use INSPIRE, but I raised two questions: * How will the thematic environmental information (available at Reportnet via the linked approach) made available in the INSPIRE geoportal? Can you give the view of the commission on this point? * Is it possible to have a broader discussion in the subgroup about the blueprint report? We would like to know what the other member states find of the blueprint. During a telecon this is different to discuss (a little one way discussion), therefore we would suggest to make the next meeting a face to face meeting and put this item on the agenda. We fully agree with you that we did not have enough discussion on the blue print report. We were aiming to have it on the MIG-T agenda but this fell short as well. From a practical perspective, the best and next opportunity would be a dedicated Webinar around late May. Best regards, Wideke Boersma --------------------- Wideke Boersma Adviseur INSPIRE | +31 6 29 185 411 | w.boersma@geonovum.nl Aanwezig: maandag, dinsdag en donderdag Geonovum Barchman Wuytierslaan 10 | Postbus 508 | 3800 AM Amersfoort | +31 33 4604100 | www.geonovum.nl | @geonovum Disclaimer De inhoud van dit bericht (inclusief de bijlagen) is alleen bestemd voor de geadresseerde en kan vertrouwelijke of persoonlijke informatie bevatten. Als u dit bericht onbedoeld heeft ontvangen verzoeken wij u het te vernietigen en de afzender te informeren. Het is niet toegestaan om dit bericht, geheel of gedeeltelijk, zonder toestemming te gebruiken of te verspreiden. Van: Stefan Jensen Verzonden: maandag 18 maart 2019 17:48 Aan: anders.o.ryden@lm.se; carlo.cipolloni@isprambiente.it; elromero@fomento.es; eriveram@magrama.es; gabriele.vincze@umweltbundesamt.at; Hernan.De- Angelis@Naturvardsverket.se; Jana.Basistova@cenia.cz; Jason.King@defra.gsi.gov.uk; Jitka.Faugnerova@cenia.cz; joaquim.costa@apambiente.pt; lars.christensen@miljodir.no; Lenka.Rejentova@cenia.cz; Marco.Hohmann@uba.bund.de; riitta.teiniranta@ymparisto.fi; mariagabriella.simeone@isprambiente.it; martin.tuchyna@sazp.sk; ouns.kissiyar@kb.vlaanderen.be; renata.grofova@sazp.sk; voet@irceline.be; Wideke Boersma ; elaine.fenech@era.org.mt; dirk.hinterlang@lanuv.nrw.de; Ine de Visser ; Rydén Anders O ; Vincze Gabriela ; RADavid@mapama.es; JMVillares@mapama.es; Järvenpää Elise ; Repo Riikka (riikka.repo@ymparisto.fi) CC: inspire-wt@jrc.ec.europa.eu; Ibolya Bunda ; Darja Lihteneger ; Chris Steenmans ; Jose Miguel Rubio Iglesias Onderwerp: MINUTES of the March 12th WebEx of the MIG subgroup 2016.5 on "priority datasets for eReporting" Dear All, Thank you to those who attended the meeting! I feel we had a bit too little discussion on the paper regarding the evaluation methodology. Please have another look at it. The main items are therefore also summarised in the attached minutes. We are very keen on your comments (also from the countries that could not participate) on this and the rest of the minutes by March 31st. The draft minutes are attached and also uploaded to the WIKI https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/wikis/display/InspireMIG/Action+2016.5%3A+Priority+list+of+datas ets+for+e-Reporting . Best regards Stefan Jensen