The minutes summarise the main conclusions and actions from the meeting. Actions are indicated in the minutes using checkboxes and are tracked in the "Open actions" section below.
Attendees
Karin Wannemacher (AT), Scott Wilson (Eurocontrol), Ilkka Rinne (FI), Peter Parslow (UK), Clemens Portele (DE), Nathalie Delattre, Gael Kruwialis (BE), Paul Janssen (NL), Alexander Kotsev, Robert Tomas, Michael Lutz (JRC)
Welcome and approval of the agenda
The agenda was approved without changes.
Context and tasks of the sub-group
The overall context and background for the action and the tasks of the sub-group were introduced.
The outcomes of the planned work on simplification rules could also be used to create simplified GML encodings. This has been one of the encodings that has received most widespread support during the consultation with the MIG.
Round-table of sub-group members
The following points were raised during the round-table:
The work plan should also include testing of the resulting data with different client applications (desktop, web) and how to serve the data (in alternative encodings) through download services.
There should be a close link to action 2017.3 on improved client support for INSPIRE data.
Simplification in the mapping from the conceptual model to the target data structure should not only include flattening of complext structures, but also specific (pre-defined) mappings for certain complex types (e.g. GeographicalName) and/or profiling, e.g. selecting only certain properties and types that are relevant for a specific purpose (e.g. addresses for postal delivery).
Simplification may need to be done differently depending on the theme and/or purpose. It may not (always) be possible to do simplification only by applying automatic rules, but can require as a first step the mapping from the conceptual to a (simplified) implementation model (see also the minutes from the Paris meeting in 2014).
There are issues with existing simplification/flattening procedures, and these are carried out using different combinations of (homegrown) rules. It is therefore important to come up with a common set of rules (and maybe combinations of rules).
Additional resources / background reading for this action include:
Alternatives encoding might fulfil all (legal) requirements specified for INSPIRE, or also only some of them. In the former case, they could be used as the only encoding to meet one's INSPIRE obligations, in the former case only in addition to another, fullt INSPIRE compliant encoding. Such possible limitations should be clearly stated in the encoding, but also when proposing it for endorsement by the MIG.
The participants indicated their planned contributions to the the tasks of the sub-group, as follows:
Developing an encoding rule for GeoJSON: Alexander Kotsev (testing of resulting data), Ilkka Rinne, Karin Wannemacher, Peter Parslow (reviewer), Clemens Portele, Scott Wilson (examples, review and testing, mainly for TN), Michael Lutz
Developing generic rules / approaches for simplification (incl. flattening): Ilkka Rinne, Nathalie Delattre, Paul Janssen, Peter Parslow, Clemens Portele, Robert Tomas, Michael Lutz
Developing the overall procedure for proposing and endorsing additional encodings: Karin Wannemacher, Michael Lutz
Observers: Gael Kruwialis
Work plan / approach
The proposed approach for the 3 main deliverables was agreed, with the following comments:
Task 1 should focus on schema and instance conversion rules. The task of writing the actual encoding rule will be supported by a contractor to start in September/October. The encoding rule should include a clear definition of the purpose(s) the proposed GeoJSON encoding will be used for.
Task 2 should not only discuss flattening, but more generally simplification rules. The starting point for the GP document should be rules that are actually needed / used in the collected examples or for task 1.
Task 3 should be based on the new procedure for INSPIRE Good Practice documents was accepted. The question whether a proposed alternative encoding fully or only partly meets the INSPIRE requirements should be clearly stated in the encoding, but also when proposing it for endorsement by the MIG.
The proposed work plan was generally agreed, but should also include the creation of a common glossary and testing of how data in the proposed alternative encoding can be consumed in client applications. The work should focus mainly on tasks 1 and 2.
JRC to propose an updated and more detailed work plan
The work until the next meeting will focus onthe follwing task.
All to provide examples / existing implementations for GeoJSON encodings (also including data that is not strictly INSPIRE-compliant, but similar) and implementations where specific simplification rules have been applied.
JRC to propose a template for collecting existing examples
All to propose terms and definitions to be included in the glossary.
JRC to start a glossary page.
Working methods and tools
The following tools will be used:
Wiki on the (new) MIG collaboration platform for meeting minutes, sharing documents and actions
