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
Peter Parslow (UK), Marie Lambois (FR), Clemens Portele (DE), Scott Wilson (Eurocontrol), Armin Retterath (DE), Nathalie Delattre (BE), Tom Ellett von Brasch (NO), Ilkka Rinne (FI), Marco Minghini (JRC), Michael Lutz (JRC)
Welcome and approval of the agenda
The agenda was approved without changes.
Minutes of previous meeting and open action items
The minutes of the previous meeting were approved without comments.
Revised work plan
The revised work plan was agreed as proposed below.
Date/ meeting
GP: GeoJSON encoding rule
GP: Simplification Rules
General
#2
31-Aug
Collect examples
Choose INSPIRE theme(s) and use cases (could be different ones for GeoJSON and Simplification rules)
Collect glossary items
Detailed workplan
#3
28-Sep
Analyse examples & extract GeoJSON encoding & simplification rules to be included in GP
Develop GeoJSON/simplified encoding example(s) for chosen theme(s)
Launch call for tender for editor contract
#4
26-Oct
Analyse examples & extract GeoJSON encoding & simplification rules to be included in GP
Develop GeoJSON/simplified encoding example(s) for chosen theme(s)
Launch of editor contract
Prepare status report for the MIG meeting (incl. recommendations for possible continuation)
#5
30-Nov
1st draft encoding rules / simplification GP
Test and refine examples (using client tools)
#6
mid-Dec (face-to-face)
Internal review
Discuss open issues
15-Jan
2nd draft
Launch MIG/MS review (until 1-Feb)
#7
15-Feb
Discuss review comments
15-Mar
Final draft
Launch GP procedure
Organise GP webinar
Discussion of examples, glossary items and open issues
The following open questions were discussed. The conclusions from the discussion are reported below and will be included as a comment to the issues.
In the listed examples, additional properties were used to simplify use of the provided data, e.g. by adding a simple "name" property in addition to the complext geographical name property already present in the schema. This was mainly done, in order to stay compliant with the existing schemas.
Since this action's remit is to define additional encodings, the focus should be on simplifying structures that are deemed difficult to use, rather than duplicating information (in a complex and a simple structure) in the same data set. There may be different encodings with different levels of complexity depending on the supported use case.
A chapter on "extensions" should be added in the GP document on simplification rules that explains this aspect. It will also be important to define the terms "extension", "profiling", "flattening"
It was agreed that intermediate simplification steps at the UML model level should be included and might be useful to document the applied simplifications.
The main question here is whether the action should aim for generic or theme-specific rules?
It was agreed that the action should develop a list of generic simplification rules that can be applied to create an encoding as well as a default (sub-)set of these rules that should be applied to all themes (wherever possible). Additional further rules from the list might then be applied in addition for specific themes.
In general, the set of rules applied for a given theme and/or use case need to be validated before promoting them as a good pratice in INSPIRE.
All to use this issue (https://github.com/INSPIRE-MIF/2017.2/issues/31) to propose sample INSPIRE data sets, themes and/or use cases that can be used to develop examples of the proposed GeoJSON encoding and simplification rules. These examples should serve to prototype and test the proposed approaches, to focus our discussion and to illustrate the proposed approaches in the GP documents. Where possible, please also include (pointers to) open sample data that can be re-used.
The following themes were already proposed in the discussion: AD, O&M (AC-MF, OF and borehole-related observations), AU (to be checked with Spain), AM (to be checked with Denmark)
There could be separate GeoJSON encodings using complex or simple structures for the non-spatial properties.
However, since the rationale for this action is to improve usability of INSPIRE data in standard GIS client applications, the GeoJSON encoding should use simple structures as much as possible.
Discussion on all issues should be continued on Github.
Heidi (and/or other sub-group members) to extract further relevant specific discussion topics (e.g. how to deal with data that is not available in the source data set) from the document provided at https://github.com/INSPIRE-MIF/2017.2/issues/28.