Timetable MIG Committee June 2017: Discussion of follow up Discussion of document/agree follow up Sept-Nov 2017: preparation of action mandates for MIWP Prepare evidence and proposals for amendments (with the help of MIG) December 2017: Agree new actions as part of MIWP Review progress and agree further preparatory work Jan-May 2018 Implement (part of) actions Prepare evidence and proposals for amendments (with the help of MIG) June 2018: Review progress – agree outcome of actions, if possible Review progress and discuss first draft of possible amendments December 2018: Review progress – agree outcome of actions, if possible Present text for opinion of Committee June 2019: Review progress – agree outcome of actions (latest deadline) Adoption procedure completed Proposals / discussion points for the MIG On the basis of the considerations above, the members of the Maintenance and Implementation Group (MIG) are invited to review the work undertaken so far. In particular, the MIG is invited to: Review and discuss the issues presented in sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 of this document,
Example: the “essential” metadata The Directive and the Implementing Rules do not leave much room for flexibility on the particular provisions relating to metadata. The legally required metadata elements for spatial data sets and services are clearly set out in Implementing Regulation No. 1205/2008. Also, the definitions and descriptions are clear and leave little room for interpretation. They are very similar but not identical to the ISO Metadata standard 19115. Hence, the “essential” level for metadata can be verified mainly by checking whether the respective metadata elements in table 1 and 2 have been included for each spatial dataset. Having said this, if not all these elements are fully respected, it is worth verifying whether the metadata for a particular spatial dataset or service are sufficient to “making it possible to discover, inventory and use them”. Should this be the case, a more flexible attitude could be justified bearing in mind that there few objective criteria to establish the user-driven argumentation. Example: the “advanced” metadata The (informal) Technical Guidelines for metadata have been recently updated. They present ONE, but not the only way, to implement the metadata provisions. [to be completed] Alternative approach in defining the "maturity levels" Level Data sharing Metadata Network services Data interoperability Spatial data are … basic (INSPIRE principles & core SDI standards) … available on the web, under conditions that do not unduly restrict their extensive use, ideally under an open licence … documented with metadata using well established standards, e.g. ISO 19139, Dublin Core, DCAT-AP … available as data set” download (e.g. Atom) and/or through an off-the-shelf OGC service without specific INSPIRE extensions (e.g. WMS, WFS, SOS, WCS) …. shared “as is” (i.e. not harmonised according to the INSPIRE data models)
essential (Core/minimum requirements of INSPIRE Implementing Rules) The data sharing conditions are well defined and consistent with the requirements of Art. 17 of the Directive … documented with metadata in compliance with the INSPIRE MD IR (using ISO 19139 or GeoDCAT-AP as an encoding) and available through a national discovery service … available as data set” download (e.g. Atom) and for viewing through a WMS with the INSPIRE specific extensions (e.g. extended capabilities) … harmonised according to the INSPIRE data models and available in the recommended (GML) or other encoding (e.g. RDF/JSON-LD, GeoJSON, ESRI Geodatabase, …), providing that it is compliant with ISO 19118 premium (Advanced requirements of INSPIRE Implementing Rules or features going beyond INSPIRE) … available under an open licence … documented with metadata in compliance with national or community-endorsed extensions of the INSPIRE MD IR … available as “direct access” download (i.e. WFS, SOS, WCS) with the INSPIRE extensions … harmonised according to community-endorsed extensions of the INSPIRE data models and/or … additionally available in other encodings than the recommended one (e.g. RDF/JSON-LD, GeoJSON, ESRI Geodatabase, …) providing that they are compliant with ISO 19118 This schema can be used as a basis for a dashboard for monitoring implementation in the Member States. For example, the level of implementation could be described for the four components by theme, e.g. Theme Data sharing Metadata Network services Data interoperability Addresses premium essential essential basic Buildings basic essential essential …