emanuele roccatagliatagisig

NATURE-SDIplus contribution to the INSPIRE DS testing

Nature-SDIplus, Best Practice NetworkECP-2007-317007

Scope of Nature-SDIplus

A cluster of data themes in the Annexes I and III of the INSPIRE Directive, focused on nature conservation. They are:

Protected sites (Annex I)Biogeographical regions (Annex III)Habitats and biotopes (Annex III)Species distribution (Annex III)

INSPIRE context for Nature-SDIplusDifferent states-of-the-art: Annex I (Protected sites)

Version 1 of the INSPIRE Data Specification released; many documents on the INSPIRE web-site

The testing (within Feb09)

Annex III themes (Biogeographical regions, Habitats and biotopes, Species distribution)in a much earlier stage

The Nature-SDIplus chest of datasets 18 EU Countries and some full European coverages about 40 different data providers 16 different reference languages nominal scales from 1:5.000 to 1:100.000 114 different original datasets maps, vector data, imagery, alpha-numerical data several diverse file formats ISO191xx, Dublin Core, Corine and other national or specific

metadata all the addressed themes (both Annex I and Annex III), plus

others (e.g. hydrography, geographical names, elevation)

Dataset example:

The call for testing

-> our proposal to test the data specifications of the Protected Sites data theme

reference document

The general INSPIRE methodologySteps in the development of INSPIRE data

specifications

Step CT-TWG-1: Use case developmentStep TWG-2: Identification of user requirements and

spatial object typesStep TWG-3: As-is analysisStep TWG-4: Gap analysisStep TWG-5: Data specification developmentStep CT-6: Implementation, test and validationStep CT-TWG-7: Cost-benefit considerations

Contributions to testing the infrastructure:

The NatureSDIplus datasets offer a meaningful test-bed for the testing proposed by the INSPIRE Data Specification Team

Other possible contributions are:

exposing data for testing in a geo-portalproviding a server hosting software

Contributions to transformation testing:

Developing and documenting the testing methodologyAccording to the input by the INSPIRE Team, customisation and working guidelines for the project data providers.

A step by step approach could be:to choose data sets fitting the INSPIRE data specs for the theme:

possibly one or more, e.g. Natura2000, Ramsar, national protected sites, …

to produce a schema based on the documentation and to examine which feature types are covered in the datasets, which not

to check their metadata and conformity to the metadata IRto check their content with the content of the specsto check their need for pre-processingin case, to test a transformation of some data sets

Harmonization, a process example

DATA PROVIDER GIS4EU/INSPIRE

CONCEPTUAL LEVEL

IMPLEMENTATION LEVEL

database /application schema

domain model (e.g. based on national law,

well known rules etc)

common model for GIS4EU/ Europe

harmonized data

quoting from

…

a look ahead: contributions to application testing

Coordinating application tests e.g. the contributions by the partnership, as well as disseminating indications and lessons learned

Reviewing test resultse.g. a review of the testing activity from the users’ perspective

Disseminating the testing results to external stakeholders

Demonstrating the usefulness of harmonised schemas for applications e.g. using harmonised schemas to be discussed in the project and giving a feedback about the efficacy of schemas

About the implementation of the

process

Nature-SDIplus and the INSPIRE metho-dology:

the Annex I (Protected Sites) theme is already at this step, with the testing phase starting now

actions:

1: what available

2: match analysis

3.1: reporting difference

3.2: what to do

Preparation of the table of the available datasets

1: what available

Examples:

Filling-on the dataset table primarily for Annex 1, but in a second step also for Annex III datasets

How to manage meta-information from the dataset table?

Setup of a metadata discovery system (catalogue) for provided metadata and a data visualisation system (viewer) for available services?

(a decision should be taken)

(to be discussed):

The data structure proposed

by INSPIRE

The actual data

structures met in the

project datasets

A match to individuate concordance,

differences, gaps and the definition of critical

points

ok

mmmh

ko(1)

not considered,

out of scope

(1) Not only difference, but

also presence or absence

between the two

A description spreadsheet

… 2: match analyis

TELLING THE USE CASES THAT HAVE MOTIVATED CONTENT AND STRUCTURE OF THE PROVIDED

DATASET AND VERIFICATION OF HOW THESE NEEDS ARE

MATCHED, IF ARE, BY THE INSPIRE PROPOSED STRUCTURE.

REPORTING GAPS AND LACKS WITH REGARD TO THE INSPIRE

VISION

Description of the need(s) originating the datasets

3.1: gap description

report and evidence of differences

to INSPIRE; comments.

A: in another data theme Annex I ; reporting how is needed for protected sites

B: is expected in another data theme Annex II or III

C: it should be here

DISCUSSIONSTARTING NOW AND,

LATER, PROPOSALS BY THE PARTNERS ON THE BASIS OF THE DATASET ANALYSIS AND OF THE

MEANINGFUL DIFFERENCES TO BE

INVESTIGATED

TESTING TRANSFORMATION: A PROPOSAL 3.2: what to do

Harmonised solution

Harmonised solution

… … …

Harmonised solution

No match no. 5

No match no. 6

No match no. 7

No match no. 2

Harmonised solution

… … …

… … …

Harmonised solution

Harmonised solution

No match no. 4

… … …

No match no. 1

Harmonised solution

No match no. 3

… … …

… … …

Transformation

Transformation

Transformation

Transformation

… … …

… … …

Transformation

Transformation

Transformation

… … …

Who does:In the ISPRA meeting already some testing cases

have been individuated (trying to link technical partners with partners data providers), namely:

Tracasa -Government of Navarra K.U Leuven (for NATURA2000 data sets) UNIABDN (for Uk Protected sites datasets) Regione Piemonte, with the support of Intergraph

Italia Graphitech Foundation (for the datasets of

Province of Trento) Regione Liguria, with the support of GISIG and

CNR-IMATI

to be identified other cases/Countries

All above refers to Annex I, and the affected WPs are:

WP 2 – User needs analysis and data policies2.1 Analysis and report on target user needs2.2 Survey on data and data policies2.3 Datasets analysis and systematisation

WP 3 –Interoperable datasets for nature conservation

3.1 Multicultural and multilingual issues3.2 Metadata profile 3.3 Data model3.4 Procedures for metadata profile and datamodel implementation

WP 5 – Validation & testing of interoperable datasets5.1 Compliance of outcomes to INSPIRE and International

standards5.2 Test on data searching and accessibility5.3 Quality evaluation and datasets generalisation

1

3.1

2

3.23.1

Gantt changes due to testing

But, what about Annex III data themes ?

the DoW:

WP2 User needs analysis and data policies

2.1 Analysis and report on target user needs

2.2 Survey on data and data policies.2.3 Datasets analysis and

systematisationWP 3 Interoperable datasets

for nature conservation3.1 Multicultural and multilingual issues3.2 Metadata profile3.3 Data model3.4 Procedures for metadata profile and

datamodel implementationWP 5 – Validation & testing of

interoperable datasets5.1 Compliance of outcomes to INSPIRE

and International standards5.2 Test on data searching and

accessibility5.3 Quality evaluation and datasets

generalisation

How to match? Hints from WPs and tasks leaders and discussion

A very draft proposal about it:

1. Participation into the Annex III INSPIRE TWGs

1. Data themes:Biogeographical regionsHabitats and biotopesSpecies distribution

For each of the TWGs at least 2 persons from the Nature-SDIplus partnership

Feed-back to partners and consequent decision to operate

Thank you

emanuele roccatagliatawww.gisig.it