emanuele roccatagliata gisig NATURE-SDIplus contribution to the INSPIRE DS testing Nature-SDIplus, Best Practice Network ECP

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-SDIplus Different 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: 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 methodology Steps in the development of INSPIRE data specifications Step CT-TWG-1: Use case development Step TWG-2: Identification of user requirements and spatial object types Step TWG-3: As-is analysis Step TWG-4: Gap analysis Step TWG-5: Data specification development Step CT-6: Implementation, test and validation Step 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-portal  providing a server hosting software

Contributions to transformation testing: Developing and documenting the testing methodology According 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 IR to check their content with the content of the specs to check their need for pre-processing in 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 results e.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

DISCUSSION STARTING 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 No match no. 5 No match no. 6 No match no. 7 No match no. 2 Harmonised solution … … … Harmonised solution No match no. 4 … … … No match no. 1 Harmonised solution No match no. 3 … … … 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 policies 2.1 Analysis and report on target user needs 2.2 Survey on data and data policies 2.3 Datasets analysis and systematisation WP 3 –Interoperable datasets for nature conservation 3.1 Multicultural and multilingual issues 3.2 Metadata profile 3.3 Data model 3.4 Procedures for metadata profile and datamodel implementation WP 5 – Validation & testing of interoperable datasets 5.1 Compliance of outcomes to INSPIRE and International standards 5.2 Test on data searching and accessibility 5.3 Quality evaluation and datasets generalisation

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 systematisation WP 3 Interoperable datasets for nature conservation 3.1 Multicultural and multilingual issues 3.2 Metadata profile 3.3 Data model 3.4 Procedures for metadata profile and datamodel implementation WP 5 – Validation & testing of interoperable datasets 5.1 Compliance of outcomes to INSPIRE and International standards 5.2 Test on data searching and accessibility 5.3 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 regions Habitats and biotopes Species 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 roccatagliata