Seitenhistorie

Who should be responsible for the governance of

• collecting/assessing the requirements,
• identification of core datasets,
• endorsment of technical solutions.

• This strongly depends on how many details are regulated in the Directive/Implementing Acts and how much is left to guidance or standardisation. However, it could be useful to set up a process for collecting/assessing user requirements with a central point of contact at the EC that receives requirements from the community. We have already established such a process in Germany (https://bedarf.gdi-de.org).  
• What is meant here by “identification core data sets”? The definition of what data sets shall be in scope of the revised Directive? Or who in each MS identifies which of the data sets comply with that definition?
• The development of technical solution could be left to technical communities (e.g. in the GDDS), projects or standardisation bodies. There should still be a step of formal endorsement of recommended solutions (similar to the current Good Practice Process).

• The current process for the management of INSPIRE Good Practices and artefacts Artefacts (Technical Guidance Documents, XML schema, UML-models, INSPIRE Registry content) seems to work well.

• The development should be community-driven (and –paid), the endorsement and management process should be covered by the EC.