Seitenhistorie

...

The issue  "Art 14 portrayal rules: remove the obligation to provide a single layer for each occurrence of a code list value in the data set. This would require amending Article 14 (3) of the INSPIRE Implementing Rule." was reported and discussed in the 12th and 13th Meeting of INSPIRE Committee, but was not further pursued later. 

The issue has problem has come into focus again in the provision the implementation of viewing services for the INSPIRE theme "Species Distribution" in Germany. The provision of viewing sets is technically not feasablte due to the very large number of codelistvalues in the dataset. 

Observation and Rational:

For some feature types, it is required to provide a single layer for each code list value representing a subtype of that feature type. 

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

Rationale

With x different code list values in the dataset, x layers must be provided. When using predefined map-tiles for performance considerations this could increase the costs by a multiple of x compared to a single layer where all features have been compiled together. The implementation of viewing servises for "Species Distribution" is technically not feasable due to the very large number of codelistvalues and therefore layers. 

If the code list values can be extended, e,g, in US.<CodeListValue> (see INSPIRE Registry: http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/codelist/ServiceTypeValue), the list of layers is required to be updated when for updated datasets with the use of additional code list values. This is a problemto problem to implement INSPIRE View services. In the understanding that the scope of INSPIRE View services is limited to making viewable where the data is located a single layer for each code list value may be dispensable.

Scope

The identified problem occurs for the INSPIRE Themes AU, GE, SO, US, PF, AM, NZ and SD. These locations are affected in the INSPIRE implementing rule:

• Article 14 (3)
• Annex II
  • 4.5 Layer AU.<CodeListValue>
• Annex III
  • 4.5 Layer GE.<CodeListValue>(1,2,3,4,5)
• Annex IV
  • 3.5 Layer SO.<CodeListValue>(1)
  • 3.5 Layer SO.<CodeListValue>Coverage(2)
  • 6.10 Layer US.<CodeListValue>(1)
  • 8.5 Layer PF.<CodeListValue>(1)
  • 11.5 Layer AM.<CodeListValue>(1)
  • 12.7 Layer NZ.<CodeListValue>(1,2)
  • 18.6 Layer SD.<CodeListValue>(1)

This recommendation will make it easier to implement INSPIRE View Services and will reduce operation costs.

Recommendation Pattern

Impact on INSPIRE IR
Portrayal Rules: Remove the obligation to provide a single layer for each occurrence of a code list value inthe data set. This would require amendingArticle 14 (3) of the INSPIRE Implementing Rule regards interoperability of spatial data sets and services[IR ISDSS]code list value for features of the same feature type. If not already mandated, replace this obligation by providing a single layer including all feature types regardless of specific code list values or multiply layers e.g. to display classes of species instead of ieach species indidivually. 

Impact on INSPIRE TG

The Technical Guidance would need to be updated according to the changesin the INSPIRE Implementing Rule

we transform recommendation Article 14(3): (at least) one layer with all feature type

.

Hinweis auf: Helpdesk Issue 39 (ggf. Hinweis auf positiionspapier biodiversität und Leitfaden in Deutschland gruppen von arten zusammenfassen statt einzellayer pro art
und https://github.com/INSPIRE-MIF/helpdesk-validator/issues/39: ) View Service WMS validator too strict: harmonized layer names should not be mandatory #39 ?