Öffentliche Kommentierung - Änderung 14(3) Codelistevalues als Layer

Background

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 come into focus again in the provision 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:

For some feature types, it is required to provide a single layer for each code list value representing a subtype of that feature type. Example given (Species Distribution):

Required Layers:

• Layer Name: SD.<CodeListValue> (1)
• Layer Title: Species Distribution (of <human readable name>)
• Spatial object type: SpeciesDistributionUnit (speciesName / referenceSpeciesId: ReferenceSpeciesCodeValue)

(1)   One layer shall be made available for each code list value, in accordance with Art. 14(3).

The relevant code list contains ???? code list values and allows to be extended with narrower values [see INSPIRE Registry: http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/codelist/ServiceTypeValue]

Recommendation Pattern
Remove the obligation to provide a layer for each 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.

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.If the code list values can be extended, 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 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.

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]

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

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