In der 19. Sitzung der INSPIRE Maintenance and Implementation Group (MIG) wurde der derzeitige Sachstand und der Zeitplan der GreenData4All-Initiative vorgestellt. Im Rahmen der Sitzung wurde auch ein Workshop durchgeführt, in dem Rückmeldungen zu den unten genannten Fragen zu den identifizierten Problemen und möglichen Maßnahmen im Rahmen der Fortschreibung der INSPIRE-Richtlinie gesammelt werden sollten. Den Mitgliedstaaten wurde bis zum die Möglichkeit gegeben, schriftlich konsolidiertes Feedback zu diesen Fragen zu geben. Einer Fristverlängerung bis zum hat die Europäische Kommission bereits zugestimmt.
Wer sollte sich an der Kommentierung beteiligen?
Ein Austausch zum Fragenkatalog ist am im Rahmen der 18. Sitzung des AK INSPIRE geplant. Alle interessierten Mitglieder des Lenkungsgremiums GDI-DE sind eingeladen an der Sitzung des AK INSPIRE teilzunehmen. Neben dem AK INSPIRE und dem Lenkungsgremium GDI-DE werden die Kontaktstellen GDI-DE und die Leitungen der weiteren Arbeitskreise der GDI-DE an der Abstimmung beteiligt.
Kommentierungszeitraum?
Kommentare und Ergänzungen können bis zum über diese Seite abgegeben werden.
What is necessary/needed to simplify of the provisions for harmonization/standardization of data currently covered by INSPIRE:
#
Question
Comments
1.1
What would be a minimum level of harmonization/standardization?
This always depends on the use case.
I assume the question means “minimum level of harmonisation done by the data provider. In that case, I would say “none”, because the necessary ETL steps needed to use data in an application will need to be done by the application developer (i.e. the data user) anyway.
What is necessary as a minimum of course is that enough information on the structure and semantics of the data is well documented (ideally also in English and/or some machine-readable format), so that the application developer is able to do that transformation easily.
Also, the use of well-established vocabularies for category-based attributes is helpful.
Rules for identifiers, location information (CRS etc.)
1.2
What would be the consequence of abandoning the one-size-fits-all approach to harmonization of data?
A simplification could still mean a common approach/common requirements for all data sets, but at a much lower level of ambition (documentation up-front or even only on-demand rather than harmonisation up-front – see comment above)
The consequence would be a shift of the burden from the data provider to the application developer (but e.g. the attempts of ESTAT to build pan-EU data sets has already shown that even now there is considerable effort involved at the application developer side).
Removing the obligation to harmonise all data upfront would potentially also remove the duplicate implementations in some (most?) MS that is done only to meet the INSPIRE requirements, i.e. the same “as-is” data that is available in the national SDI would also be made available under INSPIRE (together with documentation on how to use it).
1.3
What issues do you see related to interoperability when simplifying the technical provisions?
It would also mean that more effort would need to be spent on documenting data structures and semantics.
Potentially, data providers would use well-established vocabularies (unless INSPIRE put a requirement that part of the documentation would be a mapping to well-established vocabularies when sharing data).
1.4
What would this mean in terms of cost reductions for data providers?
This could mean considerable cost reductions, if data no longer has to be harmonised upfront.
This would (partly) be compensated by additional cost if instead the data structure and semantics would have to be documented for all data sets. If this has to be provided only on demand, costs would be lower.
1.5
Would MIMs (Minimal Interoperability Mechanisms) be the solutions as used in Open and Agile Smart Cities and Communities (OASC)?
Some OASC MIMs (e.g. MIM-2, MIM-7) could be good sources for inspiration, but they seem to still be at an early stage in their development, so should not be taken up 1:1.
1.6
How do you assess the impact of the alignment with HVD, OPD, Green Data Space?
Question not really clear. What is meant by OPD?
On the relation with HVD: if requirements on harmonisation are to be reduced drastically, INSPIRE could limit itself on adding a few provisions (e.g. on documenting data models, the use of common vocabularies of use of identifiers) on top of the HVD provisions.
Question 2: Establishment of a feedback mechanism (user feedback on data)
Objective: Introduce mechanisms for capturing evolving information needs in the field of the environment
INSPIRE provides the governance structure for the data covered. When revising the directive reflection is also needed on optimizing the governance structure:
#
Question
Comments
2.1
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.
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)
2.2
How should it be organised?
The current process for the management of Good Practices and artefacts seems to work well
2.3
What will be the costs/who will cover?
The development should be community-driven (and –paid), the endorsement and management process should be covered by the EC
Question 3: Data confidentially (mechanism, standards)
Objective: Develop new mechanisms for data confidentially in order to reuse non-open and non-personal public environmental data (forest plot data, location of endangered/protected species, soil plot data, ...)
There is a need to:
finding mechanisms for facilitating the sharing of non-open environmental data
providing guarantees for intellectual property rights when sharing end-use data
Options are to:
Develop standards between the data provider and the data user (possibly based on a set of standard terms, with common frameworks that could be developed).
Placing geodata services for non-open environmental data and data covered by intellectual property rights behind a security certificate protected firewall.
#
Question
Comments
3.1
Who should be responsible and how to organise?
non-open data should be discoverable through SDIs (based on standardised metadata) and usable in protected environments like data spaces
3.2
What are the key issues?
data providers have already implemented mechanisms to protect their data, a common framework will be difficult to establish (e. g. Germany has failed to introduce federated access control in the past)
Question 4: Capacity for reusing environmental data
Objective: Build capacity for reusing environmental data for supporting environmental processes (e.g., monitoring, reporting, environmental impact assessments)
When simplifying INSPIRE and transferring responsibility for data processing/harmonization/data product development to others than the providers
#
Question
Comments
4.1
What will be the needs for capacity building for green and digital skills to capture evolving data needs in the field of the environment on the side of the:
Data providers (share data as-is)
Data Intermediaries* (harmonization, additional processing, product development)
Users (data product requirements)
* A data intermediary under the DGA is an entity that facilitates the sharing of data between various parties while ensuring neutrality, transparency, and compliance with strict regulatory requirements to protect the interests of both data subjects (individuals) and data holders (providers, intermediaries).
I assume this question mainly aims on the needs for capacity building a revised INSPIRE Directive should (somehow) support.
Data providers: Metadata, APIs, licences, shared vocabularies, data models, identifiers, versioning/archiving
Data intermediaries: data harmonisation/ETL, business models, privacy enhancing technologies
Users: Metadata, APIs, licences, shared vocabularies, data models, identifiers, versioning/archiving
4.2
What are the costs/efforts that will be transferred?
Unclear what is meant by "cost/effort transfer" here.
Question 5: Simplify and reduce burden of EU data sharing legislation
Objective: Simplify and reduce burden of EU data sharing legislation
In view of the scope of the Implementing Regulation on high value datasets under the Open Data Directive (categories geospatial data, environmental data and earth observation, and mobility), the promotion of reuse of public data under the Data Governance Act, and the drive for a common public sector interoperability from the Interoperable Europe Act:
#
Question
Comments
5.1
Would you prefer one common data sharing regime under horizontal legislation?
5.2
What would be the possible future role of the INSPIRE Directive? Is it still needed? For what?
INSPIRE has been and still is the main driver of sharing spatial data in Europe.
In the future, INSPIRE should ensure that all spatial data in Europe is made accessible in such a flexible way that it fulfils the requirements of data-using environments and applications such as data spaces, digital twins, etc. in terms of interfaces, formats, etc.