European Commission logo
INSPIRE Community Forum

Who has implemented the Protected Sites Schema? and who has struggled?

Brian MACSHARRY
By Brian MACSHARRY Replies (1)

Who has implemented the Protected sites schema and who has struggled implementing it?

If you have succeeded what feedback would you give?

If you struggled what areas caused you problems?

 

 

  • Tõnis Kärdi

    The Estonian Environmental Agency in cooperation with the Ministry of Environment IT Center is currently undertaking the transformation implementation process. There are a few obstacles which I described the other day in another thread on this board (https://themes.jrc.ec.europa.eu/discussion/view/11598/ps-data-model-regarding-designations). To be more specific I'd like to present the case of Natura2000 sites.

    The data in the local national database is handled on a site-as-a-object basis, with the proposedSiteOfCommunityImportance (pSCI), siteOfCommunityImportance (SCI) and specialAreaOfConservation (SAC) designation dates as properties of this object:

    rahvala FeatureType
    
    id <int>
    geometry <geometry>
    site_id <string>
    timestamp_of_last_change <datetime>
    pSCI_date <datetime>
    SCI_date <datetime>
    SAC_date <datetime>
    [...]
    

    Now to consider an example with a couple of rows:

    id geometry site_id timestamp_of_last_change pSCI_date SCI_date SAC_date
    1 <geometryA> EE0040495 2014-11-26 14:13:17.00706 2011-01-01 2012-11-01 <NULL>
    2 <geometryB> EE0040432 2014-03-05 09:04:47.635268 2004-04-01 2007-11-01 2011-02-01

     

    These rows would translate to the harmonised PS data model psSite and psSiteDesignation tables as:

    Table: psSite   Table: psSiteDesignation
    namespace localId versionId legalFoundationDate   designation
    ee-something 1 20141126141317 2011-01-01   proposedSiteOfCommunityImportance
    ee-something 1 20141126141317 2012-11-01   siteOfCommunityImportance
    ee-something 2 20140305090447 2004-04-01   proposedSiteOfCommunityImportance
    ee-something 2 20140305090447 2007-11-01   siteOfCommunityImportance
    ee-something 2 20140305090447 2011-02-01   specialAreaOfConservation

     

    Now the issue that arises here is the question of namespace/localid/versionid uniqueness. There are a couple of ways I can see I could resolve this, all of which are "a kind of a hack":

    1) play around with namespaces and assign a separate namespaces for each designation, e.g ee-something-psci, ee-something-sci and ee-something-sac. This will entail administration overhead as this will not be a systematic approach with other designation schemes (CDDA, ramsar, helcom).

    2) present data only on one designation, e.g if a site has a SAC_date then it is designated as a SAC, if it has a SCI_date, it is designated as a SCI otherwise it will be a pSCI. This will entail that no pSCI data will be available for areas that are SACs or SCIs and no SCI data for sites that are SACs.

    3) void both legalFoundation* properties (with voidReasonValue=withHeld?) and present only 1 object-per-object transformation per protectedsite feature type. Considering the example presented, this means that I will have 2 rows in the psSite table, one for each site, and the same 5 rows for the psSiteDesignation table. This will entail that no data will be available for a site's legalFoundationDate/legalFoundationDocument.

    If I had to make a choice myself, most probably I would go with option 3) but I would like to hear other opinions. And possibly if there is anybody else in the same kind of situation what kind of approach have You taken/planning to take.

    Thanks in advance and best regards,

    Tõnis

This discussion is closed.

This discussion is closed and is not accepting new comments.

Biodiversity & Area Management

Biodiversity & Area Management

If themes like Protected Sites, Area Management/Restriction/Regulation Zones and Reporting Units, Habitats and Biotopes, Species Distribution, Bio-geographical Regions matters to you, join these groups!