European Commission logo
INSPIRE Community Forum

PS data model regarding designations

Hello, 

Brian suggested that i took this to this discussion board. 

Currently the PS data model is implemented as follows with regards to the PS site, its legalFoundation and designation:

FeatureType ProtectedSite 
[...]
+ siteDesignation: DesignationType [1..*]
+ legalFoundationDate: DateTime
+ legalFoundationDocument: CI_Citation
[...]

Meaning one site can have a multitude of designations assigned to it, but only one legalFoundationTime defined as:

The date that the protected site was legally created

and legalFoundationDocument defined as: 

A URL or text citation referencing the legal act that created the Protected Site

Now from the NOTE at the latter's description in the PS data specification (v3.2) p21:

In the case of Natura2000 sites, a protected site may go through several different stages (for example, proposed as SCI, confirmed as SCI, designated as SAC). A new version of the site is created for each of these different stages (because there is a change in the designation), and the new version should have the date on which the new stage was legally assigned as the legalFoundationDate [...].

I am not able to bring up here a concrete example on this, but theoretically (and I must stress that I'm not a domain expert, rather "that GIS guy") the same would be true for other designations aswell? For example: a site designated as http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabularyconcept/cdda/designations/EE05 at timestamp x is designated also as http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabularyconcept/inspire/DesignationSchemeValue/ramsar at timestamp x+n. 

This means that although the site is the same (and managed in the national database as one object/row) it has different designations (and different legalFoundation for that matter) which in turn require to translate it to two (or more) different database rows under the PS data model. And with this actually comes the question of namespace/localid/versionid uniqueness. Those two rows in the harmonised dataset will have the same localids and versionids (simply because they refer to the same thing in the national source database) - the only way to insure identificator uniqueness in that case is to paly around with the namespace value, creating new values incrementally as needed.

The same reasoning will actually apply in case of Natura2000 designations if the "proposedSCI"->"SCI"->"SAC" flags are managed as distinct properties of this concrete site (i.e a site is a single row in a table with pSCI, SCI, SAC attribute columns - and this here is a concrete case to deal with for me).

To conclude: if legalFoundationDate and legalFoundationDocument are properties describing a designation of a PS rather than a PS itself would it actually make sense to make them as such aswell - deprecate those properties from the PS FeatureType and assign them to DesignationType instead. So that a site has a voidable 1..* relation to a DesignationType which consists of designationScheme, designation and legalFoundation* properties. 

Any thoughts, suggestions how this could be dealt with?

  • Astrid FEICHTNER

    By Astrid FEICHTNER

    Dear PS experts,

    we second the above proposal by Tõnis Kärdi and would like to add the following suggestion:

    Usage of the INSPIRE base type legislationCitation (cf. Generic Conceptual Model V3.4, p. 67) instead of CI_Citation as data type of the legalFoundationDocument attribute.

    Rationale:
    It generally makes sense to re-use existing data types from ISO standards as often as possible. However, in this case the following aspects speak for the above suggestion:

    • The CI_Citation type is a complex, nested type (up to 5 levels) which - if fully expanded - could e.g. take up to 43 lines in a mapping table (many of attributes admittedly being optional).
    • According to the definition, a legalFoundationDocument is a "URL or text citation referencing the legal act that created the Protected Site". The CI_Citation type of the ISO 19115:2006 (Corrigendum) standard (still referenced in the INSPIRE schemas) doesn't contain an attribute dedicated for the provision of an online resource on the first level. A URL is only foreseen on the fourth level - and here only for the contact details of a responsible party. In the new ISO 19115-1:2014 standard, the CI_Citation type was revised, now containing an onlineResource attribute. However, it has become even more complex.
    • The legislationCitation type in the Generic Conceptual Model is much simpler and seems perfectly fit for purpose. It is used in several Annex III themes, e.g. in the OfficialDocumentation feature type of the Planned Land Use schema (LU) or the AbstractMonitoringObject feature type in the Environmental Monitoring Facilities (EF) schema.
    • For merely providing an URL or text citation, even the very simple documentCitation type (supertype of legislationCitation) would suffice.

    We look forward to your comments on this proposal.

    Thanks and best regards
    Astrid Feichtner

  • Darja LIHTENEGER

    By Darja LIHTENEGER

    Dear Tonis,

    I would agree with your explanations. The current INSPIRE PS Simple application schema defines one legal foundation date, one legal foundation document and allows several designations (at least one has to be provided). If we take one protected site - this works well if the legal foundation document defines all those designations. If it doesn't then the information about the legal foundation date and document can apply to one designation only but for other designations it can't be provided for the same protected site.

    However, the INSPIRE PS guidelines say in  5.3.1.6. Geometry representation: "If a site has multiple designations, different features should be provided for each designation. Protected Sites features may overlap each other, but normally only if they are of different designation types. Usually sites of the same designation type do not overlap."

    If we need to assign several designations with different foundation dates and documents (legal acts) to the same protected site it would be better to combine this information with the Designation Type (property of the designation), as Tonis proposed. This change would mean the change of the UML diagram, XSD, technical guidelines and Commission Regulation (Implementing Rules).

    Kind regards,

    Darja Lihteneger

  • Darja LIHTENEGER

    By Darja LIHTENEGER

    Dear Astrid,

    Legislation Citation was designed during the development of the INSPIRE data specifications for Annex II and III themes with the purpose to provide more appropriate data type for the information on legislation, instead of initially used CI_Citation. CI_Citation defines more general "standardized resource reference" but it is very complex to describe a legislation with this data type.

    The use of Legal Citation haven't applied to already adopted INSPIRE Annex I data specifications (including Protected sites) and the Implementing Rules. Any future changes would require updates of UML diagrams, XSD, technical guidelines and Commission Regulation. However this would bring better harmonisation between the INSPIRE data models and re-use of a common type (Legislation Citation) for the same concept (legislation).

    Kind regards,

    Darja Lihteneger

  • Lena Hallin-Pihlatie

    By Lena Hallin-Pihlatie

    Hi,

    We are trying to transform our national Natura 2000 dataset to the PS simple application schema.

    We face the same kind of problem as Tonis, finding it problematic to have to make a new spatial object whenever there's a new date involved.

    Until now the foundation dates and Natura codes for the SCI and SPA sites have been the same, if they have the same geometry. Now all confirmed SCI sites will be designated as SAC, which means that they are getting a new foundation date, but the Natura code stays the same for both. From this time onwards, its seems we need to provide separate spatial objects for the SPAs and the SACs. We would like to use the Natura code as the localid (or part of it).

    We are thinking about options. Would it be according to INSPIRE to make two separate GMLs for our Natura sites, one for the SPAs and another for the SACs? Then we would probably need to make separate metadata and obtain two different dataset ids etc., but the transformation would be easier.

    Or any experiences how this tranformation issue could be handled? For example in HALE?

    Kind regards,

    Lena, Riikka and Riitta

     

  • Brian MACSHARRY

    By Brian MACSHARRY

    Hi Lena, Rikka and Riitta

     

    This is a very interesting an timely question, as in this case the geometry stays the same, the Natura Site code stays the same and the only change in in the status from SCI to SAC. I have flagged this with the EEA to see what our thoughts on it are and will also bring this up at the next technical meeting we have to see if we can formulate some clear advice on this. The situation you describe is very common as within 6 years of a site being an SCI it should become an SAC.

     

    As regarding the SPA and SAC sites- they "C types" i will see what comes from our discussion however it raises the very interesting issue of how to manage any geometry changes that may occur. If i understand correctly there is one geometry which happens to be a SAC and a SPA and where the Natura 2000 code is the same. I will discuss this further and hopefully come back with some suggestions, it would be great if there was a way to show the relationship between these two objects, 1 geometry, 2 pieces of information.

    All the best

    Brian

    As for Inspire IDs and Natura 2000 codes i just posted a link to some examples of Inspire IDs for Natura sites

    https://themes.jrc.ec.europa.eu/discussion/view/59029/inspire-identifers-from-the-natura-2000-database

  • Brian MACSHARRY

    By Brian MACSHARRY

    Hi Lena, Rikka and Riitta

     

    This is a very interesting an timely question, as in this case the geometry stays the same, the Natura Site code stays the same and the only change in in the status from SCI to SAC. I have flagged this with the EEA to see what our thoughts on it are and will also bring this up at the next technical meeting we have to see if we can formulate some clear advice on this. The situation you describe is very common as within 6 years of a site being an SCI it should become an SAC.

     

    As regarding the SPA and SAC sites- they "C types" i will see what comes from our discussion however it raises the very interesting issue of how to manage any geometry changes that may occur. If i understand correctly there is one geometry which happens to be a SAC and a SPA and where the Natura 2000 code is the same. I will discuss this further and hopefully come back with some suggestions, it would be great if there was a way to show the relationship between these two objects, 1 geometry, 2 pieces of information.

    All the best

    Brian

    As for Inspire IDs and Natura 2000 codes i just posted a link to some examples of Inspire IDs for Natura sites

    https://themes.jrc.ec.europa.eu/discussion/view/59029/inspire-identifers-from-the-natura-2000-database

  • Brian MACSHARRY

    By Brian MACSHARRY

    Hi all

     

    We have not forgotten about this very intersting topic. We had hoped to discuss this at a thematic clusters meeting being currently held but ran out of time, therfore we will be discussing this in the new year and hopefully we can find a solution to this issue and ensure the INSPIRE schmea can deal with this issue. .

     

    Many thanks for all fo the comments on this issue.

  • Johanna OTT

    Dear experts,

    a few months ago, Astrid Feichtner wrote "According to the definition, a legalFoundationDocument is a "URL or text citation referencing the legal act that created the Protected Site". The CI_Citation type of the ISO 19115:2006 (Corrigendum) standard (still referenced in the INSPIRE schemas) doesn't contain an attribute dedicated for the provision of an online resource on the first level. A URL is only foreseen on the fourth level - and here only for the contact details of a responsible party. In the new ISO 19115-1:2014 standard, the CI_Citation type was revised, now containing an onlineResource attribute. However, it has become even more complex."

    Wouldn't it be possible to use a string containing a URL and provide it via the attribute "otherCitationDetails" of CI_Citation or are there any other news on how to deal with the legalFoundationDocument-attribute?

    Kind regards

    Johanna

  • Stefania MORRONE

    By Stefania MORRONE

    Dear Johanna,

    since the definition of the attribute  "otherCitationDetails is very generic i.e. "Other information required to complete the citation"  you can use it also to provide an URL referencing the legal act that created the Protected Site. It’s value added to the dataset.

    It should be clear, anyway, that the original problem addressed by Astrid still remains: although the legalFoundationDocument attribute definition states that the “legalFoundationDocument is a URL or text”, its data type (CI_Citation) doesn't contain the relevant attribute for the provision of an online resource !

    Therefore, I agree that 'the usage of the INSPIRE base type legislationCitation (cf. Generic Conceptual Model V3.4, p. 67) instead of CI_Citation as data type of the legalFoundationDocument attribute' would be more fit for purpose. Indeed, as Astrid said, 'even the very simple documentCitation type -supertype of legislationCitation- would suffice', since it contains the 'link' attribute whose definition is "Link to an online version of the document!

     

    Kind regards,

    Stefania

  • Iurie MAXIM

    Hi Johana and Stefania,

    Even if the definition of  legalFoundationDocument is "a URL or text citation referencing the legal act that created the Protected Site" if a data provider would provide only the URL to the legal act that "created" (established) the protected area/site, that link would not provide enough information for an user of the dataset.

    Lets assume for example that the link is pointing to an an PDF file or a HTML file containing the last legal act (in the language of the dataset) that is establishing the regime of protection to a certain site/area. Most probably that file will not be enough for an user of the dataset, as he will need to open and read the file in order to see that the PDF/HTTP file is referring for example the "Law 5/2000" or the "Governmental Decision 1052/2011".

    Most users, would appreciate the text "Law 5/2000" (even if written in the native language, i.e "Legea 5/2000") and not a link to a PDF/HTML file.

    The PDF/HTML file is useful, but for a much more limited number of users as for example the National Agency for Environmental Protection from that country or the MoE.

    Therefore I think that more important for the usability of the dataset is to provide information about the name of the legal act that establishes that protected area/site (type, number and year), rather than providing the link to a PDF file or to a HTTP page containing that legal act.

    As the definition of the legislationCitation can be changed/improved, I think that we should look at this option.

    As the legalFoundationDocument is a CI_Citation type, it would be good to have some guidelines in the PS Data Specification in order to understand at least the most important elements of the CI_Citation that are relevant/useful to be filled for the legalFoundationDocument. We spent a significant amount of time and had many internal debates about what elements to be filled in the CI_Citation element, what are they representing and what a user of the dataset would understand from each element of CI_Citation.

    Best regards,

    Iurie Maxim

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!