European Commission logo
INSPIRE Community Forum

Implementation of relations from OF to EF and SR

Johanna Ott
By Johanna Ott Replies (5)

Hello everyone,

I am currently realizing my first transformation of data to the INSPIRE OF Theme. The data contains observations taken by a vessel. During implementation, I ran into rather basic questions concerning the relations to the INSPIRE Themes EF and SR and I could not find satisfying answers to those in the documents or discussions so far:

1. Is it correctly understood, that a OF dataset will exclusively consist of objects of the Specialised Observation package which then contain links to EF objects in their 'parameter' attributes (according to chapter 7.1.6 in D2.9). If that is the case: Is it mandatory to also provide the link information in the 'hasObservation' relation in the EF feature or is the information in the OFs 'parameter' sufficient?
Or is it intended that OF datasets contain EF objects as well?
So for my specific example: Should I create two datasets (one for EF containing the vessel as EnvironmentalMonitoringFacility and one for OF containing the observations) and create links between those or should I create one dataset containing the observation data as well as the EnvironmentalMonitoringFacility object?

2. The executive summary of the OF data specification states: "Oceanographic Geographic Features always contain information about a Sea Region, or some part of a Sea Region." But neither in the OF nor in the SR model, I can find any hint on how the relation between those two is technically realised. Can anybody point me to adequate documentation on how to realize this?

Thank you for your help!

All the best

Johanna

  • Katharina SCHLEIDT

    By Katharina SCHLEIDT

    Hi Johanna,

    First of, congratulations for understanding that OF implicitly includes EF :)

    hasObservation: In some use cases, this association can be very valuable (reason we added), but at the same time, it can become unmanageable. The cardinality is 0..* (must start at 0, as an EF can exist before it starts measuring), thus formally optional in the IR sense, so you're safe. Besides, the information is still contained.

    • If you have an EF producing a limited set of time series, it would make sense to add links to these observations as they remain fairly static, with the only change over time being new values appended at the end of the observation result time series;
    • In contrast, if you have a research vessel making new types of observations every day, I would recommend relying on the link back to the EF from the Observation Parameter.

    Dataset: this is an old conundrum in INSPIRE, a relict from the ShapeFile days ;) Logically, it's all one dataset, but based on the namespaces and technology constraints, I've found it saner to provide individually and cross link (this becomes essential when using sensor services).

    OF/SR: I'm not aware of any explicit links modeled between the OF and SR Themes. However, there are various options implicit in the O&M model, i.e. I would expect the samplingFeature of the O&M Observation to have the SR as its sampledFeature.

    I did some examples of the OF parts for SeaDataNet a while back, they're available on our Best Practice page: https://inspire.ec.europa.eu/forum/pages/view/30357/efom-best-practices

    Hope this helps!

    :)

    Kathi

  • Johanna Ott

    Hi Kathi,

    Thank you for your feedback! This is really helpful information.

    While creating the data, I am now wondering if and how is legal to combine different schemas to deliver the according data via the same endpoint.

    I do agree, it makes sense to deliver EF via a different point.

    Nevertheless, I would still need to combine the following schemas in order to deliver all data relevant for the German OF dataset I am trying to transform:

    Do I have to create 4 different endpoints for the respective data (additionally to the EF one) or is it valid to create one combined schema importing the 4 schemas and publish all data via the same endpoint. If that is valid, does this combined schema need to get checked and confirmed by an official INSPIRE institution or is it ok to assume that they can be combined (as long as they don't get altered but only imported)?

     

    All the best

    Johanna

  • Katharina SCHLEIDT

    By Katharina SCHLEIDT

    Hi Johanna,

    I'd look at it from the alternative view - which of these featureTypes would you like to expose individually? For those you'll need endpoints, the rest you can nest.

    My assumption would be endpoints for:

    • Observation Types
    • Processes
    • Maybe Coverage if you want to expose the Result separately, but usually nested in the observation. I'd only do this if you're serving a really large coverage and want to link out to a WCS, don't think your profiles need that

    The gmlcovrgrid is logically nested within the Coverage, I don't see exposing the Array on its own.

    Does this help?

    :)

    Kathi

  • Florian Hoedt

    Hello,
    The by Johanna Ott described data belongs to the thuenen instituts oceanografic dataset and WeTransform helps us to publish this dataset.

    I try to summarize the ideas in this thread and would like to get an official statement if these are compliant to the specifications.

    We will create two endpoints (services):
    (a) EMF with the vessels used to sample the data. Those will hold the hasObservation link to (b) endpoints ProfileObservations
    (b) OF with ProfileObservations which use nested Processes Objects to properly describe the measurements. As parameter they link to service (a)´s EMFs. Additionally featureOfInterest will be filled by a SF_SamplingCurve instance, which will link to a foreign SeaRegion object in its sampledFeature.

    Others (BSH as far as I know) will provide the SeaRegion endpoint. But there is no SeaRegion currently and I would like to know how to model our dataset without this. Shall we use some kind of nilReason?

    Thanks,
    Florian

  • Florian Hoedt

    Hello,

    I would like to directly escalate this to the Facilitator: Angel LOPEZ ALOS but the profile is private.

    I know there are currently a lot of more urgent issues to solve than getting data inspire harmonized, but we would like make progress in this regard.

    yours,

    Florian Hoedt

Marine & Atmosphere

Marine & Atmosphere

Oceanographic Geographical Features, Sea Regions, Atmospheric Conditions and Meteorological Geographical Features