European Commission logo
INSPIRE Community Forum

ManagementRestrictionOrRegulationZone.competentAuthority voidable but role mandatory?

According to https://inspire.ec.europa.eu/data-model/approved/r4618-ir/html/EARoot/EA2/EA3/EA4/EA1/EA7936.htm, ManagementRestrictionOrRegulationZone.competentAuthority is voidable. But according to the IR (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02010R1089-20141231&qid=1593071462238&from=DE), "The role attribute of the competentAuthority shall take the value ‘authority’." Also, when using the AM specific tests in the staging version of the INSPIRE Validator and competentAuthotity is null with a nilReason, it returns a validation error: "XML document [...], ManagementRestrictionOrRegulationZone [...]: The property 'competentAuthority/RelatedParty/role' shall be provided." Similar issue for the association 'legalBasis' that is voidable according to the UML model but the IR contains the constraint "At least the most specific legal instrument that required the establishment of zone shall be provided using the legalBasis association role." Both cases are contradictory to me. Either a value needs to be provided for an attribut/association or it is voidable. Could someone please clarify how to handle these cases?

  • Katharina SCHLEIDT

    By Katharina SCHLEIDT

    Hi Johanna,

    based on the data models, the voidability is before the content; thus if you void the competentAuthority or legalBasis, all requirements on this nested object are voided. To this reading, if the competentAuthority has been nilled, the statement "The property 'competentAuthority/RelatedParty/role' shall be provided." no longer has relevance.

    Out of the box abstraction - in Austria, I must have summer or winter tires on my car depending on the season. However, if I don't have a car, I don't need either type of tire - does this make sense?

    Continuing in this direction, I'd see the validator in error as it is applying the rules in the wrong order. If a competentAuthority is provided, it MUST have a role in the related party. But this rule is only applicable if the RelatedParty is being provided under competentAuthority, this must be checked first, only if this condition is true can one apply the role rule.

    Could you provide this as feedback to the validator? (it wouldn't be the first error!)

    :)

    Kathi

  • Johanna Ott

    Thanks, Kathi!

    I created this ticket for the validator:https://github.com/inspire-eu-validation/community/issues/339

  • Johanna Ott

    Hi everybody,

    According to this comment in a issue of the validator https://github.com/inspire-eu-validation/community/issues/333#issuecomment-646346027, a legalBasis must still be provided even though the association is voidable.

    As this is contradictory to what was discussed here - who would be the right intitution to ask for final clarification on the issue?

     

    Thanks and all the best

    Johanna 

  • Stefania MORRONE

    By Stefania MORRONE

    Dear Johanna, all

    the best way to clarify is making use of what explicitly explained in the Data Specification.

    • The «voidable» stereotype is used to characterise those properties of a spatial object that may not be present in some spatial data sets, even though they may be present or applicable in the real world.
    • A void value shall imply that no corresponding value is contained in the source spatial data set maintained by the data provider or no corresponding value can be derived from existing values at reasonable costs.
    • The «voidable» stereotype does not give any information on whether or not a characteristic exists in the real world. This is expressed using the multiplicity:

              If a characteristic may or may not exist in the real world, its minimum cardinality shall be defined as 0. For example, if an Address may or may not have a house number, the multiplicity of the corresponding property shall be 0..1.

             If at least one value for a certain characteristic exists in the real world, the minimum cardinality shall be defined as 1. For example, if an Administrative Unit always has at least one name, the multiplicity of the corresponding property shall be 1..*. 

            In both cases, the «voidable» stereotype can be applied.

    So far what contained in the Data Specification, now coming back to your questions and applying definitions abovementioned:

    • legalBasis multiplicity to 1..* indicates that a ManagementRestrictionOrRegulationZone has at least one legalBasis in the real world
    • competentAuthority multiplicity to 1..* indicates that a ManagementRestrictionOrRegulationZone has at least one competentAuthority in the real world
    • legalBasis and competentAuthority attributes having ‘voidable’ stereotype implies that it is considered possible that no corresponding legalBasis or competentAuthority value is contained in the source spatial data set maintained by the data provider / that no corresponding value can be derived from existing values at reasonable costs. For those cases a void value can be provided.

    Regarding the constraint on the legalBasis

    • It is not there to make the provision of ‘legalBasis’ attribute mandatory (it already is because of its multiplicity)
    • It is not there because <with voidable association + constraint instead of mandatory association it is possible " to better clarify what is required"> as stated in the github thread you mention above. In fact, the constraint “specify at least the most specific legal instrument” would affect in the same manner a ‘non-voidable’ association.

    Question is: why making the legalBasis voidable and then force it to always be 'non-voidable' through a constraint? If in no case the legalBasis can be void (because at least you must provide the most specific legal instrument), why then give it a 'voidable' stereotype?

    Could there be a different interpretation of the constraint that would allow the use of the void value for the legalBasis?

    Maybe that the correct interpretation of the constraint is to be found in the latter part of the sentence “At least the most specific legal instrument that required the establishment of zone shall be provided using the legalBasis association role” (so, for example, should the most specific legal instrument be known to you and should this be an action plan, you shall not use the 'plan' association to provide it but the 'legalBasis' association) ?

    It would be important if someone directly involved in the writing of the Data Specification could definitely clarify.

    The case of the constraint on the competentAuthority is  simpler :

    if you have the information related to the competent authority - i.e.only if you provide a non-void value for the competentAuthority attribute -  the relevant role shall be “authority”.

     

    Summing up:

    If you know the “legal instrument or document that required the establishment of the zone” /” the organisation(s) responsible for managing, restricting or regulating measures or activities within the zone“ OR “if you can retrieve these pieces of information at a reasonable cost” you MUST provide, and it is important that you do to improve the usability and the meaningfulness of your data set

    If the relevant pieces of information are available to you, provide

    - the most specific legal instrument that required the establishment of zone using the legalBasis association role

    - the role attribute of the competentAuthority with the value ‘authority'.

     

    Hope this helps                                                                                                                                       Stefania

  • Stefania MORRONE

    By Stefania MORRONE

    To complete the discussion above, the INSPIRE validator should not raise an error in case of void values for  competentAuthority.

    Regarding the LegalBasis, if the correct interpretation of the constraint is that in no case the LegalBasis can be void, than the INSPIRE validator is correctly raising an error, but then the Data Specifications should be corrected and the legalBasis association should not be voidable anymore, because this is clearly an inconsistency.

    As I already stated above, the LegalBasis validation case would need an official clarification.

    That said, of course, the data provider should make all possible efforts to retrieve required information and provide void values ONLY when truly not possible to get anything relevant.

    I would thank you Johanna for having posted this question also in this Forum. Indeed, it is quite important that the discussions ongoing here, involving thematic domain experts as well as INSPIRE experts, are aligned to  /taken into  consideration by the experts/ developers of the INSPIRE Validator team (and viceversa of course).

    All the best,

    Stefania

  • Johanna Ott

    Dear Stefania,

    Thank you for the clarification. I will inform the affected data provider accordingly.

     

    All the best

    Johanna

  • Johanna Ott

    Hi Stefania,

    Regarding the LegalBasis, if the correct interpretation of the constraint is that in no case the LegalBasis can be void, than the INSPIRE validator is correctly raising an error, but then the Data Specifications should be corrected and the legalBasis association should not be voidable anymore, because this is clearly an inconsistency.

    As I already stated above, the LegalBasis validation case would need an official clarification.

    Who to contact in order to get an official clarification?

     

    All the best

    Johanna

  • Stefania MORRONE

    By Stefania MORRONE

    Dear Johanna,

    discussions are ongoing in the ETF team whether to relax the validation requirement for the LegalBasis (so to allow the void value).

    Will keep you posted on the outcomes.

    Kind regards,

    Stefania

  • Fabio VINCI

    Dear all,
    we discussed internally and, even if the constraint is not so clearly expressed, we decided to keep the test less restrictive and to consider the voidable stereotype of the legalBasis association. So, if the legalBasis association is void the validator does not raise an error, if at least one value is present the validator requires a manual check.

    This behavior is documented in the ATS and is already implemented in the staging instance.

    Regards,

    Fabio

  • Johanna Ott

    Hi Fabio,

    Thank you for the update and the clarification.

     

    All the best

    Johanna

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!