European Commission logo
INSPIRE Community Forum

Group activity

  • General

    The INSPIRE Community Forum is now part of the INSPIRE helpdesk system, based on GitHub (https://github.com/INSPIRE-MIF), so please start there any new discussions.

    The current platform will remain available in read only mode in its current form and URL address until 31/01/2021, then its content will be archived and then published in a different URL which will be announced when it becomes available.

  • Katharina SCHLEIDT
    Dear Hanna, I think the issue is that you're looking at the wrong theme for your data :) Species distribution is exactly that, known distribution area based on underlying data (field data of individual observations and counts) from an... view reply
  • Hanna Huitu
    Dear colleagues, In our case, distribution and abundance of some of the animals is monitored by systematic winter track counts. Our monitoring system yields a yearly map or grid, populated by these index values. This index is a continuous...
    • Dirk HINTERLANG

      By Dirk HINTERLANG

      Hi Hanna, hi Kathi,

      I guess both themes should be adressed: for cases like this the TWG Biodiversity has foreseen, that the grids should be pulished as SD with the (limited) information presence/absence and, like Kathie suggested, in addition for specific data users as EF Observation&Measurement data with all the details.

      Best regards, Dirk

       

    • Katharina SCHLEIDT

      By Katharina SCHLEIDT

      A short note: using EF, you can refer to the grid cells provided by SD as your featureOfInterest, so the area for which the species count applies

      :)

    • Hanna Huitu

      Thank you for your help, Kathi and Dirk!

      Looks promising. I will investigate this further along these links & info.

      Have a nice weekend,

      Hanna

  • Fabio VINCI
    Hi Kathi, yes, that's what I meant. And, due to the fact that the nilReason is "only" recommended by TG, the following encoding: <am:legalBasis xsi:nil="true"/> passes the test. Fabio view reply
  • Katharina SCHLEIDT
    Hi Fabio, nice to see progress on this! Quick question (just to be sure ;) ) - by "the legalBasis association is void" - I'm assuming you mean the legalBasis entry has been provided with xsi:nil="true" and... view reply
  • Johanna Ott
    Hi Fabio, Thank you for the update and the clarification.   All the best Johanna view reply
  • 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... view reply
  • 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 view reply
  • 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... view reply
  • Stefania MORRONE
    Dear Ewa, let’s face one by one the questions in your email: Wouldn't it be appropriate to modify the AM schema by allowing SpecialisedZoneType to be nested in ZoneType so that multiple ZoneType attributes can be specified, but... view reply
  • Ewa SURMA
    Dear colleagues, We have encountered some difficulties in properly encoding of Area Management Restriction and Regulation Zones (AM) spatial data set. The first problem is due to a limitation of the ZoneType (0..*) and SpecialisedZoneType (0..1)...
    • Stefania MORRONE

      By Stefania MORRONE

      Dear Ewa,

      let’s face one by one the questions in your email:

      1. Wouldn't it be appropriate to modify the AM schema by allowing SpecialisedZoneType to be nested in ZoneType so that multiple ZoneType attributes can be specified, but each of them can only be extended by one SpecialisedZoneType?

      I see your point. However, I would highlight that the above proposed modifications in the AM data model:

      1. would require a change in the INSPIRE Implementing Rules on interoperability of spatial data sets and services. Consider that, although the request for an amendment could be submitted, especially if it corresponds to the needs of several Member States, the process and the times for any possible approval are quite long .
      2. would not allow the backwards compatibility of the schema (the zoneType and the relevant specialisedZoneType attributes would need to be coupled in a new, complex data type to guarantee the correct nesting). Though not a requirement,  creating non backwards-compatible updates of the schemas should be avoided when possible.  It would be interesting if other Forum users share here their opinion/ experience on if and how they faced this issue.
      1. is it necessary to report the need for the extension of the ZoneType codelist through the value wfdProtectedArea ?

      No, it is not necessary. The value “http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/inspire/ZoneTypeCode/wfdProtectedAreais already an allowed value for the ZoneType code list.

      The ZoneType code list, in fact, is “extensible with values at any level “ and therefore the allowed values comprise the values specified in the IR and any additional values made available in a public register (so not necessarily in the INSPIRE code list register). For more details, you might find it useful having a look at the INSPIRE Community Forum page How to extend INSPIRE code lists.

       

      1. The last problem is the ability to refer Area Management Restriction and Regulation Zones objects (e.g. http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/inspire/ZoneTypeCode/wfdProtectedArea) to Protected Sites objects. How should such a relationship be encoded?

      Let’s start taking into consideration what written in the AM Data Specification - Section 2.2.6 “Interrelationships with INSPIRE spatial data themes”,  addressing the overlapping scope between AM and PS :

      The key difference between the two themes is that Protected Sites are established to manage, regulate and restrict activities to conserve nature, biodiversity and cultural heritage, only. Some Area Management, Restriction and Regulation Zones are established to deliver multiple environmental objectives that include nature and biodiversity conservation (e.g. River Basin Districts). Where this occurs, the spatial objects should only be published once, as Area Management, Restriction and Regulation Zones “.

      The quotation above is in line with the INSPIRE IR requirement in Annex IV, Section 11.4.3 and is a reason why the AM schema

      • does not foresee any association between the AM and the PS spatial objects (protected areas established to deliver multiple objectives shall not be modelled as PS but as AM spatial objects)
      • foresees the association between AM spatial objects via the “relatedZone” association. The related zone may either be a sub zone or a zone of different type.  The thematicId attribute could then be used to uniquely identify the spatial object in a specific thematic domain e.g. a protected area in the WISE domain.

      Hope this helps

      Stefania

  • Dirk HINTERLANG
    Dirk HINTERLANG replied on the discussion topic Recommended grid for Species Distribution
    Hi Lena, all, make sure to be in line with the data specification for Species Distribution, which would not allow for a 50 spare kilometer grid, but only 1, 10, 100, 1000 and so on.  See DS 6.1.4  and Requirement NOTE 1 on page... view reply
  • Jose Miguel RUBIO IGLESIAS
    Jose Miguel RUBIO IGLESIAS replied on the discussion topic Recommended grid for Species Distribution
    Hi Lena, all, Let me ask the Biodiversity colleagues at the EEA - but I can share right now with you the information about the consolidated datasets that we produced years ago on gridded distribution of species and birds as reported under... view reply
  • Katharina SCHLEIDT
    Katharina SCHLEIDT replied on the discussion topic Recommended grid for Species Distribution
    Hi Lena, while I'm clueless as to what the EEA would like to see here (Stefania should know, she'll be back from vacation next week), to my view it would be great if the EEA grid were aligned with that provided by Eurostat [1] as I am... view reply
  • Lena Hallin-Pihlatie
    Lena Hallin-Pihlatie added a new discussion topic Recommended grid for Species Distribution
    Hi, What would be your recommended 50 km grid and coordinate system for species distribution when producing a harmonised dataset? Does for example EEA have a cross-European grid dataset to fit the information into? Not my area of expertise...
  • Katharina SCHLEIDT
    Katharina SCHLEIDT replied on the discussion topic Waste deposit sites covered by AM or US
    Hmm... theoretically that would work, but in reality we'd have to modify the UML, or at least the XSD. Probably the same amount of work as putting up the codelist (none of the three are technically difficult, but the administrative aspects will... view reply
  • Stefania MORRONE
    Stefania MORRONE replied on the discussion topic Waste deposit sites covered by AM or US
    Hi Kathi, I was not as clear as I would have liked .. I was somehow triggered by the reference to the soil code lists and I took the opportunity to recommend an encoding for “the code list cases” , that is for the cases when we have... view reply
  • Katharina SCHLEIDT
    Katharina SCHLEIDT replied on the discussion topic Waste deposit sites covered by AM or US
    Hi Stefania, only bit that worries me on your approach is that the numbers get lost while the text strings may end up in local languages. At the same time, there's no xlink attribute for the identifier, so wouldn't know where to put it.... view reply
  • Stefania MORRONE
    Stefania MORRONE replied on the discussion topic Waste deposit sites covered by AM or US
    Dear both, First off: to my knowledge there is no official guideline on how to proceed in cases like this. And risk here is that each data provider will do his own way … Below my personal vision. I prefer avoiding non-working links,... view reply
  • Johanna Ott
    Johanna Ott replied on the discussion topic Waste deposit sites covered by AM or US
    Hi Kathi, Thank you for the feedback - let's hope a lot of people read this discussion and follow the same approach then. @everyone: If anyone else already used the codelist and followed a different pattern, please let us know, so we can... view reply
  • Katharina SCHLEIDT
    Katharina SCHLEIDT replied on the discussion topic Waste deposit sites covered by AM or US
    Hi Johanna, I fear this is a common issue across various INSPIRE Themes, at least I've run into the exact same bit (codelist only referencing a PDF) also in the Soil Theme. I've looked through the list in the directive, in this case, I... view reply
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!