inspire & nsdi state of play:...

INSPIRE & NSDI State of Play: Methodology

D1.1 - Report on Methodology

SPATIAL APPLICATIONS DIVISION K.U.LEUVEN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Celestijnenlaan 200 E, BE-3001 LEUVEN TEL.: 32 16 32 97 32 FAX: 32 16 32 97 24 URL: http://www.sadl.kuleuven.be

Report Meta Information

Title INSPIRE and NSDI State of Play: D1.1 - Report on the Methodology

Creator Danny Vandenbroucke (SADL) Date issued 2009-07-03 Subject Methodology for the renewed INSPIRE and NSDI SoP Publisher K.U.Leuven (SADL + ICRI) Description This report provides the results of the fine-tuning of the

existing SoP approach Contributor Joep Crompvoets (Public Management Institute), Katleen

Janssen (ICRI), Danny Vandenbroucke (SADL) Format MS Word 2000 (doc) Audience INSPIRE Community Identifier D1.1 - Report on Methodology.doc Language English Coverage 2009-2011

Version number

Date Modified by Comments

1.0 2009-07-10 Danny Vandenbroucke First version 2.0 2009-09-11 Danny Vandenbroucke Second version, delivered to ESTAT,

September 2009 2.1 2010-01-15 Danny Vandebroucke Added section on typology and overall

review 2.1.1 2010-03-28 Danny Vandenbroucke Changes regarding the 34 countries

studied (instead of 32) 2.1.2 2010-04-20 Danny Vandebroucke Finalisation based on discussion during

the Progress Meeting of March 2010 2.1.3 2010-09-12 Danny Vandenbroucke Small changes and clarifications

regarding the integration of the INSPIRE MR results

SADL/K.U.Leuven R&D INSPIRE & NSDI State of Play

2010-09-12 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of contents............................................................................................................. 1 Abbreviations and acronyms ........................................................................................... 2 1 Introduction............................................................................................................. 3 2 General approach................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Why a new INSPIRE & NSDI SoP?.............................................. 5 2.2 Overall approach............................................................................ 7

3 The use of indicators ............................................................................................ 10 3.1 Understanding the 32 'old' indicators........................................... 10 3.2 Indicators from INSPIRE M&R .................................................. 18 3.3 Mapping the two approaches ....................................................... 21

4 Assessing the results ........................................................................................... 23 4.1 The use of matrices ...................................................................... 23 4.2 The country typology................................................................... 24

5 Conclusions.......................................................................................................... 26 6 References ........................................................................................................... 27


2010-09-12 2

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS CFT Call For Tender DSi Indicator i for Data Specification EC European Commission EFTA European Fair Trade Association EU European Union FOI Freedom of Information GI Geographical Information GIS Geographical Information System ICRI Research Unit Law and Information Technology INSPIRE INfrastructure for SPatial InfoRmation in Europe INSPIRE MR INSPIRE Monitoring and Reporting MDi Indicator i for Metadata MS Member States NCP Network Control Program NDP Natianal Data Producers NMA National Mapping Agency NSDI National Spatial Data Infrastructures NSi Indicator i for Network Services PPP Public-private partnerships PSI Policy and legislation on access to public sector information QC Quality Control SADL Spatial Applications Division Leuven SDI Spatial Data Infrastructures SoP State of Play ToR Terms of Reference


2010-09-12 3

1 INTRODUCTION This report is the first deliverable (D1.1) within the framework of the “INSPIRE and NSDI implementation state of play (INSPIRE & NSDI SoP)” project which is carried out by the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven together with a group of International Experts (contract n° 50502 2008.001-2008.833).

The report describes the fine tuning of the methodology to be followed for describing, structuring and analyzing the State of Play in 34 European countries1 regarding INSPIRE implementation and NSDI development. The proposed methodology is not developed from scratch, but is based on what has been developed in the previous State of Play project in 2002 and which was fine-tuned a first time in 2006 to bring it more in line with INSPIRE. The current revision is taking into account the recent developments of the work of the INSPIRE Drafting Teams, and in particular the Drafting Team on Monitoring and Reporting.

The Terms of Reference (ToR) indicate following objectives for this deliverable: "The indicators (…), which have been used in previous country reports, may need to be fine tuned, especially as the work of the drafting team on monitoring and reporting is not concluded yet2. Ongoing work in this drafting team should be evaluated and conclusions, for the indicators to be used in the State of the Play report, be drawn. Still, backward compatibility of indicators should be guaranteed, so indicators can be added but dropping of indicators should be generally avoided. If necessary, the mapping of the indicators of the proposed implementing rules on Monitoring and Reporting to those of the State of the Play should be reviewed" (European Commission, 2008). These objectives have been used as the starting point for fine-tuning the methodology.

In order to decide what to review and how, a one day workshop was organised in Leuven on 28 May 2009 with the Core Project Team and the International Board of Experts to discuss the 'old' INSPIRE State of Play approach, the approach applied within the INSPIRE Drafting Team on Monitoring and Reporting and the way both could (or could not) be integrated.

The report consists of 4 sections. Section 2 summarises the general approach for the INSPIRE & NSDI SoP, section 3 explains the 32 indicators which were established for the previous INSPIRE SoP study (2002-2007) with emphasise on how to understand them. It also describes how the results of the INSPIRE Monitoring and Reporting will be used in the new State of Play, and if and how both approaches can be combined/mapped and to which degree. Section 4 explains how the overall assessment will be

1 It was decided to study 34 countries in Europe: the EU-27, plus the 4 EFTA countries (NO, CH, LI, IS) and the three official candidate countries (TR, MK, HR). 2 In the meantime (end of 2009) the work of the drafting team on monitoring and reporting has been concluded. The Implementing Rules on monitoring and reporting have been voted and published.


2010-09-12 4

done and how countries can be classified according to a pre-defined typology. We end in section 5 with some conclusions.


2010-09-12 5

2 GENERAL APPROACH In this section we will explain why a new INSPIRE & NSDI SoP is needed and how it relates to the preparation of indicators and reports prepared by the Member States following the obligations under the INSPIRE Directive and its Implementing Rules. We also summarize the overall approach for the study.

2.1 Why a new INSPIRE & NSDI SoP? The Implementing Rules for Monitoring and Reporting have been voted on 19 December 2008. On 11 June 2009, the Commission published the Decision of 5 June 2009 implementing Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards monitoring and reporting (notified under document number C(2009) 4199) - 2009/443/EC. The Decision defines 8 indicators to monitor on a permanent basis the implementation of INSPIRE. The indicators shall be collected by each Member State on an annual basis and the results must be made public. In addition, the Member States have to prepare a 3-yearly report with qualitative information about the implementation of the Directive, including examples on the use of the infrastructure, measures taken to enhance sharing of data and services, cost/benefit issues, etc. The first report must be prepared by 15 May 2010.

If Member States have to deliver the results of the monitoring, as well as a three yearly report, why is an additional study, the State of Play on INSPIRE and NSDI implementation, needed? There are several reasons:

1. The Implementing Rules for Monitoring and Reporting are strictly related to the implementation of the INSPIRE Directive. In that sense, it will give information on how Member States implement the Directive. It will also give factual information on the existence and conformity of data sets, metadata and services as defined in the Directive and its Implementing Rules. However, the INSPIRE infrastructure in the MS does not necessarily equal the NSDI (e.g. this might also cover other sectors such as agriculture, spatial planning; or additional technological components might exist). The INSPIRE and NSDI SoP wants to go one step further and describe and assess the INSPIRE implementation and the whole NSDI. The INSPIRE and NSDI SoP also wants to analyse certain legal, licensing and funding aspects that are not addressed directly by the INSPIRE Directive (e.g. the status of the transposition of the PSI Directive).

2. Member States will provide the results of the INSPIRE monitoring and reporting to the EC and the public. But a series of indicators and reports as such is not the same as an analysis or assessment at the European level: how can we understand the indicators, what are the major conclusions, how does INSPIRE develop over time, what can we learn from the information in the reports, which recommendations can we give, etc. The INSPIRE and NSDI SoP aims carrying out this assessment.


2010-09-12 6

3. Monitoring and Reporting is an obligation of Member States, not for e.g. EFTA countries. Although Switzerland will implement (parts of) INSPIRE, and they do have a NCP and a coordinating structure, they will not report to the EC although they might do the monitoring for themselves. The INSPIRE and NSDI SoP aims to describe and assess 34 countries: including EU-27, 4 EFTA countries (NO, CH, LI, IS), and three candidate countries (TR, HR, MK). The INSPIRE & NSDI SoP also describes some sub-national SDI where this is relevant.

In conclusion, the SoP goes beyond what is mandatory for the Member States. It builds of course also upon the results of the INSPIRE Monitoring and Reporting (INSPIRE MR) by the Member States (see also section 3). By making an analysis at European level, it will help Member States to learn from each other (e.g. description of some good practices). Recommendations will be useful for the EC, but also for MS to implement INSPIRE and further develop their NSDI3.

Not only the objectives of Monitoring and Reporting by the Member States are different from the INSPIRE & NSDI SoP, also the approach is somewhat different. While the MS are entirely responsible for M&R the implementation, the INSPIRE & NSDI SoP (and assessment at European level) is done by the EC (through its contractor). While Member States are collecting information amongst the INSPIRE stakeholders to feed the 8 indicators and to prepare the three-yearly report based on the resulting indicators (and other material), the INSPIRE & NSDI SoP collects information from websites, documents and experts to feed the reports and from there translate the information into 32 indicators (at least that is what happened until 2007). We refer to the chapters in the book “A multi-View Framework to Assess Spatial Data Infrastructures” (Crompvoets et al., 2008) for detailed information.

Finally, the content of the indicators, and the way of ‘calculating’ them is different between the INSPIRE MR and the SoP. While the SoP uses general indicators (statements) with which one could agree, partially agree or not-agree, the INSPIRE indicators are calculated based on information per data set or service. The INSPIRE & NSDI SoP aims at bringing the information from the two sources together (in order to avoid duplication of work), and to perform the assessment by combining information from both. The question is of course how this can/should be done. The new assessments for 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 must therefore first fine-tune the ‘old’ methodology in view of this new situation.

Some assumptions are made: 1) all the indicators from the ‘old SoP’ should be kept – this means that we can make the same type of assessment as we did before, while keeping backward comparability; 2) the resulting indicators coming from the MS should be assessed as well; 3) there is a need for a certain integration (or mapping) of the two approaches – this means that there are some ‘common’ parts (comparable indicators) besides more specific indicators for each approach, all of which should result in an overall assessment taking into account both sources of information. The next sections describe this in more detail. 3 Recommendations can refer to issues related to the study itself and the applied methodology, as well as to good organisational or technological practices in countries that could be applied successfully elsewhere. Recommendations can also refer to potential strategic options at the European level: e.g. what should be further developed and/or supported in existing EU programmes.


2010-09-12 7

While it is clear that the INSPIRE & NSDI SoP activities and the INSPIRE MR activities can reinforce each other, it is also clear that the INSPIRE & NSDI SoP should/will not steer the Member States when preparing their indicators and 3-yearly reports. At the same time the INSPIRE and NSDI SoP takes into account the timing of the INSPIRE MR. Both activities are performed in parallel and feedback from Member States will be organised to discuss the results of the assessment in two day workshops (2010-2011), organised in conjunction with the INSPIRE conferences.

2.2 Overall approach The overall approach of the INSPIRE & NSDI State of Play will remain the same. In 2002 a methodology was worked out to identify and describe the NSDI initiatives in any of the 34 European countries studied. At that time, it was decided not to work with a questionnaire or survey, but to apply a desktop study in a step-by-step way:

• In a first step an extensive list of information resources was established based on existing knowledge within K.U.Leuven, the European Commission and the INSPIRE expert group. This resource list will be updated in 2009-2011;

• From the reference characteristics of the five components of an SDI (Legal Framework and Funding Mechanism, Geographic data - i.e. Reference and Core Thematic Data, Thematic Environmental Data -, Metadata, Access Services, Standards) - as identified in the final version of the Position Papers of five of the INSPIRE working groups - an exhaustive list of items according to which the NSDI could be described, was compiled late 2002. This resulted in a so-called check-list based on which the relevant elements could be extracted from the consulted information resources. After rearranging, the list was used as the template for the description of the NSDI in the country reports. This template will be reviewed to host more specific INSPIRE topics, as well as specific issues regarding INSPIRE MR;

• The description was performed in two stages, resulting in a first and a second version of the country report. Compared to the structure of the first version, the second was extended by sections containing report meta-information, an executive summary and a section on the method used to compile the report. Section titles for which no information could be found have been dropped in the second version;

• In the first stage (September – December 2002), the country reports were compiled based on the consultation of various web sites, documents and project references readily accessible. Most resources were gathered from the internet. An extensive screening of new resources will be carried out in 2009-2011;

• Since at that time for some countries almost no information could be found in this way, some key persons were contacted. However this could not be done for all countries in the limited time and budgetary frame. In addition, a list of information resources was sent to all INSPIRE Working Group members in order to get feedback about its completeness. Sporadically, new data sources could be identified that


2010-09-12 8

way. In 2009-2011, experts in the 34 countries studied will be contacted to obtain additional information;

• 31 country reports (Switzerland and Liechtenstein were combined in 1 report) resulted from the first stage (beginning of 2003). This means that in every country at least one NSDI- or NSDI-related initiative was found. In each of them, the consulted information resources were listed in the last chapter;

• In the second stage (April-June 2003), the country reports were submitted to experts in each of the 32 countries. The experts were identified through the INSPIRE expert committee. In some countries, the report was handed over to other organizations and persons for further update. In this way, for most of the reports, corrections and updates were provided. The name and affiliation of the then contributing experts is still available in the present version reports (see metadata on history of the document). In 2009-2011, feedback will be asked on the draft country reports through the NCPs4;

• Through the visits to nine countries performed in the scope of Activity 2 of the first contract, some extra information could be collected which, where relevant, was added to the country reports in spring 2003. In 2006, 3 additional visits took place. In the INSPIRE & NSDI SoP, yet another 3 countries will be visited. The primary focus of the visits this time is to validate the findings and to detect points of attention when reviewing/finalising the country reports. Of course, also this time, additional information will be collected and integrated in the country reports;

• Based on these country reports, a methodology was developed to asses the status of the NSDI. The presented items in the reports relate to a number of organizational issues and to the five generic components of an SDI, as valid for the period studied. They can be considered as the building blocks of the SDI under study. The items or building blocks are expressed as statements or indicators (originally 30, from 2006 onwards 32 - see Table 1). The information from the country reports was 'translated' into the indicators. This 'translation' was done based on the answers to a series of questions (sometimes using certain thresholds) which resulted in a 'score' for each indicator in terms of whether it is (1) in full agreement with the statement, (2) in partial agreement, (3) not in agreement or (4) whether not sufficient information is available for assessing the level of agreement. More information on how the assessment was/is done is given in section 3;

• The initial assessment, in spring 2003 was done in detail, with discussions amongst the members of the project team, using templates and score cards to organize the information. In subsequent updates, only changed information was assessed. For 2009-2011, the indicators will be revisited and evaluated again;

• The resulting country reports were used for the update of 2004 which in turn were used to produce the update of 2005. For each of the updates, additional information was gathered through the experts from the

4 Although feedback will be asked, the country reports remain the sole responsibility of K.U.Leuven, i.e. it does not give the official opinion of the country, neither does it give the opinion of the Commission itself.


2010-09-12 9

INSPIRE expert committee, visit of relevant websites, reading of strategic and other relevant SDI documents, and through information collected during workshops and SDI related activities (e.g. EC GI&GIS workshops, INSPIRE Conferences). In the meantime, spontaneously, several stakeholders from different countries also sent new information in the course of the years under study. For each update the previous version of the report was modified with important changes highlighted (in a change table and in the text itself). In order to update the initial assessment (indicators), only new information was considered to change/or not its score using the same list of questions. In the current study, the 2010-2011 assessment will be treated as a 'regular' update, without reviewing all the indicators, but only those for which changes occurred.


2010-09-12 10

3 THE USE OF INDICATORS First the 32 'old' indicators from the INSPIRE State of Play are discussed, then the indicators defined in the implementing rules for monitoring and reporting. Finally we discuss how they are combined (or not).

3.1 Understanding the 32 'old' indicators Based on the ToR and the discussions during the methodology workshop it was decided not to drop any of the indicators defined in the previous INSPIRE SoP study, even if some of the information will not change anymore5, the results of the assessment remains interesting (historic) information.

However, discussions during the workshop made clear that it is necessary to clarify and make more explicit the questions used to make the assessment. Therefore, we list the indicators again in table 1 including the way the assessment is done (A=agree, P= partial agreement, N=not in agreement). The questions to be answered in the report to fill those indicators will be part of the new report template (see also old checklist SADL, 2002).

I. Organisational issues

The approach and territorial coverage of the SDI is truly national

Level of SDI 1

Relevance: the indicator does not question the importance of sub-national initiatives, but reflects the existence (or not) of a national initiative. In the beginning stage this was not obvious in some countries (e.g. BE, ES). Assessment: A - If there is a clear initiative with a name, structure or organisation responsible and or legislation/strategy at the national level N - If no such initiative can be detected - e.g. if only national GI organisations exist but no clear coordination amongst them, or if regions develop their initiatives independently. P - If there are efforts to bring together stakeholders, but it has not (yet) been formalised.

One or more components of the SDI have reached a significant level of operationality

Degree of operationality

2

Relevance: the indicator gives an overall idea of the

5 E.g. the organisational set-up is a choice of the country. Once chosen it only changes when the strategy is (completely) revised. In one particular case, i.e. Portugal in 2004, the organisational model changed, resulting in a changing score for the corresponding indicator. Also the ‘legal’ indicators are often very static, e.g. legislation related to the PSI Directive is in place or not. Once it is in place, it does not change anymore.


2010-09-12 11

degree of development. In the original indicator it was enough to have one of the building blocks to be in place, to score the indicator as "in agreement". E.g., it was enough to have a lot of metadata and a catalogue in place to be "in agreement". This remained after 2006 onwards but we gave an additional figure: 1 point for each. Assessment: Following indicators are taken into account: I8-I16; I17-I22; I23-I25; I26-I30; I31; I32 A - when for at least one of the building blocks the majority of the indicators are agreed with; for I31 and I32 the indicator should have a score "in agreement". P - when for several building blocks several (but less than half) indicators' score is "in agreement"; for I31 and I32 the indicators should be with a score "partially in agreement" N - in all other cases

3 The officially recognised or de facto coordinating body of the SDI is a NDP, i.e. a NMA or a comparable organisation (Cadastral or Land Survey Agency, i.e. a major producer of GI)

4 The officially recognised or de facto coordinating body for the SDI is an organisation controlled by data users

5 An organisation of the type ‘national GI-association’ is involved in the coordination of the SDI

Coordination

Relevance: at the time of the set-up of the study, indicator I3 and I4 were meant to see who was/is taking the lead. This information is used mainly for the typology, and does not aim to 'evaluate' the way the coordination is done. I5 explicitly asks for the involvement in the coordination of an association (which in most cases includes universities, private sector). Assessment: A - It is a simple Y - e.g. I3 - in Flanders there is a formal structure in which the users are represented; at the national level in BE, it is the NGI who is taking the lead. N - It is a simple N P - is applied when it is not so clear (e.g. ES: in the beginning, the role of IGN was not so clear). I3 and I4 can't be Y at the same time. But one can be Y and the other P since the indicators are assessed separately. It would have been better to assess them together6. Information can be found in the general description section of the country reports. Changes: It is proposed to add an indicator stating: The coordinating body is controlled by both users and producers.

6 Producers and users of spatial data are participating in the SDI

7 Only public sector actors are participating in the SDI

Participants

Relevance: I6 is meant to capture whether the SDI

6 This was a comment formulated during the workshop. However, it was decided that the indicator remains ‘as is’ in order to keep backward comparability.


2010-09-12 12

initiative actively involves (= participation, not necessarily coordination) the users (e.g. Ministries) or not; I7 tries to capture if also private sector, universities, or other stakeholders are involved. This information is not used in the assessment itself, nor in the typology. A - If answer is Y N - if answer is N P - if unclear, if there are elements that hints to agreement, others to no agreement.

II. Legal issues and funding

There is a legal instrument or framework determining the SDI-strategy or -development

Legal framework 8

Relevance: This indicator wants to capture whether there is a clear document that defines this. So the key is the document. Assessment: A: when the document could be verified P: when it is said that such strategy exists but there is no proof; or when the document does not really provide a strategy; or when legislation or such a document is under preparation N: in all other cases

There are true PPP’s or other co-financing mechanisms between public and private sector bodies with respect to the development and operation of the SDI-related projects

Public-private partnerships (PPP)

9

Relevance: This was thought to be one of the mechanisms to solve the problem of funding for the SDI. A: if Yes N: if No P: if not so clear This information is explicitly described in the corresponding section of the country report.

There is a freedom of information (FOI) act which contains specific FOI legislation for the GI-sector

Policy and legislation on access to public sector information (PSI)

10

Relevance: not directly for SDI and INSPIRE; but useful information on related legislation. A: if Yes N: if No P: if in preparation This information is explicitly described in the corresponding section of the country report. Change; Rephrase towards access and re-use

GI can specifically be protected by copyright Legal protection of GI by intellectual property rights

11

Relevance: not directly for SDI and INSPIRE; but useful information on related legislation. A: if Yes N: if No P: if in preparation


2010-09-12 13

This information is explicitly described in the corresponding section of the country report.

Privacy laws are actively being taken into account by the holders of GI

Restricted access to GI further to the legal protection of privacy

12

Relevance: not directly for SDI and INSPIRE; but useful information on related legislation. A: if Yes N: if No P: if in preparation This information is explicitly described in the corresponding section of the country report.

13

There is a framework or policy for sharing GI between public institutions

14 There are simplified and standardised licences for personal use

Data licensing

Relevance: these indicators say something on whether there is a data policy or not and whether there is a simple licensing mechanism for use other than in public or private sector (citizen). This information was often not available. A: if Yes N: if No P: if in preparation This information is explicitly described in the corresponding section of the country report. Question: add indicator on commercial use?7

15

The long-term financial security of the SDI-initiative is secured

16 There is a pricing framework for trading, using and/or commercialising GI

Funding model for the SDI and pricing policy

Relevance: funding is seen as a key issue for a sustainable SDI; the second indicator shows whether there is a pricing policy or not. A: if Yes; it means e.g. that there are specific budgets foreseen for the SDI, and they are coming back annually N: if No P: if in preparation or e.g. if the SDI can rely systematically on funding from large projects. This information is explicitly described in the corresponding section of the country report.

III. Data for the themes of the INSPIRE annexes

Scale and resolution

17 Geodatasets exist which provide a basis for contributing to the coverage of pan-Europe for the INSPIRE-selected data themes and components

7 It was not decided yet to do this, but to pay attention to this during the desktop study.


2010-09-12 14

Relevance: geo-datasets are the core for any SDI; for EU policies and cross-border environmental applications they should not only exists / be specific for a given country / region, but rather at European level. A: For almost all the themes mentioned in the data set table, data sets are identified. Especially all the 'core reference data themes should be covered. P: There are many data sets, but important themes are missing (e.g. addresses, cadastral parcels) N: If only a few data themes are covered.

The geodetic reference system and projection systems are standardised, documented and interconvertable

Geodetic reference systems and projections

18

Relevance: standardisation is important at the national level, but even more so for European and cross-border applications (they should be interconvertable, i.e. all necessary parameters should be known). A: If the answer on all sub-questions is yes: i.e. all the necessary parameters are known, documented (and publicly available). P: if there exist such systems, but the parameters are not publicly known. N: In all other cases.

There is a documented data quality control procedure applied at the level of the SDI

Quality of reference data & core thematic data

19

Relevance: data quality is a key issue in any SDI. It is not enough to have data and data access; data should match to certain quality standards. Quality is referring to positional accuracy/precision, logical consistency, completeness, …; the inclusion of user perspective/feedback; testing procedures for quality (QC); update cycles, … A: If there is a clearly described procedure (e.g. application of standard); and there is attention for almost all aspects in the QC process. P: If there is attention for some aspects; or if QC procedures are only happening at the level of individual data providers. N: If there is no such QC procedure; or if there is no attention given to this aspect.

Concern for interoperability goes beyond conversion between different data formats

Interoperability 20

Relevance: interoperability is the overall goal of the set-up of a SDI - having access to spatial data needed; be able to use the data readily in environmental and related policies. Therefore, data and technology must be able to interoperate. This issue has for a long time been limited to the aspect of data formats. However it is much more. A: If the SDI focus is clearly on technical and semantic interoperability P: If focus is only on data exchange formats N: If little attention is given (e.g., focus is only on the use of the same software)

Language and culture

21

The national language is the operational language of the SDI


2010-09-12 15

22 English is used as secondary language

Relevance: the national language is important for making access for local users easier; English is important in the European context. Mostly, we look to the language of the geo- and related portals. A: If the answer is clearly yes P: if unclear N: if the answer is clearly no Note: in some countries there are several languages needed; also languages from neighbouring countries could be relevant.

IV. Metadata for the data of the themes of the INSPIRE annexes

Metadata are produced for a significant fraction of geodatasets of the themes of the INSPIRE annexes

Availability of metadata

23

Relevance: metadata for data is a key issue in any SDI in order to discover, evaluate and use the data. The information was gathered through tables A: If metadata exist for more than half of the described data sets (table). P: If metadata exists for less than half of the data sets. N: If there are no metadata (or only occasionally), or if the metadata are not following any standard (e.g. some descriptions in readme file).

One or more standardised metadata catalogues are available covering more than one data producing agency

Metadata catalogue availability + standard

24

Relevance: a metadata catalogue / clearinghouse is key for making data discoverable; the fact that it does not cover only the data from one data provider but from several is even more important (bringing resources from different stakeholders together). A: If at least one such catalogue could be identified / named and/or described. P: If there are one or more catalogues, but only from one data provider. N: In all other cases

There is a coordinating authority for metadata implementation at the level of the SDI

Metadata implementation

25

Relevance: it was thought at the time of the start-up of the INSPIRE process that the coordination / centralisation could help to trigger the attention for metadata, key issue (but often a weak point at that time) for the SDI. Question is if this still relevant; and especially if this is the only / best organisational model to guarantee high quality metadata (e.g. why not distributed). In only a few cases this model has been applied. A: If there is clearly an authority indicated. P: If it is not so clear or if several organisations are involved. N: In all other cases (entirely distributed) Note: the indicator is kept, but not used in the


2010-09-12 16

assessment.

V. Access and other services for data and their metadata

There are one or more discovery services making it possible to search for data and services through metadata

Discovery Services 26

Relevance: requirement INSPIRE Directive A: When at least one standard service is identified / described P: When it is not so clear; or when there is a similar mechanism (but e.g. not using standards) N: All other cases Note: information also collected by MS under INSPIRE MR

There are one or more view services available for to visualise data from the themes of the INSPIRE annexes

View Services 27

Relevance: requirement INSPIRE Directive A: When at least one standard service is identified / described P: When it is not so clear; or when there is a similar mechanism (but e.g. not using standards) N: All other cases Note: before 2006, there were only 3 access services described (I26-I28), and they were named differently. Note 2: information also collected by MS under INSPIRE MR Note 3: one viewing service can work on one data set or part of a data set or even on several data sets. This is the issue of service granularity.

There are one ore more on-line download services enabling (parts of) copies of datasets

Download Services 28

Relevance: requirement INSPIRE Directive A: When at least one standard service is identified / described P: When it is not so clear; or when there is a similar mechanism (but e.g. not using standards) N: All other cases Note 1: information also collected by MS under INSPIRE MR Note 2: this does not say anything about which part of the data can be downloaded.

There are one or more transformation services enabling spatial datasets to be transformed to achieve interoperability

Transformation Services

29

Relevance: requirement INSPIRE Directive A: When at least one standard service is identified / described P: When it is not so clear; or when there is a similar mechanism (but e.g. not using standards) N: All other cases


2010-09-12 17

Note: further collect this information through a template?

There are one or more middleware services allowing data services to be invoked

Middleware (invoking) Service

30

Relevance: requirement INSPIRE Directive A: When at least one standard service is identified / described P: When it is not so clear; or when there is a similar mechanism (but e.g. not using standards) N: All other cases Note: further collect this information through a template?

VI. Standards

The SDI-initiative is devoting significant attention to standardisation issues

Standards 31

Relevance: this is also key to a good functioning SDI; standards are making it possible that the technological components work together and are the basis to reach interoperability. Standards relate to the data (semantics), the metadata and the services. A: when there is a standardisation policy/strategy document; when standards in both the fields of data (semantics, data exchange), metadata and services are applied. P: when there is only attention for e.g. the metadata standard or a specific exchange format. N: when there is only attention for the software used. Note: from 2006 onwards, the chapter was removed from the country reports; standardisation issues were described rather in the different technological chapters.

VII. Thematic environmental data

Thematic environmental data are covered by the described SDI-initiative or there is an independent thematic environmental SDI

Thematic Environmental data

32

Relevance: since INSPIRE is focusing on environmental policy or policies with a direct or indirect impact on the environment, special attention was given to the activities in the thematic field: environmental data (what correspond now mostly to annex II and III data (+ theme 9), specific portals or GI projects in the field of GI. A: When there are data sets for most (more than half) of the mentioned environmental themes (separate table); or when there is a specific SDI on one or more environmental sectors. P: When there are some data sets for the environmental themes (but less than half); or when there are several GI projects in the field N: In all other cases

Table 1: 32 indicators for the in 2006 reviewed building blocks for an SDI


2010-09-12 18

From the table(s) above, the information on the relevance, the questions/topics of attention (that should be answered) and the way of assessing the indicators should be added to the renewed country report template.

3.2 Indicators from INSPIRE M&R Table 2 gives an overview of the indicators to be collected by the Member States through their INSPIRE MR effort. The way this to be done is described in the Implementing Rules and the corresponding guidelines. The latter give more detail about how to understand the terminology used, as well as how to collect the information through an XLS (see figure 1). We assume that the resulting indicators and the figures used to calculate them (i.e. the filled template) will be available for further analysis.

Figure 1: Template used to collect information to calculate INSPIRE MR indicators Some indicators are similar to what has been collected for the first time - as a test - during the update of the previous State of Play in 2007 (with an own template provided to the 32 countries). Some indicators measure the status 'as-is' and others the conformity with the INSPIRE IR. Figure 2 gives an overview of the 8 INSPIRE MR indicators.


2010-09-12 19

Which data sets?DS i1 : Extent of spatial data sets DS i2 : Conformity to INSPIRE

MetadataMD i1 : ExistenceMD i2 : Conformity to INSPIRE

MetadataMD i1 : ExistenceMD i2 : Conformity to INSPIRE

ServicesNS i1 : Accessibility of metadataNS i2 : Accessibility of spatial data setsNS i3 : UseNS i4 : Conformity to INSPIRE

ServicesNS i1 : Accessibility of metadataNS i2 : Accessibility of spatial data setsNS i3 : UseNS i4 : Conformity to INSPIRE

Figure 2: overview of the 8 INSPIRE MR indicators The indicators that will measure the conformity of the metadata, data and services with the IR are completely new. The others are measuring elements that are (partially) measured by some of the indicators of the original INSPIRE SoP (see also section 5). There are also some specific indicators that detail the 8 INSPIRE MR. In table 2, each indicator and its specific indicators are listed with some comments and points of attention regarding the analysis. INSPIRE MR Comments / questions

1. MDi1 - Monitoring the existence of metadata for data sets and services

This overall indicator relates to both data sets and services. This should be taken into account when assessing the results.

MDi11, MDi12, MDi13 - Monitoring the existence of metadata for data

sets from Annex I, II and III respectively

The information for these specific indicators is collected per data set which belongs to one or more themes of one or more annexes. This allows (eventually) calculating specific indicators per theme.

MDi14 – Monitoring the existence of metadata for services

This is a critical factor: missing metadata for services means that those services can not be found and used within the INSPIRE framework. Particular attention should go to this point when analyzing the figures from the Member States The information for this specific indicator eventually allows calculating specific indicators per type of service

2. MDi2 - Monitoring the conformity of metadata

See general remark below

MDi21, MDi22, MDi23 - Monitoring the conformity of metadata for

data sets from Annex I, II and III respectively

The information for these specific indicators is collected per data set which belongs to one or more themes of one or more annexes. This allows (eventually) calculating specific indicators per theme.

MDi24 - Monitoring the conformity of spatial data services

The information for this specific indicator eventually allows calculating specific indicators per type of service

3. DSi1 - Monitoring the geographical coverage of

Special attention should be devoted to the correct understanding of 'relevant' area


2010-09-12 20

spatial data sets

DSi11, DSi12, DSi13 - Monitoring the geographical coverage of

spatial data sets from Annex I, II and III respectively

4. DSi2 - Monitoring the conformance of spatial data sets


DSi21, DSi22, DSi23 - Monitoring the conformity of spatial data sets

from Annex I, II and III respectively

5. NSi1 - Monitoring the accessibility of metadata through discovery services

This overall indicator relates to both data sets and services. This should be taken into account when assessing the results.

NSi11 - Monitoring the accessibility of metadata of data sets through discovery services

The information for this specific indicator is collected per data set which belongs to one or more themes of one or more annexes. This allows (eventually) calculating specific indicators per annex and/or per theme.

NSi12 – Monitoring the accessibility of metadata of services through discovery

services

The information for this specific indicator eventually allows calculating specific indicators per type of service

6. NSi2 - Monitoring the accessibility of spatial data sets through view and download services

The overall indicator only refers to spatial data sets.

NSi21 - Monitoring the accessibility of spatial data sets

through view services

The information for this specific indicator is collected per data set which belongs to one or more themes of one or more annexes. This allows (eventually) calculating specific indicators per theme.

NSi21 - Monitoring the accessibility of spatial data sets

through download services

The information for this specific indicator is collected per data set which belongs to one or more themes of one or more annexes. This allows (eventually) calculating specific indicators per theme.

7. NSi3 - Monitoring the use of spatial data services

We should think about some rules on how to interpret the collected figures. In the IR it is said that the MS shall deliver the annual number of all services. How to interpret (e.g. there is a difference between the figures for transformation services as compared to viewing services). Also, normalisation of the figures is needed. We need additional information for this which will be asked during the survey in the second year.

NSi31, NSi32, NSi33, NSi34 - Monitoring the use of discovery,

viewing, download, transformation and invoking services respectively

Same as for the overall indicator

8. NSi4 - Monitoring the conformity of spatial data services


NSi41, NSi42, NSi43, NSi44 - Monitoring the conformity of

discovery, viewing, download, transformation and invoking

services respectively

Same as for the overall indicator

Table 2: Overview of the 8 INSPIRE MR indicators and their specific indicators


2010-09-12 21

The indicators related to the conformity of the different components of the INSPIRE infrastructure are completely new and they need special attention in the assessment:

• There are not yet clear guidelines on how to ‘measure’ conformity of the metadata, the data specs and services. It is up to the Member States to state whether they are conformant or not.

• Therefore we might need to ask the Member States additional information on how they have done this, probably during the second detailed survey.

The way the conformity is ‘measured’ in the MS should be taken into account when performing the assessment at EU level (e.g. there is a difference between ‘manually’ indicating if a component is conformant and testing the conformity).

The assessment of the INSPIRE MR indicators will be done in a similar way to what has been done for the update of the INSPIRE SoP 2007. Since we speak about figures for each indicator and specific indicator, we will analyse them comparing European averages with scores for Member States. In the second year, we also will compare the evolution over time. When performing the assessment we will be very careful and take into consideration issues like: missing/incomplete information, bias on the figures due to particular reasons, explanatory information from the official country report, etc.

The indicator and specific indicators related to the usage of the services will also need special attention. First of all, the figures will require one or another form of normalisation, e.g. by recalculating them against population figures. Secondly, examples should be collected in order to better understand who is using them and for which purpose.

3.3 Mapping the two approaches Mapping of two assessment approaches (two series of indicators) is the process of integrating them to have an overall view including the development over time even if the approach has shifted. Such a process is not simple, even not necessarily feasible, at least not necessarily to the full extent. A first test was done in 2006 (see summary report 2006). The conclusion was that the INSPIRE SoP and INSPIRE MR lists of indicators have some 'common' parts, but that even these 'common' parts have different meanings (goals). So mapping should be done very careful.

Following could be seen as the ‘common’ indicators: INSPIRE SoP INSPIRE MR

I17 - Geodatasets exist which provide a basis for contributing to the coverage of pan-Europe for the INSPIRE-selected data themes and components

DSi1 - Monitoring the extent of spatial data sets

I23 - Metadata are produced for a significant fraction of geodatasets of reference data and core thematic data

MDi11, MDi12, MDi13 - Monitoring the existence of metadata for data sets

I26- There are one or more discovery services making it NSi11 - Monitoring the


2010-09-12 22

possible to search for data and services through metadata

accessibility of metadata for data sets

I27- There are one or more view services available for to visualise data from the themes of the INSPIRE annexes

NSi21 - Monitoring the accessibility of data sets

I28 - There are one ore more on-line download services enabling to download (parts of) datasets

NSi22 - Monitoring the accessibility of data sets

I32 - Thematic environmental data are covered by the described SDI-initiative or there is an independent thematic environmental SDI

DSi1 - Monitoring the extent of spatial data sets

Table 3: 'common' indicators between the INSPIRE SoP and INSPIRE MR approach Although there are some indicators that refer to the same type of information, the way to capture and represent the information is different. They clearly relate only to the technological parts of the infrastructure. So in reality the common part is rather limited. Mapping is proposed to be done in the following way:

• How combining the information from the SoP and the information from INSPIRE MR? It is proposed that in the assessment matrices colours/categories remain (agree, partially agree, no agreement), but that figures are added from the INSPIRE MR for the 'common' indicators. This is the best way to keep the information from both the SoP & INSPIRE MR

o However when interpreting the information it should be kept in mind that the figures refer only to the INSPIRE ‘part’ of the infrastructure, while the SoP categories refer (but not always) to the whole NSDI.

• Based on the discussions during the workshop it is decided not to review the SoP indicators when the figures from the INSPIRE MR ‘contradict’ them: e.g. according to the SoP LI and FI had for years a very good score on part of the data sets that has metadata, while according to the 2007 survey less than 30% of the reported data sets had metadata.

o Not all the data sets of the NSDI might be reported in the INSPIRE MR (e.g. data sets falling outside the scope of INSPIRE can be part of the NSDI and influence the result).. The INSPIRE MR indicators might be used to underpin a scoring, not to reverse a scoring (and consequently, the changed scoring of 2007 should be turned back).

• In some cases the indicators of the SoP (partially) match only with some of the specific indicators of INSPIRE MR, e.g. those related to the existence of metadata which only covered metadata for data sets in the SoP (this is a specific indicator in INSPIRE MR).


2010-09-12 23

4 ASSESSING THE RESULTS

4.1 The use of matrices The overall assessment is done by using status matrices and change matrices (see Vandenbroucke et al., 2008). By ‘reading’ the matrices one can assess the overall status and see the components that are more or less developed and thus need more or less attention. The matrices can be read and used in three different ways8:

• By looking at the overall picture of each matrix, one can visually see which building blocks are more or less developed;

• By analysing the rows in the matrix which correspond to countries, focus can be on the overall scoring for a given country, or a scoring for a given building block.

• By analysing the columns in the matrix, which correspond to individual indicators, it possible to assess the overall status in Europe regarding that indicator. E.g., for 2007 we can see that "in 21/32 countries the long-term financial security of the SDI initiative is not secured at all (I.15)" (Vandenbroucke et al., 2008).

First of all, two sets of separate matrices will be prepared, one with the INSPIRE SoP indicators and one with the INSPIRE MR indicators (as asked in the CfT), then a combined matrix including both. In 2010, two change matrices will be prepared for the 32 'old' indicators: i.e. for 2007-2009, and for 2003-2009. The same will be repeated in 2011 for 2009-2010 and 2003-2010. For the INSPIRE MR indicators, a change matrix can only be elaborated in 2011 for the comparison between 2009 and 2010. However, we should pay attention to the fact that we will have in 2010 (for the status of 2009) very incomplete figures for some of the INSPIRE MR indicators. This due the fact that some of the IR are not established yet, and therefore, collection of the necessary information and the related scoring of the indicator will not be possible.

It is also proposed to describe the assessment in more detail (in the form of comments and conclusions), as well as by describing or highlighting in more detail some elements from the country reports to better understand what we can ‘read’ from the matrices. Special attention will be given to aspects that seem - at first sight - to be contradictory (e.g. difference between some indicators of the SoP and of the INSPIRE MR process. Also the fact that all the indicators will be revisited and re-scored can result in some potential contradictions.

From all this we should then indicate some points of attention in the form of recommendations.

8 This is especially interesting for the status matrices, although it can be done for the change matrices as well.


2010-09-12 24

4.2 The country typology The primary goal of the typology as elaborated for the 2003 report and repeated each year, is to recognize the different types of NSDI. In the typology, we emphasized the matters of coordination since coordination is tackled in different ways according to the political and administrative organization of the country. The way an SDI-initiative is coordinated is undoubtedly one of its most pertinent characteristics (see also Burrough and Masser, 1998; Masser 1999; 2005). Distinction was made between those NSDI that were led by National Data Producers (NDP) and those where this was rather led by an important user or users association. This is the first level of the typology.

Level I Level II Level III

Operational

Partially operational

Users involved

Not operational

Operational


Led by a National Data Producer (NDP)

Users not involved

Not operational

Operational


Formal mandate

Not operational

Operational


Not led by a National Data Producer (NDP)

No formal mandate

Not operational Table 4: typology at 3 levels SDI led by National Data Producers (NDP). From the more complete description of the status of SDI for 2003, it was obvious that in almost every European country one organization of the NDP type (NMA, Land Survey Service, Cadastral Agency) is present having the formal mandate to, amongst others, maintain the national geodetic reference system, produce topographic reference data and – often – coordinate data production and dissemination with other players. As such the NDP has an implicit mandate to set up an SDI, albeit mainly from the producers’ perspective. We considered this as the most basic level of SDI. At the second level of the typology the involvement of the users was assessed. User communities may or may not be active in steering committees and/or advisory boards for the NDP and NSDI. A GI-association may or may not exist, be active or not.

SDI not led by National Data Producers (NDP). We distinguished countries with NDP type of GI-coordination from those where, of course NDP are also present, but where the NMA or another traditional data producer is not the main coordinator of the NSDI. In those countries the SDI is rather driven by a council of Ministries or administrative departments, a GI-association or another type of partnership of – mainly – data users. Fundamental to this type of SDI-initiative is that the participants are willing to share each other’s spatial data and those acquired from third parties and to remove the obstacles preventing this. From this perspective, participants are mainly


2010-09-12 25

users of GI which is acquired from the data producers. The initiative may result in a joint framework for negotiation of the SDI-participants with the data providers for optimal conditions of data characteristics, conditions or licenses for use and re-use, price, access. Such partnerships may be based on (1) a formal mandate or law, (2) no formal mandate (mostly voluntary contributions or ad hoc agreements). As such, at the second level of the typology the existence or absence of a formal mandate is considered.

In order to make the typology also useful for monitoring purposes, the degree to which the SDI is operational, was taken into account (third level of the typology). The latter is a rather subjective (overall) assessment of the degree of development of the NSDI, which is based on the assessment of the building blocks of the SDI as described in the assessment tables (i.e. technological as well as organisational). It does not mean that all components of an ‘ideal’ SDI are in place. It rather means that production of GI is coordinated to at least a certain extent and that users of GI are supported in finding and re-using GI through SDI-mechanisms. It also means that at least parts of the technical components are in place (data, metadata and services).

For the assessment 2009-2011, the same typology will be applied, taking into account specific, new information regarding the way INSPIRE is led, the degree to which users are involved in INSPIRE, and the degree of operationality of INSPIRE. It will be analysed if two classifications, i.e. one based on the evaluation of the NSDI, and the second based on the evaluation of the of INSPIRE implementation, give different results.


2010-09-12 26

5 CONCLUSIONS • The methodology is focused on assessment of the status of the

European NSDI and INSPIRE implementation, taking into account the results from the INSPIRE MR.

• The general approach remains the same as in the previous INSPIRE SoP study (2003-2007), using a system of indicators which are scored based on structured information that is collected through country reports.

• The European assessment is based on all the collected indicators, including those from INSPIRE MR. The assessment will result in a series of conclusions, the highlight of good practices and finally to some recommendations underpinned by the material found in the 34 country reports.

• Mapping between the INSPIRE SoP and the INSPIRE MR is only possible to a limited extent, and should be done with care.

• Finally, the typology aims rather at characterising the way of working, rather than supporting the assessment itself.


2010-09-12 27

6 REFERENCES European Commission (2007). Directive 2007/2/EC of the European

Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE), L108/1.

European Commission (2009). Commission Decision of 5 June 2009 implementing Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards monitoring and reporting (notified under document number C(2009) 4199)

Masser, I. (2007). Building European Spatial Data Infrastructures, Redlands, ESRI California: ESRI Press.

Masser, I. (2005). GIS Worlds, Creating Spatial Data Infrastructures, Redlands, California: ESRI Press.

Masser, I. (1999). All shapes and sizes: The first generation of national spatial data infrastructures, International Journal of Geographical Information Science 13(1): 67–84.

Nebert, D. D. (Ed.) (2000). Developing Spatial Data Infrastructures: The SDI Cookbook, version 1.0, at http://www.gsdi.org/pubs/cookbook/Default.htm, [accessed 3 March 2008].

Nebert, D. D. (Ed.) (2004). Developing Spatial Data Infrastructures: The SDI Cookbook, version 2.0, at http://www.gsdi.org/docs2004/Cookbook/cookbookV2.0.pdf, [accessed 3 March 2008].

Vandenbroucke, D., K. Janssen and J. Van Orshoven (2008). “INSPIRE State of Play: Development of the NSDI in 32 European countries between 2002 and 2007”, paper at the GSDI-10 Conference, St Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago.

Vandenbroucke, D., M.L.. Zambon, J. Crompvoets and H. Dufourmont (2008). “INSPIRE Directive: Specific requirements to monitor its implementation”. In Crompvoets J. (Ed.), Multi-view framework to assess National Spatial Data Infrastructures (NSDI). In preparation.

Vandenbroucke, D. and K. Janssen (2008). “INSPIRE State of Play: Generic approach to assess the status of NSDIs”. In Crompvoets J. (Ed.), Multi-view framework to assess National Spatial Data Infrastructures (NSDI). In preparation.

Vandenbroucke, D. and K. Janssen (2007). Spatial Data Infrastructures in Europe: State of Play 2006. Summary report by the Spatial Applications Division, K.U.Leuven R&D, at http://www.ec-gis.org/inspire/reports/stateofplay2006/INSPIRE-SoP-2006%20v4.2.pdf, [accessed 3 March 2008], p49 + 32 annexed reports.


2010-09-12 28

Vandenbroucke, D. (2005). Spatial Data Infrastructures in Europe: State of Play Spring 2005. Summary report by the Spatial Applications Division, K.U.Leuven R&D, at http://www.ec-gis.org/inspire/reports/stateofplay2005/rpact05v42.pdf, [accessed 3 March 2008], p32 + 32 annexed reports.

Van Orshoven, J., K. Janssen, C. Bamps and D. Vandenbroucke (2004). Spatial Data Infrastructures in Europe: State of Play Spring 2004. Summary report by the Spatial Applications Division, K.U.Leuven R&D, at http://www.ec-gis.org/inspire/reports/stateofplay2004/SUR04/rpact4v2.pdf, [accessed 3 March 2008], 24 p. + 32 annexed reports.

Van Orshoven, J., P. Beusen, M. Hall, C. Bamps, D. Vandenbroucke en K. Janssen (2003). Spatial Data Infrastructures in Europe: State of Play Spring 2003. Summary report by the Spatial Applications Division, K.U.Leuven R&D, at http://www.ec-gis.org/inspire/reports/stateofplay/rpact3v4.pdf, [accessed 3 March 2008], 41 p. + 41 annexed reports.

inspire & nsdi state of play:...

Documents