Annex XX
INSPIRE Indicators
-------------------------
MDi1 - a) How is the MDi1 indicator (Existence of Metadata) collected?
a) automated collection through
metadata information
4
25%
b) through other automated process
4
25%
c) manually
8
50%
MDi1 - b) If "b" in the previous question, could you describe the process?
Germany: Some of the German states collect the monitoring information automatically through metadata, others
collect the information manually.
UK: An automated management information report is run against our CKAN database (data.gov.uk). This produces
a series of CSV reports. We take these reports and manually process them to populate the EC monitoring
spreadsheet. This provides the indicator.
Anonymous: question is not clear: data are collected manually, indicator is computed in the EXCEL-file
MDi1 - c) Please provide comments regarding the indicator MDi1
Spain: We don´t check it
Cyprus: Delay in collecting the information.
Greece: There is no way to make sure that the information we collect manually is real.
Belgium: At this moment, the information Existence of Metadata is collected manually using the monitoring Excel
file which is distributed to the data providers. When retrieving the main part of the monitoring information through
the CSW, this indicator will become obsolete (will always be 100%).
Finland: Information on non-existing metadata can't be collected automatically.
France: easy : by construction, the result is 100% as we check that every known datasets were in the FR SDI
Sweden: As only metadata published in the national geoportal is considered, this indicator is indeed redundant,
especially from an automatic dashboard perspective. In Sweden, all data custodians are required by law to publish
metadata for their data and services in the national geoportal. This means that this will always be 100 %
UK: We feel this indicator is not useful, in our case it is always 1 as we can only report a dataset or service if
metadata exists due to the nature of our SDI.
Slovak republic: All indicators are collected via webform into database from which xls report is exported based on
monitoring template. Anyway after export there is still need for manual check and update.
Anonymous: not useful in future; you ask for the conformance to legal requirements - I am not sure if this makes
sense
MDi1 - d) Should the indicator MDi1 be included in the dashboard?
a) yes
10
67%
b) no
5
33%
c) Yes under certain conditions
0
0%
Other
0
0%
MDi1,1/2/3 - a) How are the MDi1,1/2/3 indicators (Existence of Metadata for annexes I,II and III)
collected?
a) automated collection through
metadata information
4
27%
b) through other automated process
3
20%
c) manually
8
53%
MDi1,1/2/3 - b) If "b" in the previous question, could you describe the process?
Germany: Some of the German states collect the monitoring information automatically through metadata, others
collect the information manually.
UK: Some of the German states collect the monitoring information automatically through metadata, others collect
the information manually.
Anonymous: question is not clear: data are collected manually, indicator is computed in the EXCEL-file
MDi1,1/2/3 - c) Please provide comments regarding the indicators MDi1,1/2/3
Spain: We don´t check it
Cyprus: Serious delay in collection. Useful information.
Belgium: At this moment, the information Existence of Metadata is collected manually using the monitoring Excel
file which is distributed to the data providers. When retrieving the main part of the monitoring information through
the CSW, this indicator will become obsolete (will always be 100%).
France: easy to compute as we use the validator integrated in the national geocatalogue, but strongly difficult to
understand as one can affect a dataset to many themes. Furthermore, many producers don't understand to which
theme the dataset belongs
Sweden: The same comments as for the question above [As only metadata published in the national geoportal is
considered, this indicator is indeed redundant, especially from an automatic dashboard perspective. In Sweden, all
data custodians are required by law to publish metadata for their data and services in the national geoportal. This
means that this will always be 100 %]
Anonymous: not useful in future. You ask for the conformance to legal requirements - I am not sure if this makes
sense
MDi1,1/2/3 - d) Should the indicators MDi1,1/2/3 be included in the dash board?
a) yes
9
60%
b) no
4
27%
c) Yes under certain conditions
2
13%
Other
0
0%
MDi1,4 - a) How is the MDi1,4 indicator (Existence of Metadata for spatial data services) collected?
a) automated collection through
metadata information
3
20%
b) through other automated process
4
27%
c) manually
8
53%
MDi1,4 - b) If "b" in the previous question, could you describe the process?
Germany: Some of the German states collect the monitoring information automatically through metadata, others
collect the information manually.
UK: An automated management information report is run against our CKAN database (data.gov.uk). This produces
a series of CSV reports. We take these reports and manually process them to populate the EU monitoring
spreadsheet. This provides the indicator.
Anonymous: see above [not useful in future. You ask for the conformance to legal requirements - I am not sure if
this makes sense]
MDi1,4 - c) Please provide comments regarding the indicator MDi1,4
Spain: We don´t check it
Cyprus: Useful. Rather hard to collect.
Belgium: At this moment, the information Existence of Metadata is collected manually using the monitoring Excel
file which is distributed to the data providers. When retrieving the main part of the monitoring information through
the CSW, this indicator will become obsolete (will always be 100%).
Finland: Information on non-existing metadata can't be collected automatically.
Sweden: The same comments as for the question above [As only metadata published in the national geoportal is
considered, this indicator is indeed redundant, especially from an automatic dashboard perspective. In Sweden, all
data custodians are required by law to publish metadata for their data and services in the national geoportal. This
means that this will always be 100 %]
Anonymous: see above [not useful in future. You ask for the conformance to legal requirements - I am not sure if
this makes sense]
MDi1,4 - d) Should the indicators MDi1,4 be included in the dash board?
a) yes
10
71%
b) no
3
21%
c) Yes under certain conditions
1
7%
Other
0
0%
MDi2 - a) How is the MDi2 indicator (Conformity of metadata) collected?
a) automated collection through
metadata information
3
21%
b) through other automated process
3
21%
c) manually
8
57%
MDi2 - b) If "b" in the previous question, could you describe the process?
Poland: The information is taken from our National Geoportal - validated files
Finland: Metadata validity is tested one by one with EU commission validator.
Germany: Some of the German states collect the monitoring information automatically through metadata, others
collect the information manually.
UK: We fill in the field in the excel spreadsheet manually.
MDi2 - c) Please provide comments regarding the indicator MDi2
Spain: We don´t check it
Cyprus: Useful. Rather hard to collect.
France: easy to compute as we use the validator integrated in the national geocatalogue
The Netherlands: we prefer one EU validation tool used by each MS the monitoring of this indicator should be
based on this
Sweden: Metadata is validated before published in the national geoportal which means that the metadata
published are always according to the INSPIRE requirements
UK: Metadata is only harvested to our SDI if it passes strict validation. Only records within our SDI are reported in
the monitoring report, so the answer to this indicator is always 1.
MDi2 - d) Should the indicator MDi2 be included in the dash board?
a) yes
10
67%
b) no
3
20%
c) Yes under certain conditions
2
13%
Other
0
0%
MDi2,1/2/3 - a) How are the MDi2,1/2/3 indicators (Conformity of metadata for annexes I,II and III)
collected?
a) automated collection through
metadata information
4
29%
b) through other automated process
2
14%
c) manually
8
57%
MDi2,1/2/3 - b) If "b" in the previous question, could you describe the process?
Germany: Some of the German states collect the monitoring information automatically through metadata, others
collect the information manually.
UK: We fill in the field in the excel spreadsheet manually.
MDi2,1/2/3 - c) Please provide comments regarding the indicators MDi2,1/2/3
Spain: We don´t check it
Cyprus: Useful. Time consuming collection.
France: Same issue than for MDi1 1/2/3 [easy to compute as we use the validator integrated in the national
geocatalogue, but strongly difficult to understand as one can affect a dataset to many themes. Furthermore, many
producers don't understand to which theme the dataset belongs]
The Netherlands: we prefer one EU validation tool used by each MS the monitoring of this indicator should be
based on this
Sweden: The same comments as for the question above [Metadata is validated before published in the national
geoportal which means that the metadata published are always according to the INSPIRE requirements]
UK: Metadata is only harvested to our SDI if it passes strict validation. Only records within our SDI are reported in
the monitoring report so the answer to this indicator is always 1.
MDi2,1/2/3 - d) Should the indicators MDi2,1/2/3 be included in the dash board?
a) yes
9
53%
b) no
4
27%
c) Yes under certain conditions
2
20%
Other
0
0%
MDi2,4 - a) How is the MDi2,4 indicator (Conformity of metadata for spatial data services) collected?
a) automated collection through
metadata information
3
21%
b) through other automated process
3
21%
c) manually
8
57%
MDi2,4 - b) If "b" in the previous question, could you describe the process?
Finland: Metadata validity is tested one by one with EU commission validator.
Germany: Some of the German states collect the monitoring information automatically through metadata, others
collect the information manually.
UK: We fill in the field in the excel spreadsheet manually.
MDi2,4 - c) Please provide comments regarding the indicator MDi2,4
Spain: We don´t check it
Cyprus: Time consuming.
The Netherlands: we prefer one EU validation tool used by each MS the monitoring of this indicator should be
based on this
Sweden: The same comments as for the question above [Metadata is validated before published in the national
geoportal which means that the metadata published are always according to the INSPIRE requirements]
UK: Metadata is only harvested to our SDI if it passes strict validation, as only records within our SDI are reported in
the monitoring report the answer to this indicator is always 1.
MDi2,4 - d) Should the indicators MDi2,4 be included in the dash board?
a) yes
10
67%
b) no
3
20%
c) Yes under certain conditions
2
13%
Other
0
0%
DSi1 - a) How is the DSi1 indicator (Geographical coverage of spatial data sets) collected?
a) automated collection through
metadata information
1
6%
b) through other automated process
2
13%
13
81%
c) manually
DSi1 - b) If "b" in the previous question, could you describe the process?
Anonymous: see above (not useful in future. You ask for the conformance to legal requirements - I am not sure if
this makes sense)
DSi1 - c) Please provide comments regarding the indicator DSi1
Poland: difficult in collecting
Spain: We think, there will be a list of official geographical coverage. For instance the list of Eurostat surface
Cyprus: Useful. Time consuming.
Italy: time consuming and not relevant
Finland: This information is hard to collect. Possibly not very useful information because INSPIRE itself doesn't
require collecting new data.
France: impossible to get it at a reasonable cost. We never gave this indicator as we do not know how to get it.
Germany: The data providers have difficulties in understanding the indicator, especially what is meant by actual
and relevant area. The required information to calculate the indicator can't be derived from metadata. This
indicator is not very feasible to report the implementation status.
The Netherlands: it can be calculated if in the metadata the administrative unit it covers is added
Sweden: An extra metadata element has been included in the national metadata catalogue. The data custodians
are required to fill this information in. This makes it easy to extract this information from the catalogue. See also
the comment under D-B 10 [The information for “relevant area” and “actual area” in particular. The indicator
doesn’t provide much information at all. Assume there are 250+ datasets on the list, which I think is a very modest
assumption, all being captured to 100 % of its intended coverage. The overall indicator will then also show 100 %.
One additional dataset will, for the short time data capture is in progress not change that overall 100 % significantly
(20 % captured = 99.7 %, 50 % captured = 99.8 %, etc.). Also the indicator for usage of services need to be
considered. This indicator cannot be captured automatically from the metadata. Some indicators are also redundant
as they obviously exists, for instance will metadata always exist if it is extracted from the INSPIRE geoportal]
UK: This indicator is problematic for us as the only way we can collect it is to request our data providers provide it
manually - and then we add it to the monitoring return manually. In previous years this hasn't been problematic as
we have had low numbers of and experienced data publishers.
However with the publication over a large quantity of aII data from a large number of less mature data publishers
in 2013 this has become exceptionally burdensome. We are not able to provide this indicator in 2014.
Anonymous: indicator is usually 100%
DSi1 - d) Should the indicator DSi1 be included in the dash board?
a) yes
5
33%
b) no
8
53%
c) Yes under certain conditions
1
7%
Other
1
7%
DSi1,1/2/3 - a) How are the DSi1,1/2/3 indicators (Geographical coverage of spatial data sets) collected?
a) automated collection through
metadata information
1
7%
b) through other automated process
1
7%
13
87%
c) manually
DSi1,1/2/3 - b) If "b" in the previous question, could you describe the process?
France: impossible to get it at a reasonable cost. We never gave this indicator as we do not know how to get it.
DSi1,1/2/3 - c) Please provide comments regarding the indicator DSi1
Spain: We don´t check it
Cyprus: Useful. Time consuming.
Italy: time consuming and not relevant
Belgium: The value "Geographical coverage of spatial data sets" is useful and interesting for an individual dataset.
You can see if a dataset is complete, or under construction and you can see the progress over the years. The surplus
value of the indicator however, is not clear. What do we learn from this indicator? What is the purpose?
Finland: This information is hard to collected. Possibly not very useful information because INSPIRE itself doesn't
require collecting new data.
France: See above [impossible to get it at a reasonable cost. We never gave this indicator as we do not know how
to get it]
Germany: The data providers have difficulties in understanding the indicator, especially what is meant by actual
and relevant area. The required information to calculate the indicator can't be derived from metadata. This
indicator is not very feasible to report the implementation status.
Sweden: The same comments as for the question above [An extra metadata element has been included in the
national metadata catalogue. The data custodians are required to fill this information in. This makes it easy to
extract this information from the catalogue. See also the comment under D-B 10 (The information for “relevant
area” and “actual area” in particular. The indicator doesn’t provide much information at all. Assume there are 250+
datasets on the list, which I think is a very modest assumption, all being captured to 100 % of its intended coverage.
The overall indicator will then also show 100 %. One additional dataset will, for the short time data capture is in
progress not change that overall 100 % significantly (20 % captured = 99.7 %, 50 % captured = 99.8 %, etc.). Also
the indicator for usage of services need to be considered. This indicator cannot be captured automatically from the
metadata. Some indicators are also redundant as they obviously exists, for instance will metadata always exist if it
is extracted from the INSPIRE geoportal)]
UK: This indicator is problematic for us as the only way we can collect it is to request our data providers provide it
manually - and then we add it to the monitoring return manually. In previous years this hasn't been problematic as
we have had low numbers of and experienced data publishers.
However with the publication over a large quantity of aII data from a large number of less mature data publishers
in 2013 this has become exceptionally burdensome. We are not able to provide this indicator in 2014.
DSi1,1/2/3 - d) Should the indicators DSi1,1/2/3 be included in the dash board?
a) yes
4
27%
b) no
8
53%
c) Yes under certain conditions
1
7%
Other
2
13%
DSi2 - a) How is the DSi2 indicator (Conformity of spatial data sets) collected?
a) automated collection through
metadata information
3
19%
b) through other automated process
3
19%
10
63%
c) manually
DSi2 - b) If "b" in the previous question, could you describe the process?
Germany: Some of the German states collect the monitoring information automatically through metadata, others
collect the information manually.
Anonymous: question is not clear: data are collected manually, indicator is computed in the EXCEL-file
DSi2 - c) Please provide comments regarding the indicator DSi2
Spain: We don´t check it
Cyprus: Useful. Time consuming.
Belgium: All MS should use the same validation tools, which should be provided by the EC. It is discussable if only
Y/N should appear in the dashboard per dataset/service, or maybe a percentage (e.g. 90% conform). Of course, this
depends on the information you get back from the validation tools. Ideally, the dashboard should be connected
with the validation tools, and perform a validation test on request or automatically on predefined times. Besides
that, the validation tools should evidently be available ‘off line’ (meaning disconnected from the dashboard) for
testing.
Finland: Conformity information is included in the metadata and is easily available there but this information can
be provided without doing any validation on the actual data. The lack of validation perhaps makes this information
a bit unreliable.
France: This indicator is under the producer's responsibility
The Netherland: we prefer one EU validation tool used by each MS the monitoring of this indicator shoul be based
on this
Sweden: The data custodians fill this in when publishing metadata for a dataset or service, as required by the IR for
metadata. Current problems are the three options according to the IR whereby the option “not evaluated” isn’t
catered for by the ISO standard used for metadata. There is a workaround for this, though
UK: We have not provided this indicator yet as we have not considered conformity of data. We would anticipate we
would extract this from discovery metadata.
Anonymous: the only really useful indicator until 2020
DSi2 - d) Should the indicator DSi2 be included in the dash board?
a) yes
13
81%
b) no
0
0%
c) Yes under certain conditions
3
19%
Other
0
0%
DSi2,1/1/3 - a) How are the DSi2,1/1/3 indicators (Conformity of spatial data sets) collected?
a) automated collection through
metadata information
4
27%
b) through other automated process
2
13%
c) manually
9
60%
DSi2,1/2/3 - b) If "b" in the previous question, could you describe the process?
Germany: Some of the German states collect the monitoring information automatically through metadata, others
collect the information manually.
DSi2,1/2/3 - c) Please provide comments regarding the indicators DSi2,1/1/3
Spain: We don´t check it
Cyprus: Useful. Time consuming.
Finland: Conformity information is included in the metadata and is easily available there but this information can
be provided without doing any validation on the actual data. The lack of validation perhaps makes this information
a bit unreliable.
France: Idem [This indicator is under the producer's responsibility]
The Netherlands: we prefer one EU validation tool used by each MS the monitoring of this indicator should be
based on this
Sweden: The same comments as for the question above [The data custodians fill this in when publishing metadata
for a dataset or service, as required by the IR for metadata. Current problems are the three options according to the
IR whereby the option “not evaluated” isn’t catered for by the ISO standard used for metadata. There is a
workaround for this, though]
UK: We have not provided this indicator yet as we have not considered conformity of data. We would anticipate we
would extract this from discovery metadata.
DSi2,1/1/3 - d) Should the indicators DSi2,1/1/3 be included in the dash board?
a) yes
13
81%
b) no
0
0%
c) Yes under certain conditions
3
19%
Other
0
0%
NSi1 - a) How is the NSi1 indicator (Accessibility of metadata through discovery services) collected?
a) automated collection through
metadata information
4
25%
b) through other automated process
3
19%
c) manually
9
56%
NSi1 - b) If "b" in the previous question, could you describe the process?
Germany: Some of the German states collect the monitoring information automatically through metadata, others
collect the information manually.
UK: We fill in the field in the excel spreadsheet manually.
Anonymous: see above [the only really useful indicator until 2020]
NSi1 - c) Please provide comments regarding the indicator NSi1
Spain: We don´t check it
Cyprus: Useful. Time consuming.
Belgium: This indicator will become obsolete if dashboard retrieves information via the discovery services.
Finland: This indicator is overlapping with MDi1 but both might be useful still.
France: Idem MDi1 [easy : by construction, the result is 100% as we check that every known datasets were in the FR
SDI]
The Netherlands: if the monitoring is based on the content of the discovery service this indicator is not needed; if it
exists in the discovery it is in the monitoring, otherwise not
Sweden: As the information is derived from the national metadata catalogue, it is automatically derived.
UK: Only records within our SDI central catalogue are reported in the monitoring report the answer to this indicator
is always 1
Anonymous: not useful in future. you ask for the conformance to legal requirements - I am not sure if this makes
sense
NSi1 - d) Should the indicator NSi1 be included in the dash board?
a) yes
8
53%
b) no
4
27%
c) Yes under certain conditions
3
20%
Other
0
0%
NSi1,1 - a) How is the NSi1,1 indicator (Accessibility of metadata through discovery services - possibility
to search for spatial data set) collected?
a) automated collection through
metadata information
4
27%
b) through other automated process
2
13%
c) manually
9
60%
NSi1,1 - b) If "b" in the previous question, could you describe the process?
Germany: Some of the German states collect the monitoring information automatically through metadata, others
collect the information manually.
UK: We fill in the field in the excel spreadsheet manually
NSi1,1 - c) Please provide comments regarding the indicator NSi1,1
Spain: We don´t check it
Cyprus: Useful. Time consuming.
Finland: Information on non-existing metadata can't be collected automatically.
France: Idem MDi1 [easy : by construction, the result is 100% as we check that every known datasets were in the FR
SDI]
The Netherland: this is always the case; the discovery service is harvested in the EU INSPIRE portal
Sweden: The same comments as for the question above [As the information is derived from the national metadata
catalogue, it is automatically derived]
UK: Because all metadata included in our monitoring return is drawn from our SDI's central catalogue, our answer
for this is always 1
NSi1,1 - d) Should the indicator NSi1,1 be included in the dash board?
a) yes
9
60%
b) no
4
27%
c) Yes under certain conditions
2
13%
Other
0
0%
NSi1,2 - a) How is the NSi1,2 indicator (Accessibility of metadata through discovery services - possibility
to search for spatial data services) collected?
a) automated collection through
metadata information
4
29%
b) through other automated process
2
14%
c) manually
8
57%
NSi1,2 - b) If "b" in the previous question, could you describe the process?
Germany: Some of the German states collect the monitoring information automatically through metadata, others
collect the information manually.
UK: We fill in the field in the excel spreadsheet manually.
NSi1,2 - c) Please provide comments regarding the indicator NSi1,2
Spain: We don´t check it
Cyprus: Useful.
Finland: Information on non-existing metadata can't be collected automatically.
France: no issue
The Netherlands: this is always the case; the discovery service is harvested in the EU INSPIRE portal
Sweden: The same comments as for the question above [As the information is derived from the national metadata
catalogue, it is automatically derived]
UK: Because all metadata included in our monitoring return is drawn from our SDI's central catalogue, our answer
for this is always 1.
NSi1,2 - d) Should the indicator NSi1,2 be included in the dash board?
a) yes
9
60%
b) no
4
27%
c) Yes under certain conditions
2
13%
Other
0
0%
NSi2 - a) How is the NSi2 indicator (Accessibility of spatial data set through view and download services)
collected?
a) automated collection through
metadata information
1
7%
b) through other automated process
2
13%
12
80%
c) manually
NSi2 - b) If "b" in the previous question, could you describe the process?
Germany: Some of the German states collect the monitoring information automatically through metadata, others
collect the information manually.
UK: An automated management information report is run against our CKAN database (data.gov.uk). This produces
a series of CSV reports. We take these reports and manually process them to populate the EC monitoring
spreadsheet. This provides the indicator.
NSi2 - c) Please provide comments regarding the indicator NSi2
Cyprus: Useful.
Denmark: A link or some kind of connection information between data set and service (view and download) is
missing and could be considered as part of the monitoring: There is now no connection between data set and its
services - in other words: It is not possible to see where a data set is available and visible/view-able. In some cases
the service provider naming their service so it is recognizable which data set the service provide but as the
monitoring is now it is only the theme and annex that is indicated.
Belgium: Guidelines for MD will be necessary to enable automatic retrieval of this information via the MD (how to
complete the 'online resources' fields?). The catalogue in the Flemish Geoportal http://www.geopunt.be/catalogus
retrieves this information automatically from the MD. When you select a dataset in the catalogue, the button
‘bekijk op kaart’ (= view) and ‘download’ are directly connected with the MD of that datasets. When the online
resources are filled in ‘correctly’ in the MD record, the buttons the Geopunt catalogue are activated automatically.
Finland: If service metadata doesn't exist or it's not complete this information has to be manually collected.
France: How to find Simple download services (ATOM or http/GET)? We check the URL syntax (in order to find most
of the download services under Atom or other mode) but we obviously miss some.
Sweden: This is not done at the moment but can be deduced from the “Coupled resource” metadata element for
services in the metadata implementing rule (1.6)
Requires the functionality to be implemented in the Swedish Geodataportal which is under discussion. If the
information are to be captured from the INSPIRE geoportal, this should be implemented there.
NSi2 - d) Should the indicator NSi2 be included in the dash board?
a) yes
13
87%
b) no
0
0%
c) Yes under certain conditions
2
13%
Other
0
0%
NSi2,1 - a) How is the NSi2,1 indicator (Accessibility of spatial data set through view services) collected?
a) automated collection through
metadata information
3
21%
b) through other automated process
2
14%
c) manually
9
64%
NSi2,1 - b) If "b" in the previous question, could you describe the process?
Spain: With a validation tool. We exam the getCapabilities file
Germany: Some of the German states collect the monitoring information automatically through metadata, others
collect the information manually.
UK: An automated management information report is run against our CKAN database (data.gov.uk). This produces
a series of CSV reports. We take these reports and manually process them to populate the EC monitoring
spreadsheet. This provides the indicator.
NSi2,1 - c) Please provide comments regarding the indicator NSi2,1
Cyprus: Useful.
Finland: If service metadata doesn't exist or it's not complete this information has to be manually collected.
France: No issue
Sweden: The same comments as for the question above [This is not done at the moment but can be deduced from
the “Coupled resource” metadata element for services in the metadata implementing rule (1.6)
Requires the functionality to be implemented in the Swedish Geodataportal which is under discussion. If the
information are to be captured from the INSPIRE geoportal, this should be implemented there]
NSi2,1 - d) Should the indicator NSi2,1 be included in the dash board?
a) yes
13
87%
b) no
0
0%
c) Yes under certain conditions
2
13%
Other
0
0%
NSi2,2 - a) How is the NSi2,2 indicator (Accessibility of spatial data set through download services)
collected?
a) automated collection through
metadata information
2
14%
b) through other automated process
2
14%
10
71%
c) manually
NSi2,2 - b) If "b" in the previous question, could you describe the process?
Spain: With a validation tool. We exam the getCapabilities file
Germany: Some of the German states collect the monitoring information automatically through metadata, others
collect the information manually.
UK: An automated management information report is run against our CKAN database (data.gov.uk). This produces
a series of CSV reports. We take these reports and manually process them to populate the EC monitoring
spreadsheet. This provides the indicator.
NSi2,2 - c) Please provide comments regarding the indicator NSi2,2
Cyprus: Useful.
Finland: If service metadata doesn't exist or it's not complete this information has to be manually collected.
France: How to find Simple download services (ATOM or http/GET)? We check the URL syntax (in order to find most
of the download services under Atom or other mode) but we obviously miss some.
Sweden: The same comments as for the question above [This is not done at the moment but can be deduced from
the “Coupled resource” metadata element for services in the metadata implementing rule (1.6)
Requires the functionality to be implemented in the Swedish Geodataportal which is under discussion. If the
information are to be captured from the INSPIRE geoportal, this should be implemented there]
NSi2,2 - d) Should the indicator NSi2,2 be included in the dash board?
a) yes
13
87%
b) no
0
0%
c) Yes under certain conditions
2
13%
Other
0
0%
NSi3 - a) How is the NSi3 indicator (Use off all network services) collected?
a) automatically
b) manually
1
7%
13
93%
NSi3 - b) Please provide comments regarding the indicator NSi3
Poland: very hard to collect, no such mechanism available (specially with the period one year)
Cyprus: Useful.
Italy: Comparability issues between data providers
Greece: There might be a need to better define the "use". Is it the number of unique requests, the number of the
unique visitors or the number of other applications that use the service? I am not sure that the service providers
are sure about the number they (manually) provide.
The monitoring of the actual uses of a service by other applications and portals might be more useful for the
documentation of the benefits and the added value of an INSPIRE service. I thing that the benefits and the added
value is the actual meaning of that indicator.
Finland: Useful information for following the service use statistics but hard to collect because it has to be manually
collected from service providers.
France: No centralized information and too many public authorities; many servers have no statistic systems; The
cost to get this information would not be reasonable
Germany: Most of the data providers can't provide this information, because it's not measured. So we assume "0"
requests in such cases. Thus the value of the indicator is not reliable and doesn't say anything about the use of the
services and the implementation status as well.
The Netherlands: is an alternative possible ; the use via the EU portal?
Sweden: A “receiving point” to which data providers can send log-files is under development and is expected to be
functional this spring.
UK: Due to the federated nature of our SDI we are unable to gather this information automatically and have to
write to all data publishers to obtain this information. This is a significant burden.
We do not get a good response to this write round, and the data submitted in the report is often incomplete and of
a poor quality. We would also question the value the information in this form to the Commission.
Anonymous: number of service requests should be better defined (number of layers per service, ...)
NSi3 - c) Should the indicator NSi3 be included in the dash board?
a) yes
6
38%
b) no
4
25%
c) Yes under certain conditions
5
31%
Other
1
6%
NSi3,1 - a) How is the NSi3,1 indicator (Use off discovery services) collected?
a) automatically
b) manually
1
7%
13
93%
NSi3,1 - b) Please provide comments regarding the indicator NSi3,1
Spain: It is necessary to define the "use" term, for instance is a number of visit or number getrecords request,......
Cyprus: Useful.
Italy: Comparability issues between data providers
Finland: Useful information for following the service use statistics but hard to collect because it has to be manually
collected from service provider.
France: No centralized information and too many public authorities; many servers have no statistic systems; The
cost to get this information would not be reasonable
Germany: Most of the data providers can't provide this information, because it's not measured. So we assume "0"
requests in such cases. Thus the value of the indicator is not reliable and doesn't say anything about the use of the
services and the implementation status as well.
The Netherlands: is an alternative possible ; the use via the EU portal?
Sweden: The same comments as for the question above [A “receiving point” to which data providers can send logfiles is under development and is expected to be functional this spring]
NSi3,1 - c) Should the indicator NSi3,1 be included in the dash board?
a) yes
5
36%
b) no
5
36%
c) Yes under certain conditions
4
29%
Other
0
0%
NSi3,2 - a) How is the NSi3,2 indicator (Use off view services) collected?
a) automatically
1
7%
b) manually
13
93%
NSi3,2 - b) Please provide comments regarding the indicator NSi3,2
Spain: It is necessary to define the "use" term, for instance is a number of visit or number getmap request,......
Cyprus: Useful.
Italy: Comparability issues between data providers
Finland: Useful information for following the service use statistics but hard to collect because it has to be manually
collected from service providers.
France: No centralized information and too many public authorities; many servers have no statistic systems; The
cost to get this information would not be reasonable
Germany: Most of the data providers can't provide this information, because it's not measured. So we assume "0"
requests in such cases. Thus the value of the indicator is not reliable and doesn't say anything about the use of the
services and the implementation status as well.
The Netherlands: is an alternative possible ; the use via the EU portal?
Sweden: The same comments as for the question above [A “receiving point” to which data providers can send logfiles is under development and is expected to be functional this spring]
UK: Due to the federated nature of our SDI we are unable to gather this information automatically and have to
write to all data publishers to obtain this information. This is a significant burden.
We do not get a good response to this write round, and the data submitted in the report is often incomplete and of
a poor quality. We would also question the value the information in this form to the Commission.
NSi3,2 - c) Should the indicator NSi3,2 be included in the dash board?
a) yes
5
33%
b) no
5
33%
c) Yes under certain conditions
4
27%
Other
1
7%
NSi3,3 - a) How is the NSi3,3 indicator (Use off download services) collected?
a) automatically
b) manually
1
7%
13
93%
NSi3,3 - b) Please provide comments regarding the indicator NSi3,3
Spain: It is necesary to define the "use" term, for instance is a number of visit or number getfeature request,......
Cyprus: Useful.
Italy: Comparability issues between data providers
Finland: Useful information for following the service use statistics but hard to collect because it has to be manually
collected from service providers.
France: No centralized information and too many public authorities; many servers have no statistic systems; The
cost to get this information would not be reasonable
Germany: Most of the data providers can't provide this information, because it's not measured. So we assume "0"
requests in such cases. Thus the value of the indicator is not reliable and doesn't say anything about the use of the
services and the implementation status as well.
The Netherlands: is an alternative possible ; the use via the EU portal?
Sweden: The same comments as for the question above [A “receiving point” to which data providers can send logfiles is under development and is expected to be functional this spring]
UK: Due to the federated nature of our SDI we are unable to gather this information automatically and have to
write to all data publishers to obtain this information. This is a significant burden.
We do not get a good response to this write round, and the data submitted in the report is often incomplete and of
a poor quality. We would also question the value the information in this form to the Commission.
NSi3,3 - c) Should the indicator NSi3,3 be included in the dash board?
a) yes
5
33%
b) no
5
33%
c) Yes under certain conditions
4
27%
Other
1
7%
NSi3,4 - a) How is the NSi3,4 indicator (Use off transformation services) collected?
a) automatically
b) manually
1
7%
13
93%
NSi3,4 - b) Please provide comments regarding the indicator NSi3,4
Cyprus: Useful.
Italy: Comparability issues between data providers
Finland: Useful information for following the service use statistics but hard to collect because it has to be manually
collected from service providers.
France: No centralized information and too many public authorities; many servers have no statistic systems; The
cost to get this information would not be reasonable
Germany: Most of the data providers can't provide this information, because it's not measured. So we assume "0"
requests in such cases. Thus the value of the indicator is not reliable and doesn't say anything about the use of the
services and the implementation status as well.
The Netherlands: is an alternative possible ; the use via the EU portal?
Sweden: Same as above although so far there are not transformation services listed. What would be the measure –
number of transformations done?
UK: Due to the federated nature of our SDI we are unable to gather this information automatically and have to
write to all data publishers to obtain this information. This is a significant burden.
We do not get a good response to this write round, and the data submitted in the report is often incomplete and of
a poor quality. We would also question the value the information in this form to the Commission.
NSi3,4 - c) Should the indicator NSi3,4 be included in the dash board?
a) yes
4
27%
b) no
6
40%
c) Yes under certain conditions
3
20%
Other
2
13%
NSi3,5 - a) How is the NSi3,5 indicator (Use off invoke services) collected?
a) automatically
b) manually
1
7%
13
93%
NSi3,5 - c) Should the indicator NSi3,5 be included in the dash board?
a) yes
5
33%
b) no
6
40%
c) Yes under certain conditions
3
20%
Other
1
7%
NSi4 - a) How is the NSi4 indicator (Conformity of all services) collected?
a) automatically
b) manually
3
20%
12
80%
NSi4 - b) Please provide comments regarding the indicator NSi4
Spain: It is necessary automatic validation tools
Cyprus: Useful.
Belgium: Please see comments earlier on common validation tools [monitoring information including validation
results (Y/N or even more detailed?) IF all MS use the same validation tools which should be provided by the EC]
Finland: EU commission validator can't validate services that require authentication.
Germany: Some of the German states collect the monitoring information automatically through metadata, others
collect the information manually.
The Netherlands: we prefer one EU validation tool used by each MS the monitoring of this indicator should be
based on this
Sweden: The data custodians fill this in when publishing metadata for a dataset or service, as required by the IR for
metadata. Current problems are the three options according to the IR whereby the option “not evaluated” isn’t
catered for by the ISO standard used for metadata. There is a workaround for this, though
UK: We'd anticipate that this information could be derived from the discovery metadata although quality issues
remain.
NSi4 - c) Should the indicator NSi4 be included in the dash board?
a) yes
13
87%
b) no
1
7%
c) Yes under certain conditions
1
7%
Other
0
0%
NSi4,1 - a) How is the NSi4,1 indicator (Conformity of network services) collected?
a) automatically
b) manually
3
20%
12
80%
NSi4,1 - b) Please provide comments regarding the indicator NSi4,1
Spain: It is necessary automatic validation tools
Cyprus: Useful.
Finland: EU commission validator can't validate services that require authentication.
France: No issue as long we use only one validator. The problems come if French public authorities use other
validators.
Germany: Some of the German states collect the monitoring information automatically through metadata, others
collect the information manually.
The Netherlands: we prefer one EU validation tool used by each MS the monitoring of this indicator should be
based on this
Sweden: The same comments as for the question above [The data custodians fill this in when publishing metadata
for a dataset or service, as required by the IR for metadata. Current problems are the three options according to the
IR whereby the option “not evaluated” isn’t catered for by the ISO standard used for metadata. There is a
workaround for this, though]
NSi4,1 - c) Should the indicator NSi4,1 be included in the dash board?
a) yes
13
87%
b) no
1
7%
c) Yes under certain conditions
1
7%
Other
0
0%
NSi4,2 - a) How is the NSi4,2 indicator (Conformity of view services) collected?
a) automatically
b) manually
3
20%
12
80%
NSi4,2 - b) Please provide comments regarding the indicator NSi4,2
Spain: It is necessary automatic validation tools
Cyprus: Useful.
Finland: EU commission validator can't validate services that require authentication.
France: idem [No issue as long we use only one validator. The problems come if French public authorities use other
validators.]
Germany: Some of the German states collect the monitoring information automatically through metadata, others
collect the information manually.
The Netherlands: we prefer one EU validation tool used by each MS the monitoring of this indicator should be
based on this
Sweden: The same comments as for the question above [The data custodians fill this in when publishing metadata
for a dataset or service, as required by the IR for metadata. Current problems are the three options according to the
IR whereby the option “not evaluated” isn’t catered for by the ISO standard used for metadata. There is a
workaround for this, though]
NSi4,2 - c) Should the indicator NSi4,2 be included in the dash board?
a) yes
13
87%
b) no
1
7%
c) Yes under certain conditions
1
7%
Other
0
0%
NSi4,3 - a) How is the NSi4,3 indicator (Conformity of download services) collected?
a) automatically
b) manually
3
20%
12
80%
NSi4,3 - b) Please provide comments regarding the indicator NSi4,3
Spain: It is necessary automatic validation tools
Cyprus: Useful.
Finland: EU commission validator can't validate services that require authentication.
France: Idem [No issue as long we use only one validator. The problems come if French public authorities use other
validators.]
Germany: Some of the German states collect the monitoring information automatically through metadata, others
collect the information manually.
The Netherland: we prefer one EU validation tool used by each MS the monitoring of this indicator should be based
on this
Sweden: The same comments as for the question above [The data custodians fill this in when publishing metadata
for a dataset or service, as required by the IR for metadata. Current problems are the three options according to the
IR whereby the option “not evaluated” isn’t catered for by the ISO standard used for metadata. There is a
workaround for this, though]
NSi4,3 - c) Should the indicator NSi4,3 be included in the dash board?
a) yes
13
87%
b) no
1
7%
c) Yes under certain conditions
1
7%
Other
0
0%
NSi4,4 - a) How is the NSi4,4 indicator (Conformity of transformation services) collected?
a) automatically
b) manually
3
21%
11
79%
NSi4,4 - b) Please provide comments regarding the indicator NSi4,4
Spain: It is necessary automatic validation tools
Cyprus: Useful.
Finland: EU commission validator can't validate services transformation services.
France: In fact, we have no transformation service and I do not know if we have a validator.
Germany: Some of the German states collect the monitoring information automatically through metadata, others
collect the information manually.
The Netherlands: we prefer one EU validation tool used by each MS the monitoring of this indicator should be
based on this
Sweden: There are no services listed but if there was they would be collected automatically
NSi4,4 - c) Should the indicator NSi4,4 be included in the dash board?
a) yes
11
73%
b) no
3
20%
c) Yes under certain conditions
1
7%
Other
0
0%
NSi4,5 - a) How is the NSi4,5 indicator (Conformity of invoke services) collected?
a) automatically
b) manually
2
14%
12
86%
NSi4,5 - b) Please provide comments regarding the indicator NSi4,5
Spain: It is necessary automatic validation tools
Cyprus: Useful.
Finland: EU commission validator can't validate invoke services.
France: Idem that NSi4.4, with the higher difficulty that we have not IR about invoke services.
Germany: Some of the German states collect the monitoring information automatically through metadata, others
collect the information manually.
The Netherlands: we prefer one EU validation tool used by each MS the monitoring of this indicator should be
based on this
Sweden: Currently there are not services listed and with the new amendment from the SDS/Invoke, this becomes
tricky as there are no yes or no to the question.
NSi4,5 - c) Should the indicator NSi4,5 be included in the dash board?
a) yes
11
73%
b) no
2
13%
c) Yes under certain conditions
2
13%
Other
0
0%