esdin quality model – benchmarking exercise. page 2 introduction in dublin we agreed to carry out...
Post on 28-Dec-2015
215 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
ESDIN Quality Model – Benchmarking exercise
Page 2
Introduction
• In Dublin we agreed to carry out a benchmarking exercise
• The team
• Jonathan
• Ourania
• Jordi
• Gunhild
• Carol
Final report to be presented back to Plenary in Belgium
Page 3
Aims
• To validate the ESDIN quality model
• To see if it is possible to implement the model
• To identify issues with the model
• To identify potential costs with the implementation
Page 4
Methodology
Topic selected in plenary
Questionnaire prepared
Secretary appointed
Group selected from volunteers
Group leader appointed
Questionnaire issued
ReviewFirst draft prepared
Workshop to collate answers
Answers prepared
Final version presented to
plenary
Final checkSecond draft prepared
Jan Mar Apr
May
Page 5
Questionnaire
• Click here....
Page 6
Responses
ESDIN Quality Model Participating member states
UK Croatia Sweden Ireland Greece Norway Spain
Administrative Units
Geographical Names
Transport Networks
Cadastral Parcels
Hydrography
Page 7
Results – Administrative Units
• Generally the quality model appears to be implementable.
• It was noticeable that some feature types, most noticeably
Administrative Units, are currently not assessed for quality at all.
• There are some issues with the Administrative Unit feature type
attributes nationalCode and inspireId which need to be addressed
by the ESDIN quality model.
• NMCAs may introduce an evaluation programme for this theme.
Page 8
Results – Geographical Names
• Generally the quality model appears to be implementable• Most NMCAs thought that the measures proposed would be useful to
their organisation• All NMCAs were willing to introduce an evaluation programme for this
theme even though there may be significant cost in doing so.• The ESDIN project needs to look at the use of domain consistency on
the following attributes:• Spelling of name – text• Pronunciation of name - pronunciationSoundLink and pronunciationIPA.
• The ESDIN project should consider the use of thematic accuracy on the Named Place type(NamedPlaceTypeValue) attribute
Page 9
Results – Cadastral Parcels
• Generally the quality model appears to be implementable• Most NMCAs thought that the measures proposed would be useful to
their organisation• All NMCAs either already have an evaluation programme or are willing to
introduce one for this theme. The costs do not appear to be significant.• The ESDIN project has specified “Absolute accuracy” as a feature
attribute of the FT_CadastralBoundary. This needs to be looked at as this is different to the Inspire specification
• The ESDIN project should look at the use of format consistency within the estimatedAccuracy attribute of Feature Type of Cadastral Boundary as this appears to be superfluous
Page 10
Results – Transport Networks• Generally the quality model appears to be implementable• Most NMCAs thought that the measures proposed would be useful to their organisation• Three NMCAs already have an evaluation programme and three others are willing to
introduce one for this theme. The costs do not appear to be significant.• There appears to be a misunderstanding with the feature types Transport Network, Network
Type and Network Connection. The results from these sections are inconclusive.• There is an issue with the ESDIN model in that within INSPIRE the transport properties of
the INSPIRE TN model can be applied to every TN feature type, unless otherwise specified by a restriction.
• The ESDIN quality model has applied an absolute accuracy measure to both road centre lines and road nodes. If the network line is not a true centre line then this measure is not implementable.
• The usefulness of measuring “Non-quantitative attribute correctness” on FormofWay: and FunctionalRoadClass within the Roadlink Feature type is questionable given that there is also a measure on classification correctness. This needs to be looked at by the ESDIN project.
Page 11
Results – Hydrography• There is a clear issue that needs to be looked at by ESDIN as to how the
positional accuracy and completeness of some feature types can be measured when these features may be dry for much of the year.
• Those areas that do not have issues with water features running dry felt that the model looked implementable.
• It was noticeable that for many of the feature types or attributes there were either none or just one response. With so few organisations responding to this section, the value of the measures could be questioned.
• Two NMCAs already have an evaluation programme and the other would be willing to introduce one for this theme. The costs do appear to be significant.
Page 12
Conclusions – AU,CP, GN & TN
• In general appears to be implementable• Many respondents already measuring some elements• Others willing to measure more elements• Items in each theme that need to be addressed by ESDIN
• AU and GN – NMCAs willing to set up sampling programme despite cost• CP and TN – NMCAs costs increase by a small amount•
Page 13
Conclusions – Hydrography
• Results not so conclusive• Some NMCAs felt that model was implementable others didn’t• Issue with temporary water features• Unable to complete assessment• Minimal responses to some questions• Costs appear to be significant
Page 14
Conclusions – Did the BM meet the aims?
• To identify whether the ESDIN quality model could be
implemented
• To identify any issues with the quality model
• To identify potential costs with the model
Page 15
Issues and lessons learnt
• We can deliver to tight timescales
• Must be organised
• Collate evidence in advance of any meeting
• Have some experts on hand!
Page 16
Finally
• I’d like to say thank you to
• Ourania, Jordi, Gunhild and Carol
• Ken, Magni and Slavko for their responses
• Antti, Jaana and Erling from ESDIN WP8
top related