The ESDI, past, present and future
Claude Luzet, EuroGeographics Programme Manager
ESDI presentation at SEESDI conference, Sofia, 23rd October 2003

Yesterday in Europe ……..
Page 2

Three European steps
1. GI2000 and the EGII (European Geographic Information
Infrastructure) 1995-1999
2. ETeMII and the European Territorial Management Information
Infrastructure) 2000-2001
3. GSDI → ESDI (European spatial Data Infrastructure) → INSPIRE
(Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe)
2002-2003 → ???
Page 3

GI2000 : a discussion paper
• An initiative born in 1995, buried in 1999
• Geographic Information in Europe: a Discussion Document, DG
XIII/E - August 1998
• Identified main barriers to development
• National orientation
• No mandate to provide for the cost of collecting and maintaining EUwide data sets
• Different rules exist within the Member States
• Disparities between these local markets
Page 4

GI2000 : barriers to development (cont’d)
• Lack of base data
• Lack of consistency between national data sets results in lack of exploitation for other applications, leading to duplication of effort
• Unexploited potential of GI in Europe
• Lack of awareness of the potential benefits of using digital geographic information may be the greatest barrier to future market development
• Technical problems
• Action is needed to ensure that the necessary training is available in
Europe.
Page 5

GI2000 : suggested areas for EU action
• Providing leadership for European co-operation and co-ordination
• Continued support to European associations such as EUROGI,
CERCO, MEGRIN
• Stimulating the development of a European GI infrastructure
• Encourage public bodies to co-operate and form partnerships with the private sector
• Create seamless geographic base data across Europe
• Stimulate the creation of EU-wide directory services
• Ensure that GI specific standards are developed as needed
• Realising the potential of GI at European level
• Contributing to the definition of global rules and standards
Page 6

A spatial data infrastructure means:
• “ The availability and the unimpeded sharing and use of the required data, according to agreed mechanisms and specifications.
”
Page 7

A spatial data infrastructure consists of:
Content
Institutional
Stakeholders
Technology
Page 8

In short infrastructure is…
… about the existence and interoperability
• of technology
• of data
• of actors
… or about technical and business interoperability
Page 9

…….. Today in Europe ……..
Page 10

State of the art in Europe (business models)
From a 2003 EuroGeographics study on 19 European countries
(L.Aslesen and Expert-Group on Legal & Commercial Issues )
• Different categories of business models at NMAs
• with a fixed budget and tasks, all income back to government
• with a fixed budget and tasks, allowed to keep (part of) income
• with a “state contract”, often combined with an expected return on investments for the government
Page 11

State of the art (licensing and services)
• Most cases indicate a defined policy for usage (usage rights, business license, internal/private use), and a form of license for value-added products
• However : Analysis difficult because of unclear answers
→ Language and terminology problems
• Pricing policies for on-line services fall in three main categories
• Charging per volume, i.e. per hits or transaction
• Charging a fixed fee, usually per year
• Combination of these two
Page 12

Towards business ‘interoperability’
• Obvious need to increase harmonisation of (national) pricing and licensing policies
– Doesn’t mean the same terms and prices for data anywhere
– It does mean greater agreement on pricing models, licensing arrangements and service delivery
– And common terminology : ‘speaking the same language’
Page 13

EuroSpec Survey on Reference Data, Feb’03
100%
80%
60%
11
5
40%
20%
28
0% no contact no answer
Received
Countries
Page 14

Positional Accuracy
Feature type
Coastline/Shoreline
Watercourse
Lake/Pond
Contour Line (land)
Building
Built-up area
Road
Interchange
Railway
Parcel
Administrative Boundary
Administrative Area
Named location
Address
Benchmarks n
15
23
16
22
18
9
7
7
19
24
19
24
23
24
23
Median of best values (m)
3,0
2,5
3,0
2,0
1,0
3,0
3,0
3,0
3,0
0,3
2,0
2,0
2,0
1,0
0,1
Median of worst values (m)
5,0
4,0
5,0
5,0
2,0
5,0
4,0
3,0
5,0
2,5
5,0
5,0
5,0
2,0
0,3
Range (m)
0-50
0-50
0-50
0-50
0-50
0-50
0-100
0-25
0-100
0-10
0-100
0-100
0,2-1000
0,2-20
0,1-2
Page 15

State of the art (technical)
• Results of survey (A.Jakobsson and EuroGeographics ExG-Quality)
• Common Reference Data mostly available at 100%
(minimum 70% for parcels, buildings, addresses)
• At medium-high resolution (~1:10.000 scale)
• Very few implementations of international standards
• High trend in changes in DB structure: object based (9/11), moving towards (6/5)
• Final report to be published end 2003
Page 16

……. and tomorrow.
Page 17

The INSPIRE RDM position paper :
• Identified the Common Reference Data as a key component of the
ESDI,
• And recommended
• To define a conceptual model for the reference data components
• To agree of common definitions for objects and their attributes belonging to the components of the reference data
• That reference data specifications are created and described in a way that is commonly understood and which takes into account cultural differences.
Page 18

The 12 INSPIRE policy principles of the DPLI position paper
1- The European Spatial Data Infrastructure shall be built upon a network of National Spatial Data Infrastructures;
6- Reference data will provide the underpinning framework to which all other INSPIRE data will be referenced.
3- Datasets made available to harmonised data specifications and to common standards;
10- Harmonised licensing framework will optimise sharing and trading of georeferenced thematic information;
Page 19

The INSPIRE Common Reference Data
1. Units of administration
2. Selected topographic themes
– hydrography, transport, heights
3. . Units of property rights
– parcels, buildings.
4. Geodesy
5. Addresses
6. Orthoimages
7. Gazetteer
Page 20

The EuroSpec programme prototype
Use cases prototype prototype
Small scale
WFD, ERM
Large scale
GiModiG+
EuroRoadS
EuroSpec Schema
NDB prototype
Others :
Cadastre,
Risks mngt etc...
NDB
NDB NDB
NDB
Page 21

Iterative implementation
1 prototype
4
Use cases prototype
2 prototype
Small scale
WFD, ERM
Large scale
GiModiG+
EuroRoadS
EuroSpec Schema
NDB
NDB
NDB NDB
3 prototype
Others :
Cadastre,
Risks mngt etc…
NDB
Page 22

EuroSpec Workshop 2 (July 2003):
• Co-organised with the European Commission (JRC)
• 42 experts, from 16 countries (EU-15, EFTA, new MS)
• Representing main stakeholders nat ional gover nment agency
57%
Eur opean
Commission
10% sub- nat ional gover nment agency
7% nat ional GI associat ion
7% indust r y
& pr ivat e sect or
7%
Academy
& r esear ch
12%
Page 23

WS-2 conclusions
• EuroSpec an indispensable and timely initiative
• A process, with short- and long-term objectives
• Necessity to relate to and link with real life use-cases and existing relevant initiatives and projects
• Build on existing legacy from major actors
 EuroGeographics as the ‘natural’ leader
Minutes and presentations available at www.eurogeographics.org
Page 24

EuroGeographics : an Association of
NMAs + Cadastre
• 45 Members, 33 active
• Management:
• Management Board,
• Head Office
“weak” in SEE
Page 25

EuroRoadS @ NLS
Quality @ NLS
Legal & commercial @ NLS
A distributed organisation
EGM @ NLS
• Currently
• 4 running Projects,
• 3 active Expert Groups
ERM @ IGN
Head Office @ IGN
SABE @ BKG
Geodesy @ BKG
Page 26

SABE : seamless administrative boundaries
• ~120.000 administrative units
• Two resolutions (100.000, 1 million)
• 10 years on the market :
Main versions: 1991, 1995, 1997, 2001
• New coming update:
• SABE2001 + SIRE codes (2004?)
• Now 36 countries still expanding
Page 27

EuroGlobalMap
• Global (500k-1M) scale
• All topographic components
• First release :
• 30 countries
• Autumn 2003 : evaluation
• January 2004 : commercial
• Plans for upgrade and extension
Page 28

EuroRegionalMap
• Regional/national scale
(1:100k ~1:250k) covering 7 countries
• Availability :
• Autumn 2003 : evaluation
• January 2004 : commercial
• Prototype for whole Europe
(EU 25+ planned for 2006)
Page 29

EuroSpec Vision
DB C
DB B
DB
A
Euro
Reference
Data
Euro
Metadata
EuroSpec
Own data
Users
& Legal issues
Legal Framework
Page 30

Next steps for the ESDI?
• GI2000, more than 5 years ago
• Had already identified the issues and proposed the appropriate actions
• INSPIRE
• Had raised awareness of and promoted the ESDI vision and concepts
• Had created an stronger community of GI stakeholders
• … but no INSPIRE legal framework before 2006, 2007, ?
• Urgent needs now
• From the market, the Industry
• For supporting the development of the national strategies on SDIs
Page 31

Starting now, how?
1.
Use and support today existing operational structures, eg. EuroGeographics
• Representing major stakeholders
• Mapping and Cadastre of 40 European countries
• A network of various expertise
• Permanent operational body of 5 persons (and 500.000 € core budget)
• Working in close partnership with
• EUROSTAT/GISCO : the EC GI data manager
• JRC/INSPIRE project : the EC GI technical support
• CEN/TC287 liaison member
• EUROGI : the community of the European stakeholders
• EuroSDR & Agile : the European GI research community
• EUREF (geodesy), EuroGeoSurveys (geology), etc
2.
In parallel consider what other organisational structure should best manage the future development of the ESDI.
Page 32

EuroSpec : Benefits
• For reference data custodians
• Shares best practice re-engineering databases & developing new products/services
• Provides common specifications for those not yet on the move,
• Input national/organisations culture and language specifics.
• Interoperability – business
• Increasing public-private partnership (and outsourcing),
• Review business policies & processes .
• Interoperability
– data
• A major step towards the NSDIs and the ESDI
Page 33

From centralised delivery of reference data ….
National European
SABE
EGM
ERM
Sub-National
Page 34

…… to decentralised delivery of reference data
(European)
European users, eg. ECs, VAs
National process
Cross-border eg. risk mngt
Sub-National
Governance
Industry
Citizens,
Services
Page 35

In conclusion :
Business and technical interoperability
• Is not to be imposed from a top-down approach;
• Will not occur spontaneously;
• But requires the collaboration of the main stakeholders, in a process that takes account of each organisation’s specificity;
• The EuroSpec Programme offers one of the mechanism for this collaboration to come to reality and bring concrete results;
• More cost effective and sustainable – National & European
• Embracing opportunities created by technology (OGC, etc.)
• Answers to the requirements for “semantic interoperability”
Page 36

Thank you !
Page 37