LPIS QA formalises mainstream GI in the CAP
description
Transcript of LPIS QA formalises mainstream GI in the CAP
Wim DEVOSMARS unit
http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
LPIS QA formalises mainstream GI in the CAP
Amsterdam 4 April 2011 – CAPIGI 1
Amsterdam 4 April 2011 – CAPIGI 2
LPIS and INSPIRE
• CAP represents a formal EU requirement on GIS in the MS: LPISCouncil Regulation EC 2003/1782 art (20). The identification system for agricultural parcels
shall be established on the basis of maps or land registry documents or other cartographic references. Use shall be made of computerised geographical information system techniques including preferably aerial or spatial orthoimagery, with an homogenous standard guaranteeing accuracy at least equivalent to cartography at a scale of 1:10 000.
• 2004 LPIS implementation precedes INSPIRE with > 5 yearsINSPIRE Directive EC 2007/2 art (1): The purpose … is to lay down general rules aimed at the
establishment of the Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community for the purposes of Community environmental policies and policies or activities which may have an impact on the environment.
But – no mentioning of CAP in recital 11: “Many initiatives are taken at national and Community
level to collect, harmonise or organise the dissemination or use of spatial information.“
• LPIS is not an explicit INSPIRE ANNEX theme, However; – many dependencies on INSPIRE themes: e.g cadastre, topography, land cover, land use,
orthoimagery, soil data, elevation, hydrology, restriction/regulation zones, – similar needs towards GI technology – CAP = major beneficiary of improved data access
Amsterdam 4 April 2011 – CAPIGI 3
CAP process is mentioned in documents
Generic Conceptual Model http://inspire.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/Data_Specifications/D2.5_v3.2.pdf page 91
Only FB / AP LPIS designs respect Recommendation 18
Amsterdam 4 April 2011 – CAPIGI 4
GI standards in LPIS
INSPIRE relies on the application of GI standards to build an EU SDI from national SDI’s
Did GI standards find their way into the LPIS?whereas for LPIS custodians:– as data producer: INSPIRE regulatory milestones are not applicable
Implementing Rules not yet available Not an explicit theme
– as data user: too early to benefit from improved access of ancillary data
Amsterdam 4 April 2011 – CAPIGI 5
Status on 5/7/2007
Data harmonisation components of draft DS-2.5
see: http://www.ec-gis.org/Workshops/13ec-gis/presentations/5_environment_II_devos_4.pdf
Component covered
Component partly covered
Amsterdam 4 April 2011 – CAPIGI 6
Changes by 4/4/2011
Data harmonisation components of draft DS-2.5 v3.3 Covered in 2007
partly covered in 2007
Covered since 2007
* *
*
* : changed order
Amsterdam 4 April 2011 – CAPIGI 7
GI standards in LPIS
YET standards seem to be well introduced
Why? 1. Fundamental characteristics differentiate LPIS
from an INSPIRE theme :1. LPIS is designed upon common concepts2. LPIS supports common procedures3. LPIS operation is audited
2. A political push to “get things right” focused attention on the LPIS in a quality assurance setup
Amsterdam 4 April 2011 – CAPIGI 8
INSPIRE annex data set
spec
db
spec
db
spec
db
spec
db
spec
db
spec
db
spec
db
at be bg cy sees uki
view - transformation services
INSPIRE specific.
eu db report
spec
db
spec
db
spec
db
spec
db
spec
db
spec
db
spec
db
at bevl bg cy sees uken
CAP operations
spec
db
bewa
db
ukni
eu clearance
EC 1122/2009
paymentcontrol file
Aid application
1 common concepts
2 common use
3 common QC
LPIS and INSPIRE theme concepts
existing data sets custom built national data sets maximum access/distribution/use maximum data effectiveness no (restrictive) quality specifications well specified quality objectives
LPIS
Amsterdam 4 April 2011 – CAPIGI 9
So, what’s newly formalised?
D: Rules for application schema
F: Multilingual and cultural aspects
H: Spatial object referencing
J: Data transformation
L: Registries
P: Data transfer
Q: Quality
T: Conformance
Amsterdam 4 April 2011 – CAPIGI 10
D: Rules for Application Schema/Feature Catalogue
FC templates provided LPIS Core Model designed (GML Application Schema) Specifications for feature exchange (XML and GML schemas)
Inspection Measurements (GML) ETS Scoreboard (XML)
Amsterdam 4 April 2011 – CAPIGI 11
F: Multi-lingual and cultural aspects
Documented ATS and ETS methodology applicable to all MS Supportive documents in national languages
Harmonised description of the local “agricultural land” concepts and semantics through the FAO Land Cover Classification System (LCCS) and the Land Cover Meta Language (future ISO 19144-2)
Common inspection key
Amsterdam 4 April 2011 – CAPIGI 12
H: Spatial object referencing
“institutional”
• 2009R1122 art (6).1“operate at reference parcel level such as cadastral
parcel or production block which shall ensure unique identification of each
reference parcel”
Direct aid process: LPIS parcel is referenced for 3 applications
1. identification (e.g. declaration, performing the CC check)
Ideal 1: 1 spatial object = 1 farmer unit
2. assessing the eligibility value of the identified land (informing the farmer
and performing the crosscheck)
Ideal 2: 1 spatial object = 100 % eligible
3. performing the OTSC
Ideal 3: 1 spatial object = 1 crop group
Amsterdam 4 April 2011 – CAPIGI 13
H: Spatial object referencing: noise factors
1. What if the area attribute values are determined alphanumerically?
2. Is the reference unit a sub-element of a larger elementary entity?
3. Are several elementary land units aggregated into a larger entity?
4. If third party references are used (cadastral parcels) is there a boundary shift?
5. If third party references are used, are they relevant regarding land at all?
Declaration/crosscheck
OTSC-checks Declaration/cross-compliance
Alphanumeric substraction = X =
Subdivision = / V = / X = / V
Aggregation X = X
Shifted references X = X
«irrelevant references » X X X
Formally allowed by the regulations/guidelines under well specified conditions
Amsterdam 4 April 2011 – CAPIGI 14
I: Data transformation
ATS allows for national model mapping towards LCM (and ETS setup)Documented workflow
Mapping of a national LPIS schema to LCM, compilation of an ATS report (source: TUD Final Report to the EC JRC)
Basic architecture of a schema transformation process using web services(source: TUD Final Report to the EC JRC)
Data transformation services prototype proven web services : WFS+WPS
Amsterdam 4 April 2011 – CAPIGI 15
P: Data transfer
Orthorectified imagery available through CID portal and WMS XML and GML schemas designed for all data exchanges Portal: LPIS QA Web Application designed, up and running
Data exchange process implemented
AbstractTest Suite
(ATS)
ScreeningProceduresLPIS
Implementation
Feature CatalogueApplication Schema
ATS reporting package
XML PDF
ETS reporting package
XML PDF
GMLExecutiveTest Suite
(ETS)
RandomSample
Pre-selectionGML XML
Orthoimagery WMS
1. sampling
2. reporting
3. screening
Amsterdam 4 April 2011 – CAPIGI 16
T: Conformance
http://marswiki.jrc.ec.europa.eu/wikicap/index.php/GAMMA_01. Model conformance: Abstract Test Suite: ATS2. Data conformance: Executable Test Suite: ETS
Standardized approach for GI based on ISO19105 through 2009R1122 art 6.2
Model and Data conformance testing (ISO19105)
Model Conformance:
ATS+ICS+EP+WLPIS
Feature CatalogApp. Schema
DataConformance:
ETS
Resultsanalysis
Conformancetest report
Data conformance testing procedure documentation
transferred
Amsterdam 4 April 2011 – CAPIGI 17
O: Quality
LPIS data quality measures - compliance with ISO 19113, 19114 and TS19138 3 sets of measures (observations, variant with history test , database query)
ad UC202_LPIS_QA_Parcel_Inspection
Inspect the Reference Parcel (A)
Check the conformance of the Reference Parcel (E)
Check the feasibility for inspection
Select the ReferenceParcel from the
ordered list
Locate the ReferenceParcel
Delineate indiv idual agriculture land cov er features (B)
Identify from the orthoimagery allagriculture land cov er featureslarger than 0,1 ha on the landrepresented by the Reference
Parcel (B1) - 10102
Map (delineate) all indiv idualfeatures, enclosing the
agriculture land cov er, andmap out all exclusions (B2) -
10102
Assign the land cov er(B3) - 10102
Calculate theeligible area (B4) -
10102
Count the occurrenceof the different land
cov er classes,representing eligible
land (B5) - 10103
Map eligible landscape features (C)
Identify (as seen on theorthoimagery) all indiv idual
landscape features on the landrepresented by the Reference
Parcel (C1) - 10104
Map (delineate) alldistinguishable landscape
features (C2) - 10104
Assign the landcov er (C3) - 10104
Identify non-agriculture land cov er features and "potential" critical defects onthe land represented by the Reference Parcel (D)
Count the number of indiv idualnon-agriculture land cov er
features, by type of land cov erclass (D2) - 10105
Detect and count the presence ofany potential critical defects, which
could obstruct the use of theReference Parcel (D3) - 10106
Check the area-basedconformance of the
Reference Parcel (E2) -10102_2
Generate a report w ith allfindings (F)
Is the minimumnumber of inspectedReference Parcels
reached?
Finalize the Inspection
Retriev e the necessaryraster data (orthoimagery)
Retriev e the relev antLPIS sample pre-selection
Retriev e the relev antancillary data
Refine the InspectionEnv ironment
Sort the parcel pre-selectionby ordinal number
Start 202
End 202
Count the number ofthe landscape
features (C4) - 10104
Determine the land cov ertypes of the
non-agriculture land cov erfeatures (D1) - 10105
Estimate and sum up the area ofnon-agriculture features smallerthan 0,1 ha w ithin the agriculture
land cov er polygons (B3a) -10102
Deriv e the area of thelandscape features
(C5) - 10104
Recov er the indiv idualdelineated ELIGIBLE
landscape features andderiv e their total area (C6) -
10104_2
Can the parcelbe inspected?
Record the reason forinspection failure and go
to the next ReferenceParcel
Count the presence of thecauses for non-conformity ofthe Reference Parcel (E4)-
10107
Check for completeness and Geometric consistency
Check the v alue forthe "maximumeligible area"
Analyze, if referenceparcel boundaries followdistinct land features and
form v alid LUI
Set the v alue of the eligiblearea observ ed, based on the
instructions giv en in VI.2
Check for “Unwaiv ered”Critical Defects (E1) -
10106_2
check and report thecontamination basedconformance (E3) -
10102_3
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Quality measure documentsInspection work flow
Amsterdam 4 April 2011 – CAPIGI 18
(O) Quality (supportive data)
Orthoimagery quality recommendations (inspired by ISO/TS 19138) http://marswiki.jrc.ec.europa.eu/wikicap/index.php/Orthoimage_technical_specifications_for_the_purpose_of_LPIS
Guidelines
Amsterdam 4 April 2011 – CAPIGI 19
L: Register and registries
Catalogue Service Web (CSW): terraCatalog for the prototype (GeoNetwork - WPS transformation service)
Proposed service infrastructure for LPIS QA framework(source: TUD Final Report to the EC JRC )
EC
MS/user
Amsterdam 4 April 2011 – CAPIGI 20
To recapitulate
Only 5 / 20 harmonisation components are not (completely) covered within the LPIS community
– INSPIRE principles (in particular the sharing)– Metadata (in particular the publication)– Portrayal– Multiple representations these 4 components primarily effect the download/viewing aspects– Registries
15 INSPIRE harmonization components were addressed due to:
1. the need for a comparable quality report2. the necessity to exchange experiences among MS for addressing
quality issues
Amsterdam 4 April 2011 – CAPIGI 21
Lesson learnt
Standards bring advantages:1. better understanding of the systems (also internally)
fitness for purpose meaningful indicators on the system quality
2. improved communication between MS harmonization of concepts and definitions interoperability of methods
3. reproducibility of the results4. more effective guidance5. extensibility for future
but suffer from drawbacks:1. need to “cross a threshold”, learning curve caused by complexity
• technical skills• management
2. not all standards are fully implemented: emerging tool market• WPS in catalogue• Multi-surface in GML
3. lack of flexibility ?
Amsterdam 4 April 2011 – CAPIGI 22
Thank you for your attention!
Amsterdam 4 April 2011 – CAPIGI 23
Intentionally blank