MUSE - Test data sets about project-support-wp8 HOT 13 CLOSED

Dear support team,

I am writing to you because it has passed 3 weeks since we sent 3 datasets for you to let us know if their formats, etc. are OK to be uploaded to EGDI and we have not received any news yet. I guess this is due to the summer holiday. However, just in case, I am sending this email as a kind reminder.

Would you be able to provide an estimate of when we will receive feedbacks on the datasets we sent? We are waiting for your answer before we send those datasets to our partners as examples of how they should create those datasets for their regions.

Thank you in advance!

Regards,

David Garcia Moreno

On behalf of MUSE – WP5

from project-support-wp8.

merging single issue

from project-support-wp8.

I think we need @mh-geus-dk to comment on whether the data can be uploaded to EGDI, @schmar00 to comment on whether the vocabularies have been documented sufficiently and @CipoCar to comment on whether, given that the data are being supplied as shapefiles, whether further standardisation should be attempted.

from project-support-wp8.

Just taking a quick look at the (final_data_other-gw-use.zip and final_test_water_protection.zip) shapefiles there appears to be no obvious link to any code list in the data.

In OtherInfo there's a document listed for all points, but the reference is local to the shapefile. For the EGDI platform you'll need to upload the documents into the appropriate project repository, then put the absolute link to the document in the shapefile

from project-support-wp8.

merging single issue

Sent by Steiner, Cornelia Created by fire.

Dear Jorgen,

As discussed in yesterday’s GeoERA project leads conference, please find below our last request to the GeoERA support team from one month ago.

It would be very helpful to receive feedback about the test data sets soon, so that we can continue with preparing the data sets in the remaining pilot areas.

Thank you and kind regards,

Cornelia

--
Cornelia STEINER, MSc.
Geologin / Geologist
Fachabteilung Hydrogeologie & Geothermie / Department of Hydrogeology & Geothermal Energy

Von: Steiner, Cornelia
Gesendet: Dienstag, 25. August 2020 13:58
An: 'support at geoera.eu' ; carlo cipolloni
Cc: 'David Garcia' G�tzl, Gregor Claus Ditlefsen
Betreff: MUSE - Test data sets

Dear GeoERA support team,

On behalf of David Garcia, I am sending you the first three test data sets of MUSE and the project vocabularies for the corresponding parameters. Please provide feedback to us about the following:

� Test data sets: Let us know, if the test data sets are okay and can serve as templates for the other pilot areas, or if anything has to be changed.

� Project vocabularies: Is the documentation of parameters not included in INSPIRE sufficient?

Please let us know, when we can expect your feedback.

Thank you and kind regards,

Cornelia Steiner

Attachments:

1. final_test_water_protection.zip
2. final_data_other-gw-use.zip
3. final-SGE-systems.zip
4. VocabSch_Inst_WProt_OtGW_CST_clean.xlsx

from project-support-wp8.

replied by email to Cornelia, cc Jorgen, referencing this issue

from project-support-wp8.

Dear support team,

We have not received yet a feedback on whether the attributes included in the shapefiles are OK for these types of data or we need to apply a specific data model.

It has been a month and a half since we sent these data for feedback. Should we just consider the lack of answer as a confirmation that the test dataset we sent are compliant with the pertinent standards?

Regards,

David.

from project-support-wp8.

@DavidGarcia01 I did make some comment on the structure of the data 15 days ago, that you should fix, even if these data have no other issues; there may be other issues.

from project-support-wp8.

Hi all,
I have been looking at the shapefiles in QGIS. And have the following comments.
The shapefiles should be combined into one shapefile for each data type and you should add a field telling from which partner the different records comes from. Combining the shapefiles allows the data to be shown as one layer at the EGDI platform.
In one of the shapefiles I found the name of one of the supplied documents. If you want to ass a link to this document you should upload a pdf-version of the document to the EGDI document repository and add URI you get the to the dataset. In order to get the best functionality for the users you should name fields containing URL’s as described in the EGDI documentation naming of fields with URL's
I also suggest that you get a user at the EGDI test and production platforms and try to upload your data to the test platform how to get an EGDI user account
If you deliver your data in GeoPackages you can (by using QGIS) define the thematisation and store it the GeoPackage. In this way you are in control of how you data should look at the Storing thematisataion in GeoPackages
Cheers Martin

from project-support-wp8.

Follow up question from David and my answer to that:
Thank you Martin!

The idea is to combine the shapefiles of each dataset from each pilot area into a GeoPackage. However, we are not sure if that would be efficient or whether it is better to combine the shapes from the same datasets from different areas into a single GeoPackage. What do you recommend?

We have another question: Is it going to be possible in the end to show data in EGDI which cannot be downable? We have some data that can be shown, but for which we may not have the permits to share.

I will create an user at the EGDI test and production platforms and do a couple of tests between Friday and next Tuesday. I have not done that before because we wanted to be sure that the attributes we have added to the spatial data are OK with regards to EU standards. These are very specific files for which we have not found a simple data model that represents what we want to show with them, as we want to keep them as simple as possible. @[email protected], are there OK in the way we have created or we should change something?

Good morning David,

Right now all data uploaded to the platform can be downloaded. How to prevent that we need to know what type of data you want to restrict download. Depending on the type of data you also have to take in to account that if the data are shown with some kind of click info (for example showing some analysis at a location) these data can be copy – pasted from the platform. A tedious task for large data seta but not impossible.

I can see pro and cons an combining the data based on localities or type. I think you should take the user perspective. What will be most valuable for most users? To easily access all the data of a specific kind or from a specific locality?

Hope this makes it easier for you to decide.

from project-support-wp8.

@mh-geus-dk @DavidGarcia01 Is there any more to be discussed on this issue? Can any further issues be taken forward under #369 now?

from project-support-wp8.

I don't think so. /Martin

from project-support-wp8.

From email communication the uploads to the EGDI platform have been tested and any problems sorted out directly with WP6. For standardisation the project is developing a project vocabulary with Martin Schiegl and will have URI fields to point to project and any other relevant (e.g. INSPIRE) vocabularies as appropriate.

from project-support-wp8.