- An initial glossary page is available at https://github.com/INSPIRE-MIF/2017.2/blob/master/glossary.md. This page will be updated during the lifetime of the group.
- additional terms can be proposed using the issue tracker.
- The GeoJSON and simplification examples were presented. It was agreed to further analyse them to identify the simplification approaches and encoding rules used. Where possible, we should focus on examples that can be mapped to INSPIRE data models.
- Michael LUTZ Add a section on the underlying conceptual model to the issue templates.
- All to further analyse and discuss the proposed examples.
- It was agreed not to discuss the relationship of alternative encodings (in particular GeoJSON) and download services.
- On the issue of the default GeoJSON CRS (CRS84) (see https://github.com/INSPIRE-MIF/2017.2/issues/9), it was agreed that ideally, geometries should be expressed using the default geometry property and in CRS84, because other solutions (e.g. based on "prior arrangements" - see section 4 in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7946#page-12) may be misinterpreted by clients. Other approaches discussed in the issue should still be tested for the level of support in existing client tools.
- Overall, the following questions should be discussed when analysing the examples further:
Should the simplification rules / GeoJSON encoding rule include profiling (i.e. providing only sub-sets of the INSPIRE properties)?
Should the simplification rules include extensions?
Should we focus on generic rules (for all/most themes) or specific ones (for a small number of themes)? Which themes/use cases should be used to prototype and test the simplification rules / GeoJSON encoding rule?
Should we include simplification based on UML implementation models?
Should the GeoJSON encoding rule include simplification rules?
- Michael LUTZ Add these questions as Github issues for further discussion in the sub-group.