Reading GW Workshop minutes

Scoping discussion

What are the interests of different parties

• Harmonize OGC/INT'L GW Model
  • GW Use case
• Link to surface water feature and Observation
  • GW/SW use cases

RT: INSPIRE aims at being consistent with International standard.

Consensus to work together.

DB : Authoritative model

JJS : INSPIRE must sure they can implement it.

BB: we still have conceptual differences.

Goal for today: come to a plan to address those issues

After lunch: concrete step to decide what to do.

Strategies : define use cases and discuss conceptual differences.

Main UC: share GW data between agency. INSPIRE is basic infrastructure to be extended to specific use (core entities), GWML is more scientific (geology)

BW: Important UC is propagating data to public.

DB: Need central model for federating.

RT,BB: Difference between clients (user, statistician, science, policies)

BB: Group of people need more detailed, while other need details. Must determine

BB: what is the scope, data exchange, data delivery and reporting (summary).

RA: What is the governance ? WMO ?

RA: What aspect is naming (and having convention about identifying things)

PS demands clarification about "reporting".

BB For some UC, only a small set is of interest. Example : national reporting -> aquifer summary: recharge, dischage only. Fewer features in reporting scenarii

Looking at BW ppt.

TN: INSPIRE was connection between Geology and Hydrology. Suggests that we bring in more experts (IAH).

BB,DB: Themes

• Rock system
• Groundwater System (water dynamic, flows, etc.)
• Wells and abstraction artefacts
• Related Observations
• Water budget (Recharge and Discharge)Reservoirs
  • Total water budget and subsurface flows (inter aquifers)
• Water Body (quality, volume of material). Piezometric surface is a property of Water Body
• Water management units

BB: For strictly environmental reason, Water Budget, Economic reasons : Reservoir

BW: Water budget fits to hydrologic model in INSPIRE.

TN: Connect GW and Surface water to prepare a budget.

BB: two aspect - flow from surface to subsurface. What about one aquifer to another ? Where is this handled in INSPIRE ?

BB: Next question . Do we want to include everything ?

SC: Whatever you do, modularize alongs those scopes.

PS: What about reporting unit (non physical limits)

BB: Do we model all of modularise. Figure out what are the main packaging.

DB: Water budget not in a HG specific.

RA : WaterML profile ?

BB: Priority on wich one are core. Discuss now or later.

PS: relates to use case.

DB : defer, defer

RA: Capture the use cases to drive the modules.

BB: next step is to define use cases.

Conceptual issues

Open issue about GeologicUnit

Different organisation for AquiferSystem, but semantically the same

Some conceptual differences for GroundwaterBody between HY_Feature and GWML

Wells are O&M support of observation for GWML while INSPIRE have a link to INSPIRE monitoring model.

INSPIRE division along active and inactive make lots of sense because of the impact on gw flow.

Well in HY_Feature is more closely related to INSPIRE concept of a well.

JM: Lots of properties from GeologicUnit are not necessary for HydroGeologicUnit and did not want to bring all this extra properties

BB: lots of GeologicUnit are not mandatory

JL: INSPIRE version of GeologicUnit is much simplified

BB: Need a deeper discussion of address this issue.

TN: Longer discussion needed but Skype is bad.

DB: support for borehole is a big requirement. overlap between hydrogeology and geology is very close in borehole context.

RT: different understanding of GeoSciML.

SC: GeoSciML requires a lot of rationalisation, even from geologists.

RT: maybe clarify the definition of what is a GeologicUnit

JL: The issue of excessive properties in GeoSciML is not as pressing in INSPIRE since the model is simplified.

Next steps

General agreement to proceed under OGC, we need to draf a document (a proposal to do this work under OGC under the Experiment venue with the goal to come to a specification).

People interested to bring all those aspect under a single model under OGC.

RT: yes. INSPIRE should be based on global standard and not create a "competing" model. Organisally wide ,JRC involment will be clarified

BW: same, good oppotunity to bring.

EB: obvious need for transborder

PS: interested as an observer.

SC: supportive. Since GeoSciML and this initiative will be under OGC. Will look at package

DB: on board. need as common as possible with Canada, and within states. Mission critical for full monitoring network

JJS: yes, BRGM is interest, would involve Hydrogeologist.

BGS: keen in INSPIRE conformance. like to have hydrogeologist involved

ID: WMO support. willing to provide sampled feature and linkage to surface water.

BB: need to do this for mission critical context.

TN: Best solution to connect to global standard. fully agree

JM: Yes, of course. Hope to participate to global. But university not part of OGC, work done under Polish Association for Spatial Information.

Can this work can be carried by non-OGC members.

SC: OGC membership is 500$. Local government 200$

TN: speak with IAH to seek interest.

Draft GWIE 2 document

Need dates and clarification. When clarification,

Process is IE -> Eng. report -> RFC -> SWIG (not if no comment)

target 1yr, so end at September 1st. 2013 (to be confirmed)

Finalise document by August 1st

Start activities in September 2012

(some face to face and regular remote meetings)

more participant can join (contact Boyan Brodaric)

-- EricBoisvert - 28 Jun 2012