As discussed in our Standards page above, INSPIRE provides a large number of common data models, covering 34 data themes, to facilitate data interoperability across EU countries. While these address many basic use cases, they often need to be extended to serve national as well as domain specific needs.
The INSPIRE Generic Conceptual Model contains general requirements and examples of how the INSPIRE data specifications can be extended.
WeTransform GmbH, a Minerva partner, has developed recommendations and design patterns that indicate how such extensions can be implemented, and has many years of experience in using those patterns. Please contact Minerva, or WeTransform, if you face a need for implementing INSPIRE extensions.
Minerva's Interest in INSPIRE Extensions: The Code Lists
INSPIRE's Code Lists specify what terminology may be used to describe points, lines and polygons on INSPIRE-compliant maps.
Any AI application which incorporates INSPIRE data is both enabled and limited by the expressiveness of these Code Lists because the Code Lists provide INSPIRE maps with their semantics - in other words, with their meaning.
For this reason Minerva is collaborating with various institutions and domain experts in providing extensions to INSPIRE Code Lists which enhance the quality of intelligence Minerva's software is able to extract from INSPIRE maps, either alone, or when used in conjunction with other data layers, such as Sentinel II satellite imagery, air quality data, earthquake hazard data, etcetera.
As a simple example, we analyzed the INSPIRE fault type vocabulary.
The scope of the vocabulary is classification of an individual fault. Analysis of the types revealed that the addition of four properties (movement sense, movement type, dip, and dip value) on the categories enables the types to be distinguished based on the property values.
Implementing the vocabulary with these properties allows presentation of the concepts arranged in multiple hierarchical trees. Based on this analysis, we can determine that two types (tranpressional, transtensional) are not applicable to individual faults, but apply to deformation environments, and should be removed from the vocabulary.
One other minor problem is the inconsistent use of 'right' vs. 'dextral' and 'left' vs. 'sinistral' to describe lateral slip components on faults; we suggest consistent use of dextral and sinistral for the concept.