Several Survey Type labels not matching their definition

[lvdbrink]

URI of the register/reference code: URI http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/codelist/SurveyTypeValue

Overall motivation: Several items from the SurveyTypeValue list have definitions that do not match their label. The expert that brought this to my attention suggests the invalidation of these items. Perhaps they could also be corrected in some way, it is not immediately clear to me which is best.

The individual motivation and proposed change per item:

Motivation: The definition of the value airborne geophysical survey does not match with the label and description Proposed change: Invalidate the value airborne geophysical survey
Change type: Invalidation

Motivation: The definition of the value ground gravity survey does not match with the label and description Proposed change: Invalidate the value ground gravity survey Change type: Invalidation

Motivation: The definition of the value 3D resistivity survey does not match with the label and description Proposed change: Invalidate the value 3D resistivity survey Change type: Invalidation

Motivation: The definition of the value seismological survey does not match with the label and description Proposed change: Invalidate the value seismological survey Change type: Invalidation

Motivation: The definition of the value 2D seismic survey does not match with the label and description Proposed change: Invalidate the value 2D seismic survey Change type: Invalidation

Motivation: The definition of the value 3D seismic survey does not match with the label and description Proposed change: Invalidate the value 3D seismic survey Change type: Invalidation

Motivation: The definition of the value time domain EM survey does not match with the label and description Proposed change: Invalidate the value time domain EM survey Change type: Invalidation

Motivation: The definition of the value frequency domain EM Survey does not match with the label and description Proposed change: Invalidate the value frequency domain EM Survey Change type: Invalidation

[hernlor]

Dear @lvdbrink ,

thank you for your request and for pointing out the mismatching labels and description for the SurveyTypeValue code list.

After checking the source files it looks like the problem resides on the Data Specification for Geology (at least the technical values not included in the Regulation Commission Regulation (EU) No 1089/2010) - see picture attached-. The definitions look fine, but the descriptions look like having been swapped.

On how to manage this issue, "invalidation" is generally only used when the URI is wrong and cannot be reused. This does not look like to be the case, therefore we could go ahead with simple corrections ["Clarifications" option according to ISO191135 workflow implemented by the INSPIRE registry].

We cannot change the data specification for Geology, but you might provide the correct descriptions for each of the code list values for the review of the control body. Could that be an option to go ahead?

Kind regards, INSPIRE registry team

[arantzaetxebarria]

The label "requires change in TG" has been deleted because no changes to the TG are necessary, as requested in the issue https://github.com/INSPIRE-MIF/technical-guidelines/issues/6 from now on in the TG all data specifications will be replaced with a link to the code list in the INSPIRE Registry. This way all changes are centralised in the INSPIRE registry.

[jescriu]

Dear @idevisser, As representative of the Submitting Organisation from the NL, could you please confirm your support to this change proposal? Thank you.

[idevisser]

Dear @jescriu, I contacted the expert that brought this issue to our attention. He agreed that "invalidation" does not look like to be the case, therefore we could go ahead with simple corrections on the descriptions.

[arantzaetxebarria]

Dear @lvdbrink, @idevisser

Below is the table where the SurveyTypeValue item's descriptions have been reorganised. In order to present the change proposal in the next sub-group meeting, could you please validate this reorganisation? On the other hand, some items are left without description, could you provide a proposal for these descriptions? Thanks

codelist | Actual description | Correct description -- | -- | -- 1DResistivitySurvey | A georadar survey may include one or more georadar profiles. Geometry is the overall bounding polygon and metadata also includes responsible parties. | A 1D resistivity survey may include any number of VES stations. Geometry is the overall bounding polygon and metadata also includes responsible parties. 2DResistivitySurvey | A CPT survey may include any number of CPT soundings. Geometry is the overall bounding polygon and metadata also includes responsible parties. | A 2D resistivity survey may include one or more multielectrode DC profiles. Geometry is the overall bounding polygon and metadata also includes responsible parties. 2DSeismicSurvey | A time domain EM survey may include any number of TDEM soundings. Geometry is the overall bounding polygon and metadata also includes responsible parties. | A 2D seismic survey may include one or more seismic lines. Geometry is the overall bounding polygon and metadata also includes responsible parties. 3DResistivitySurvey | A 1D resistivity survey may include any number of VES stations. Geometry is the overall bounding polygon and metadata also includes responsible parties. |   3DSeismicSurvey | A frequency domain EM survey may include any number of FDEM soundings. Geometry is the overall bounding polygon and metadata also includes responsible parties. | A 3D seismic survey may include one or more 3D seismic measurements. Geometry is the overall bounding polygon and metadata also includes responsible parties. airborneGeophysicalSurvey | A 2D seismic survey may include one or more seismic lines. Geometry is the overall bounding polygon and metadata also includes responsible parties. |   boreholeLoggingSurvey | A magnetotelluric survey may include any number of MT soundings. Geometry is the overall bounding polygon and metadata also includes responsible parties. | A borehole logging survey may include one or more borehole logging measurements. Geometry is the overall bounding polygon and metadata also includes responsible parties. CPTSurvey | A CPT survey may include any number of CPT soundings. Geometry is the overall bounding polygon and metadata also includes responsible parties. | A CPT survey may include any number of CPT soundings. Geometry is the overall bounding polygon and metadata also includes responsible parties. frequencyDomainEMSurvey | A sonar survey may include any number of individual sonar measurements. Geometry is the overall bounding polygon and metadata also includes responsible parties.done | A frequency domain EM survey may include any number of FDEM soundings. Geometry is the overall bounding polygon and metadata also includes responsible parties. geoRadarSurvey | A georadar survey may include one or more georadar profiles. Geometry is the overall bounding polygon and metadata also includes responsible parties. | A georadar survey may include one or more georadar profiles. Geometry is the overall bounding polygon and metadata also includes responsible parties. groundGravitySurvey | A 3D seismic survey may include one or more 3D seismic measurements. Geometry is the overall bounding polygon and metadata also includes responsible parties. |   groundMagneticSurvey | A borehole logging survey may include one or more borehole logging measurements. Geometry is the overall bounding polygon and metadata also includes responsible parties. |   magnetotelluricSurvey | A magnetotelluric survey may include any number of MT soundings. Geometry is the overall bounding polygon and metadata also includes responsible parties. | A magnetotelluric survey may include any number of MT soundings. Geometry is the overall bounding polygon and metadata also includes responsible parties. seismologicalSurvey | A 2D resistivity survey may include one or more multielectrode DC profiles. Geometry is the overall bounding polygon and metadata also includes responsible parties. |   sonarSurvey | A sonar survey may include any number of individual sonar measurements. Geometry is the overall bounding polygon and metadata also includes responsible parties. | A sonar survey may include any number of individual sonar measurements. Geometry is the overall bounding polygon and metadata also includes responsible parties. timeDomainEMSurvey | A VSP survey may include any number of vertical seismic profiles. Geometry is the overall bounding polygon and metadata also includes responsible parties. | A time domain EM survey may include any number of TDEM soundings. Geometry is the overall bounding polygon and metadata also includes responsible parties. VSPSurvey | A VSP survey may include any number of vertical seismic profiles. Geometry is the overall bounding polygon and metadata also includes responsible parties. | A VSP survey may include any number of vertical seismic profiles. Geometry is the overall bounding polygon and metadata also includes responsible parties.

Regards

[arantzaetxebarria]

In the MIWP Action 2.3.1 MIG-T Sub-group Meeting on 10/11/2023, it was agreed (before proposing this proposal for MIG-T ensorsement) to bring this issue for discussion in the 18 MIG Meeting - Additional support would be needed from Euro Geo Surveys (EGS) to complete the missing descriptions (see in the table above the empty fields of the appropriate descriptions).

[fabiovinci]

The INSPIRE MIG-T approved the change proposal during the 76th MIG-T Meeting. In the next step, the proposal will be assessed by the MIG through a 2-week scrutiny period starting on 6/12/2023.

[jescriu]

Dear @arantzaetxebarria, I checked your table with the proposed changes above and all 'Correct description' fields perfectly fit with the associated codelist value. Please doublecheck that none of the 'Current description' fields is missing. I expect 5 descriptions repeated in this column. After that please proceed implementing the proposal through the INSPIRE Registry admin interface. Thank you.

[arantzaetxebarria]

Dear @lvdbrink, @idevisser

We would like to inform you that the restructuring of the codelist SurveyTypeValue descriptions have been successfully published.

Regards