This document discusses how cultural heritage data is represented in the INSPIRE Directive and opportunities to improve it. Currently, heritage data is mostly captured under the buildings and protected sites themes, which is not ideal as it fails to represent non-building archaeological features and landscapes. The document explores proposals to better classify heritage data, such as by extending the protected sites schema or developing consistent documentation of cross-boundary monuments and events. It also discusses the need for metadata standards that suit different types of heritage data.

1. INSPIRE and Cultural Heritage
Peter McKeague
Royal Commission on the Ancient and
Historical Monuments of Scotland
FISH – HEIRNET Autumn Strategic Meeting, Edinburgh 26th November 2013

2. The INSPIRE Directive: where is cultural heritage?
Source http://inspire.jrc.ec.europa.eu/index.cfm/pageid/2/list/7
Annex I
1. Coordinate reference
systems
2. Geographical grid systems
3. Geographical names
4. Administrative units
5. Addresses
6. Cadastral parcels
7. Transport networks
8. Hydrography
9. Protected sites
Annex II
1. Elevation
2. Land cover
3. Ortho-imagery
4. Geology
Annex III
1. Statistical units
2. Buildings
3. Soil
4. Land use
5. Human health and safety
6. Utility and governmental services
7. Environmental monitoring facilities
8. Production and industrial facilities
9. Agricultural and aquaculture facilities
10. Population distribution – demography
11. Area management/restriction/regulation
zones & reporting units
12. Natural risk zones
13. Atmospheric conditions
14. Meteorological geographical features
15. Oceanographic geographical features
16. Sea regions
17. Bio-geographical regions
18. Habitats and biotopes
19. Species distribution
20. Energy Resources
21. Mineral resources
HER data currently considered as a part of the Annex III Buildings theme

3. Cultural Heritage and the wider Historic Environment
Cropmark sites and landscapes
Upstanding archaeology
Lost industrial heritage
Annex III: Buildings - really?
Non-addressable features

4. Protected Sites and the wider Historic Environment
A Protected Site is defined as an
“Area designated or managed within a framework of
international, Community and Member States' legislation
to achieve specific conservation objectives”
[Directive 2007/2/EC].
“..a Protected Site is an area of land and/or sea
especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of
biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural
resources, and managed through legal or other effective
means.”
[International Union for the Conservation of Nature]
Annex I
In Scotland
RCAHMS published WMS for it’s Canmore data in alignment with the Protected Sites theme
The HERs have adopted the same approach
McKeague, P., Corns, A. And Shaw, R. 2012 Developing a Spatial Data Infrastructure for Archaeological and Built Heritage.
International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research, vol. 7 http://ijsdir.jrc.ec.europa.eu/index.php/ijsdir/article/view/239

5. A proposed extension to the Protected Sites Schema
Spain: the Cultural Heritage Application Schema proposed as an extension of the Protected Sites Full Application Schema
Fernandez Freire, C. et al: 2013 (article under review) A Cultural Heritage Application Schema: towards interoperability of Cultural Heritage Data in INSPIRE
International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research, vol. 8 http://ijsdir.jrc.ec.europa.eu/index.php/ijsdir/article/view/315

6. Developing interoperability across boundaries
Frontiers of the Roman Empire
There is a need for a consistent approach to documenting spatial data for both
Monuments and Events across local, regional, national and international boundaries

7. Metadata: one size does not fit all
Metadata needs to be specific to the type of data recorded
Geophysical survey Airborne Laser Scanning 3D surveys
Spatial Discovery metadata:
Describes the nature and content of the dataset
Exploration metadata:
The information required to ensure the data is appropriate for purpose
Exploitation metadata:
The information required to access, transfer and apply the data
Shaw, R., Corns, A. and McAuley, J., 2009 Archiving Archaeological Spatial Data: Standards and Metadata in the online proceedings of Making History
Interactive, CAA 2009, 22-26 March 2009, Wiliamsburg, Virginia, USA http://www.caa2009.org/articles/Shaw_Contribution187_c%20(1).pdf

8. Towards consistency
OASIS already provides a template for gathering consistent metadata for some ‘Event’ types
and allows for upload and transfer of spatial extents.

9. Scottish Historic Environment Data Strategy
Peter McKeague
peter.mckeague@rcahms.gov.uk
FISH – HEIRNET Autumn Strategic Meeting, Edinburgh 26th November 2013