AW: [rda-datafabric-ig] R: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms

08 Feb 2016
Groups audience: 

Thanks Stefano and Keith,
Is the stuff you are talking about Keith written down somewhere? How to move ahead?
The FAIR folks are suggesting to agree on a formal language to represent metadata etc.
It seems that my old CLARIN people describe categories (concepts) with help of SKOS and they use this “component” approach with a registry of components (sub-schemas) allowing everyone to re-use these components or adapt them to their needs. Of course RDF can or is being created for whatever purposes.
I am convinced that we need to come to suggestions which not everyone may agree with, but if we do not put things on paper and trigger discussion in the community nothing will happen.
Peter Wittenburg Tel: +49 2821 49180
***@***.*** ; ***@***.***
RDA Europe Director, RDA TAB Member, EUDAT Scientific Advisor
Senior Advisor Data Systems, Max Planck Computing and Data Facility
Gießenbachstraße 2, 85748 Garching, Germany,
former affiliation: MPI for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Von: keith.jeffery=***@***.*** [mailto:***@***.***] Im Auftrag von ***@***.***
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 17:34
An: nativi; 'Gary'; 'YunqiangZhu'; 'Data Fabric IG'
Cc: Wittenburg, Peter; 'Raphael Ritz'
Betreff: Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] R: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms
Stefano –
I agree with the thrust of your points. It is important that we understand the conceptual models which lead to a formal syntax for the metadata (managing the structure – all too often with insufficient flexibility to ‘map’ the real world) and (the major interest of DFT) the semantics i.e. the lexical strings/terms used and their meaning.
It is important that RDA works with what exists. In the joint metadata groups we have come up wth a list of metadata elements generated by looking at many metadata ‘standards’ and use cases requiring metadata. The list of elements (note no formal syntax nor semantics yet!) is being discussed with as many of the ‘application domain groups’ in RDA as possible and we already had good and positive feedback at the Coordination meeting in Gaithersburg in December.
As you indicate this will also be important for metadata mediated brokering – as you aand I have discussed before.
With best wishes
Keith G Jeffery Consultants
Prof Keith G Jeffery
E: ***@***.***
T: +44 7768 446088
S: keithgjeffery
Past President ERCIM (***@***.***)
Past President euroCRIS
Past Vice President VLDB
Fellow (CITP, CEng) BCS
Co-chair RDA MIG
Co-chair RDA MSDWG
Co-chair RDA DICIG
The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the
intended recipient only. If you are not one of the intended
recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but
return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it.
From: stefano.nativi=***@***.*** [mailto:***@***.***] On Behalf Of nativi
Sent: 03 February 2016 09:02
To: 'Gary'; 'YunqiangZhu'; 'Data Fabric IG'
Cc: 'Peter Wittenburg'; 'Raphael Ritz'
Subject: [rda-datafabric-ig] R: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms
Dear All,
Thank you for having started this really interesting discussion. Let me try to provide some possible contributions.
As for geospatial data and conceptual models, ISO TC211 has been considered the abstract reference specification by the majority of the Community. In the last 15 years, the Committee has produced 60 specification dealing with geospatial data and information (e.g. ISO 1901 Geographic information — Reference model). Several international programmes started from their conceptual models to elaborate implementation schemas and profiles, noticeable INSPIRE, US GEO, Copernicus, OGC initiatives, etc. Naturally, other broad Communities have been doing a similar work for their domains (see bioinformatics, astronomy, etc.). In addition, technology-driven committees have also provided useful definitions as far as data and information are concerned, noticeably W3C, IETF, etc.
In my opinion, the challenge would be to start from these existing and well-used definitions and try to harmonize them in order to serve
A more general Community: Data Community independently from the utilized technology.
As to the metadata models, I think we need to face the same problem: there exist several well-defined and used metadata schemas that are conceived to model those features of the reality that are particularly useful for a given Community. Hence they are all useful (or better fit-for-a-given-purpose).
In the Brokering IG, we are trying to understand how to reconcile this useful diversity, introducing some more general solutions but leaving the scientific Communities to be free to evolve and be part of the solution to address their interoperability needs. In our vision, this is crucial to ensure sustainability.
My two cents.
Dr. Stefano Nativi
Head of the Division of Florence of the Institute of Atmospheric Pollution Research of the National Research Council of Italy (CNR-IIA)
Via Madonna del Piano, 10 (50019) Sesto Fiorentino (FI) ITALY
Tel +39 055-522-6590
Cell +39 340 6428427
Email ***@***.*** ***@***.***
Da: gbergcross=***@***.*** [mailto:***@***.***] Per conto di Gary
Inviato: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 19:30
A: YunqiangZhu <***@***.***>; Data Fabric IG <***@***.***>
Cc: Peter Wittenburg
<***@***.***>; Raphael Ritz (***@***.***) <***@***.***>
Oggetto: Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms
Of your list we have discussed Datum,
One of our definitions for Dat a has the idea of a unit.
Data is a collection of datum.
Others in your list seem important (scale and granula rity) but haven't been part of a RDA group's work yet.
They obviously have been discussed and are part of some models. There is an RDF vocabulary for scale for example.
Other terms are spatial and temporal and have relevant standards as noed by Jeffery in a later email:
For spatial coordinate systems metadata ISO191115 / EC INSPIRE standard is very good and widely used.
There are as well some ontological models for these but haven't been integrated into our current vocabulary.
Gary Berg-Cross, Ph.D.
Member, Ontolog Board of Trustees
Independent Consultant
Potomac, MD
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 1:31 PM, YunqiangZhu <***@***.***> wrote:
Hi Peter,
Actually, I am unclear the scale of DFIG terms and what are the basic principles of selecting terms. So I try to add some terms I think they are very important to define, describe and use data. Hope it will useful to perfect DFIG terms.
Best regards,
ZHU, Yunqiang Ph.d Professor
Director, Department for Geo-data Science and Sharing
Deputy Director,State Key Lab. of Resources and Environmental Information System
Institute of Geographical Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences
诸云强 博士 研究员
资源与环境信息系统国家重点实验室 副主任
地球数据科学与共享研究室 主任
北京朝阳区大屯路甲11号 100101
From: Peter Wittenburg
Date: 2016-01-25 02:14
To: ***@***.***; Gary Berg-Cross (***@***.***); Raphael Ritz (***@***.***)
Subject: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms
Dear all,
i just grabbed all terms I could in DFIG documents and comments so far. I am sure that much is missing.
But it may give a first impression. Most of the terms are not well-defined and people are using different definitions.
Please, feel free to add terms and references.
Full post:
Manage my subscriptions:
Stop emails for this post: