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

03 Feb 2016
Groups audience: 

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.
Stefano
-------------------------------
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=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] Per conto di Gary
Inviato: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 19:30
A: YunqiangZhu <***@***.***>; Data Fabric IG <***@***.***-groups.org>
Cc: Peter Wittenburg
<***@***.***>; Raphael Ritz (***@***.***) <***@***.***>
Oggetto: Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms
Yunqiang
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.
***@***.***
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?GaryBergCross
Member, Ontolog Board of Trustees
Independent Consultant
Potomac, MD
240-426-0770
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
中国科学院地理科学与资源研究所
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
电话/传真:010-64888056
From: Peter Wittenburg
Date: 2016-01-25 02:14
To: ***@***.***-groups.org ; 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.
best
Peter
--
Full post: https://rd-alliance.org/group/data-fabric-ig/post/dfig-terms.html
Manage my subscriptions: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/51044

  • Gary Berg-Cross's picture

    Author: Gary Berg-Cross

    Date: 03 Feb, 2016


    Stefano,
    Thanks for much more than 2 cents moving this conversation along.
    As you not there is a good deal of conceptual modeling, vocabulary
    formalization and metadata available for geospatial data. Indeed the
    implementation you cite ( INSPIRE, US GEO, Copernicus, OGC initiatives,
    etc.) provide some of the better examples of attempts to provide semantic
    interoperability and we hope are evolving locally.
    >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).
    It seems to me that the RDA Geospatial IG and some of the metadata groups
    might work jointly on this using the metadata profile idea. I'm not sure
    if any of that is planned for P7 but it it might be an opportunity. When
    the Geospatial IG first met at a plenary I gave a DFT talk with some ideas
    about vocabulary development, but that was before the MD profile was

    Stefano,
    Thanks for much more than 2 cents moving this conversation along.
    As you not there is a good deal of conceptual modeling, vocabulary
    formalization and metadata available for geospatial data. Indeed the
    implementation you cite ( INSPIRE, US GEO, Copernicus, OGC initiatives,
    etc.) provide some of the better examples of attempts to provide semantic
    interoperability and we hope are evolving locally.
    >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).
    It seems to me that the RDA Geospatial IG and some of the metadata groups
    might work jointly on this using the metadata profile idea. I'm not sure
    if any of that is planned for P7 but it it might be an opportunity. When
    the Geospatial IG first met at a plenary I gave a DFT talk with some ideas
    about vocabulary development, but that was before the MD profile was
    developed.
    >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.
    Brokers, reconciling differences, semantic interoperability and formal
    vocabularies, by the way, will be discussed as part of this Spring's the
    Ontology Summit. We have weekly virtual meetings starting Feb. 11th. I
    can send the link to the group which will include a schedule of topics and
    speakers in a few days.
    As to RDA DFT's efforts many of the early RDA vocabulary work has been in
    the data infrastructure realm itself (e.g. what is a digital object, how to
    define administrative metadata) rather than in a science domain like
    GeoScience or BioMed with terms like spatial reference system and cell.
    So as you note our data fabric and metadata etc. vocabularies have been
    more like the work of technology-driven committees of W3C, IETF, etc.
    which leads me to your proposal that Herman agreed with:
    >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

    Stefano,
    Thanks for much more than 2 cents moving this conversation along.
    As you not there is a good deal of conceptual modeling, vocabulary
    formalization and metadata available for geospatial data. Indeed the
    implementation you cite ( INSPIRE, US GEO, Copernicus, OGC initiatives,
    etc.) provide some of the better examples of attempts to provide semantic
    interoperability and we hope are evolving locally.
    >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).
    It seems to me that the RDA Geospatial IG and some of the metadata groups
    might work jointly on this using the metadata profile idea. I'm not sure
    if any of that is planned for P7 but it it might be an opportunity. When
    the Geospatial IG first met at a plenary I gave a DFT talk with some ideas
    about vocabulary development, but that was before the MD profile was
    developed.
    >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.
    Brokers, reconciling differences, semantic interoperability and formal
    vocabularies, by the way, will be discussed as part of this Spring's the
    Ontology Summit. We have weekly virtual meetings starting Feb. 11th. I
    can send the link to the group which will include a schedule of topics and
    speakers in a few days.
    As to RDA DFT's efforts many of the early RDA vocabulary work has been in
    the data infrastructure realm itself (e.g. what is a digital object, how to
    define administrative metadata) rather than in a science domain like
    GeoScience or BioMed with terms like spatial reference system and cell.
    So as you note our data fabric and metadata etc. vocabularies have been
    more like the work of technology-driven committees of W3C, IETF, etc.
    which leads me to your proposal that Herman agreed with:
    >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.
    Some of the first DFT vocabulary were taken, largely by Peter, from
    articles on digital objects and data management supplemented by discussions
    at our initial Plenary meetings. The feeling was that some extant ("well
    used" or "familiar" definitions were not up to date or missing for things
    like digital object IDs. So these were drafted and evolved a bit over time
    as they were discussed at Plenaries.
    But many others have come from the work of the Practical Policy group and
    others been taken from existing sources at least a place holders.
    For example I took Data catalog from W3C
    http://smw-rda.esc.rzg.mpg.de/index.php/Data_Catalog
    You can see the list of terms at:
    http://smw-rda.esc.rzg.mpg.de/index.php/Special:AllPages
    Many of these have not been fully discussed. And we haven't had enough
    resources to harmonize definitions with other vocabularies.
    We'd love to do this as part of the "evolution" you note for other domains.
    We are looking into vocabulary services such as SKOS relations to help do
    this, but it remains a challenge.
    Gary Berg-Cross, Ph.D.
    ***@***.***
    http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?GaryBergCross
    Member, Ontolog Board of Trustees
    Independent Consultant
    Potomac, MD
    240-426-0770
    On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 4:01 AM, nativi <***@***.***> wrote:
    > Dear All,

    Stefano,
    Thanks for much more than 2 cents moving this conversation along.
    As you not there is a good deal of conceptual modeling, vocabulary
    formalization and metadata available for geospatial data. Indeed the
    implementation you cite ( INSPIRE, US GEO, Copernicus, OGC initiatives,
    etc.) provide some of the better examples of attempts to provide semantic
    interoperability and we hope are evolving locally.
    >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).
    It seems to me that the RDA Geospatial IG and some of the metadata groups
    might work jointly on this using the metadata profile idea. I'm not sure
    if any of that is planned for P7 but it it might be an opportunity. When
    the Geospatial IG first met at a plenary I gave a DFT talk with some ideas
    about vocabulary development, but that was before the MD profile was
    developed.
    >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.
    Brokers, reconciling differences, semantic interoperability and formal
    vocabularies, by the way, will be discussed as part of this Spring's the
    Ontology Summit. We have weekly virtual meetings starting Feb. 11th. I
    can send the link to the group which will include a schedule of topics and
    speakers in a few days.
    As to RDA DFT's efforts many of the early RDA vocabulary work has been in
    the data infrastructure realm itself (e.g. what is a digital object, how to
    define administrative metadata) rather than in a science domain like
    GeoScience or BioMed with terms like spatial reference system and cell.
    So as you note our data fabric and metadata etc. vocabularies have been
    more like the work of technology-driven committees of W3C, IETF, etc.
    which leads me to your proposal that Herman agreed with:
    >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.
    Some of the first DFT vocabulary were taken, largely by Peter, from
    articles on digital objects and data management supplemented by discussions
    at our initial Plenary meetings. The feeling was that some extant ("well
    used" or "familiar" definitions were not up to date or missing for things
    like digital object IDs. So these were drafted and evolved a bit over time
    as they were discussed at Plenaries.
    But many others have come from the work of the Practical Policy group and
    others been taken from existing sources at least a place holders.
    For example I took Data catalog from W3C
    http://smw-rda.esc.rzg.mpg.de/index.php/Data_Catalog
    You can see the list of terms at:
    http://smw-rda.esc.rzg.mpg.de/index.php/Special:AllPages
    Many of these have not been fully discussed. And we haven't had enough
    resources to harmonize definitions with other vocabularies.
    We'd love to do this as part of the "evolution" you note for other domains.
    We are looking into vocabulary services such as SKOS relations to help do
    this, but it remains a challenge.
    Gary Berg-Cross, Ph.D.
    ***@***.***
    http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?GaryBergCross
    Member, Ontolog Board of Trustees
    Independent Consultant
    Potomac, MD
    240-426-0770

  • Keith Jeffery's picture

    Author: Keith Jeffery

    Date: 04 Feb, 2016

    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
    Keith G Jeffery Consultants
    Prof Keith G Jeffery
    E: ***@***.***
    T: +44 7768 446088
    S: keithgjeffery
    Past President ERCIM www.ercim.eu (***@***.***)
    Past President euroCRIS www.eurocris.org
    Past Vice President VLDB www.vldb.org
    Fellow (CITP, CEng) BCS www.bcs.org
    Co-chair RDA MIG https://rd-alliance.org/internal-groups/metadata-ig.html
    Co-chair RDA MSDWG https://rd-alliance.org/working-groups/metadata-standards-directory-work...
    Co-chair RDA DICIG https://rd-alliance.org/internal-groups/data-context-ig.html
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] 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.
    Stefano
    -------------------------------
    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=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] Per conto di Gary
    Inviato: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 19:30
    A: YunqiangZhu <***@***.***>; Data Fabric IG <***@***.***-groups.org>
    Cc: Peter Wittenburg
    <***@***.***>; Raphael Ritz (***@***.***) <***@***.***>
    Oggetto: Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms
    Yunqiang
    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.
    ***@***.***
    http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?GaryBergCross
    Member, Ontolog Board of Trustees
    Independent Consultant
    Potomac, MD
    240-426-0770
    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
    中国科学院地理科学与资源研究所
    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
    电话/传真:010-64888056
    From: Peter Wittenburg
    Date: 2016-01-25 02:14
    To: ***@***.***-groups.org; 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.
    best
    Peter
    --
    Full post: https://rd-alliance.org/group/data-fabric-ig/post/dfig-terms.html
    Manage my subscriptions: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/51044

submit a comment