Re: UCR isssue: Is provenance in scope? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Thanks a lot for the pointers, Kerry, and thanks also for raising the
question of what should be the "scope" of a possible contribution from
the SDW WG to modelling provenance.

My personal view:

When I was talking about "alignment" I was thinking of best practices
on the re-use of existing vocabularies (e.g., PROV) for representing
existing provenance models - as the relevant parts of ISO 19115.

As far as metadata are concerned, there are currently growing efforts
towards cross-domain interoperability, and a number of initiatives /
activities on provenance, working on the creation of new vocabularies
(see, e.g., the W3C DWBP WG, RDA)

If we are going to work on provenance, my understanding is that we
should aim at providing an RDF representation of the provenance models
used in the geo domain that can also be re-used in other contexts.

The objective is twofold:
1. Enabling sharing of spatial meta/data across domains and platforms
2. Contributing solutions developed in the geo domain to other
communities, who may be totally unaware that what they are working on
has already been.

In terms of design principles, this might imply the definition of a
"core" part (the cross-domain component), and possibly an "extension",
addressing domain-specific requirements. In both cases, we should try
as much as possibly to focus on the re-use of existing vocabularies.
Defining new terms should be considered as the last option, and should
take into account their possible cross-domain re-use.

Actually, I think these principles apply to all the vocs in scope with
our WG - or, at least, to those under the umbrella of the BP
deliverable and to the Time Ontology.

Cheers,

Andrea


On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 1:42 PM,  <Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au> wrote:
> Dear SDWWG provenance people,
>
> I  agree that provenance is important for a lot of the things that this
> group’s work will be used for.
>
> It is certainly raised several times in our use cases.
>
> And I agree wholeheartedly with Yolanda that iso19115 is not good enough.
>
> It is not mentioned on our charter.
>
> Andrea said ‘It may be our job to ensure a consistent mapping from
> ISO 19115 to PROV for the description of lineage”
>
> This has been attempted already –a colleague and I did it  in 2013  for one
> of the PROV “implementations’” as required for a Recommendation (and as we
> will need to do for some of this group’s deliverables)  (I presented it at
> the OGC Geosemantics dwg meeting in Barcelona this year).  See
> www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/PROV under heading Uses of PROV.
>
> However, it could do with some documentation and some informed critique. And
> , it may not align with this:
>
> https://ontohub.org/socop/ISO19115.owl
>
> A mapping from SSN (one of our deliverables)  to prov-o has also been done,
> too:  http://knoesis.org/ssn2014/paper_9.pdf
>
> However, I am concerned that we may not have the collective energy to add
> this to the work we already have to do within the time frame we have. Which
> is why I have suggested we just convince ourselves that the deliverables we
> do create are well designed to work with prov-o, without actually saying
> *how* to encode  relevant provenance in prov-o?
>
> If we were to take this on – exactly what would you see us doing? Who would
> do it? When would we do it (maybe after the FPWD of the other deliverables?)
>
> Kerry
>
>
> From: Yolanda Gil [mailto:gil@isi.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, 21 May 2015 6:21 PM
> To: Andrea Perego
> Cc: SDW WG; Joshua Lieberman; Taylor, Kerry (Digital, Acton); Bruce
> Bannerman; Clemens Portele
>
>
> Subject: Re: UCR isssue: Is provenance in scope? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
>
>
>
> +100
>
>
>
> Last year in the context of OGC OWS-10 we used both PROV and ISO 19115 to
> document geospatial provenance.  The OGC technical report is here:
>
>
>
>           https://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=58967
>
>
>
> In essence, what we learned is that 1) PROV-O provided a more flexible
> representation than the ISO standard, and 2) there are many open research
> challenges in geospatial provenance.
>
>
>
> I’d be happy to discuss this work with the group.  My apologies that I have
> not been able to join the calls much this Spring, everything will change in
> June and I’d be very interested to pursue this.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Yolanda
>
>
>
>
>
> Yolanda Gil
>
> Director of Knowledge Technologies, USC/ISI
>
> Associate Director for Research, Intelligent Systems Division, USC/ISI
>
> Research Professor of Computer Science
>
> Information Sciences Institute
>
> University of Southern California
>
> 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 1001
>
> Marina del Rey, CA 90292 (USA)
>
> +1-310-448-8794
>
> http://www.isi.edu/~gil
>
> @yolandagil
>
>
>
> On May 21, 2015, at 12:54 AM, Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Just to mention that provenance is already implied in one of the
> requirements ("5.2 Citizens as sensors" [1]), and related to a
> requirement contributed by Clemens during the Barcelona meeting [2]
> (but not included in the BP doc, as far as I can see), coming from UC
> 4.10 ("Publishing geospatial reference data") [3] - see also Josh's
> comment.
>
> This is also an implicit requirement for metadata, as far as lineage
> is concerned. It may be our job to ensure a consistent mapping from
> ISO 19115 to PROV for the description of lineage.
>
> Andrea
>
> ----
> [1]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#CitizensAsSensors
> [2]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Requirements#Be_able_to_annotate_data_with_a_specification_of_what_the_information_is_.2F_where_do_you_find_the_geographic_information_for_the_wellknown_reference_like_a_zip_code
> [3]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#PublishingGeospatialReferenceData
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Joshua Lieberman
> <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com> wrote:
>
> Kerry,
>
> I’ll see what I can add this evening. Unfortunately more regrets for the
> meeting today (entered on the wiki this time). I’m in a research consortium
> meeting this morning.
>
> I think that extensions of PROV-O to cover deriving a “new” feature by
> linking to an existing / authoritative feature and/or geometry could be in
> scope for Best Practice, but we’ll see how well it fits.
>
> -Josh
>
> Joshua Lieberman, Ph.D.
> Principal
> Tumbling Walls
> jlieberman*tumblingwalls.com
> +1 617 431 6431
>
> On May 20, 2015, at 7:41 AM, <Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au> <Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Bruce, Josh,
>
> I, for one would love to see that use case! I will do what I can to hold the
> presses for you – can you get it on the wiki in the next 24
> hours?https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Working_Use_Cases    And also do
> the analysis of requirements in the
> spreadsheethttps://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PSnpJYQDgsdgZgPJEfUU0EhVfgFFYGc1WL4xUX9Dunk/edit?usp=sharing
>
> I have done a lot of work on provenance in the context of Bioregional
> assessments and other things with GA.
> I also was part of that work in publishing BoM’s  ACORN-SAT  as linked data
> --  and it would have been lovely to do that with provenance too.
>
> However, I do not think we are going to be “doing”  provenance in this
> group, I would just like to know that what we are doing neatly docks to
> PROV-O (the W3C prov ontology),
> and I know that  will not be the case unless we make it so.  See for example
> http://knoesis.org/ssn2014/paper_9.pdf. It would be great, too, if  Josh is
> watching out for
> “reference provenance of spatial data must address not only how a feature
> and a spatial such as a geometry were formed, but how they were associated
> and under what assumptions for representation of the physical world.”
> so that we can have some confidence that it will be possible to represent
> this--- but I still don’t see the doing of that as in scope (wrt our
> charter). We should consider it for future work, which we can certainly
> recommend coming out of this group.
> Can I suggest that you, Josh, note it on the relevant “wish list” on the
> main page of the wiki, so it does not get forgotten? Or, put it as an
> “issue” on the tracker to ensure it gets more attention if you prefer. We
> can put it on a meeting agenda, but can it wait for the UCR to stabilise
> first?
>
> Didn’t  I meet you, Bruce,  in the Melbourne office  earlier this year? If
> you are in Canberra some time it would be nice to catch up on these matters.
>
> Kerry
>
> From: Bruce Bannerman [mailto:B.Bannerman@bom.gov.au]
> Sent: Tuesday, 19 May 2015 8:58 AM
> To: Taylor, Kerry (Digital, Acton); jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com
> Cc: public-sdw-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: UCR isssue: Is provenance in scope? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
>
> Hi Kerry,
>
> Provenance is particularly important for climate data related issues, and no
> doubt for many more domains as well.
>
> >From a climate perspective, when I publish a scientific paper, I need to be
> able to reference all the data that underpins the analysis that the paper
> was based on. So this may be:
>
> Published paper
> Claims in Published paper based on Analytical Data (perhaps a multi
> dimensional array/grid/coverage)
> Analytical data is derived from quality assured observations data (with
> details as to why each change to the QA obs were made)
> Quality assured observations data is derived from ‘raw’ observations data
> which has details as to the conditions, sensors etc that the observation was
> made under.
>
> There are many nuances to provenance here. Including an understanding of
> what algorithms were used to process the data and ideally a reference to the
> source code of these algorithms as they were at the time of the analysis.
>
> And to make things more interesting, the analysis and data is typically
> time-series (observations and coverages).
>
>
>
> This reminds me I posted on a potential climate use case several months ago,
> but forgot to add it.
>
> If there is still interest in this, let me know and I’ll put something
> together.
>
> Bruce
>
>
> From: "Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au" <Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au>
> Date: Wednesday, 13 May 2015 23:59
> To: "jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com" <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>
> Cc: "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
> Subject: RE: UCR isssue: Is provenance in scope?
> Resent-From: <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Thursday, 14 May 2015 00:00
>
>
> (Resending –missed the list cc)
>
> From: Taylor, Kerry (Digital, Acton)
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 May 2015 10:53 PM
> To: 'Joshua Lieberman'
> Subject: RE: UCR isssue: Is provenance in scope?
>
> +1
> I think we need only to make sure (and perhaps show how) our deliverables
> can deal with provenance by attaching/linking  some W3C Prov-o. I would not
> suggest we need to show to encode spatial data provenance in PROv-o  though.
> Provenance is a first class issue in a great deal of spatial data
> applications.
>
> Kerry
>
> From: Joshua Lieberman [mailto:jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 May 2015 10:38 PM
> To: Frans Knibbe
> Cc: SDW WG Public List
> Subject: Re: UCR isssue: Is provenance in scope?
>
> Perhaps we can discuss the general issue of scope today on the call. There
> are many aspects of spatiotemporal data that in general are similar to
> issues with other data, but that clearly require specialization for our
> case. For example, reference provenance of spatial data must address not
> only how a feature and a spatial such as a geometry were formed, but how
> they were associated and under what assumptions for representation of the
> physical world. This is quite specialized to spatial and a significant
> semantic interoperability issue. We will miss addressing critical points in
> our work if we subsume them too often into general ones and deem them out of
> scope.
>
> Josh
>
> Joshua Lieberman, Ph.D.
> Principal
> Tumbling Walls
> jlieberman*tumblingwalls.com
> +1 617 431 6431
>
>
> On May 13, 2015, at 8:21 AM, Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> I have raised an issue for the UCR document: ISSUE-11.
> Again, all help in getting this issue resolved is very welcome.
>
> Regards,
> Frans
>
> --
> Frans Knibbe
> Geodan
> President Kennedylaan 1
> 1079 MB Amsterdam (NL)
>
> T +31 (0)20 - 5711 347
> E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl
> www.geodan.nl
> disclaimer
>
>
>
>
> --
> Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
> Scientific / Technical Project Officer
> European Commission DG JRC
> Institute for Environment & Sustainability
> Unit H06 - Digital Earth & Reference Data
> Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
> 21027 Ispra VA, Italy
>
> https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/
>
> ----
> The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
> not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
> position of the European Commission.
>
>



-- 
Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
Scientific / Technical Project Officer
European Commission DG JRC
Institute for Environment & Sustainability
Unit H06 - Digital Earth & Reference Data
Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
21027 Ispra VA, Italy

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/

----
The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
position of the European Commission.

Received on Tuesday, 26 May 2015 22:06:11 UTC