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

@Simon said:
>ISO 19115-2 (metadata for imagery) includes a more elaborate provenance model than basic ISO 19115. 
>A revision has just commenced, in context of ISO/TC 211 processes.

Then, in the spirit of "not reinventing" do please bring that group's attention to the PROV alignment to ISO 19115-2  that  I mentioned below (on the PROV home page). It is not published (but was presented at the Geosemantics meeting in Barcelona) and I have heard it is being used in a few places.

My reticence about this relates only to my drive, as chair, to focus our energy on the deliverables in our charter. Maybe we should  raise this question about how much provenance to deliver at a meeting? 

@Andrea: I agree with the direction/principles you describe. So, just taking that ontology that I mentioned above as an example (and putting aside any discussion about whether its the right one)  -- would you be wanting the Group to "recommend" such a thing, or just point to it, say in our "best practices" deliverable or some additional Note  and say "consider using this if you want to do a, b, or c)"? 

@Andrea: I think "time" is different. We *must* deliver an ontology for time (see our Charter)
and we already know a lot about what it will  look like -- see " Time Ontology in OWL (Recommendation)W3C, OGC . The WG will work with the authors of the existing Time Ontology in OWL to complete the development of this widely used ontology through to Recommendation status. Further requirements already identified in the geospatial community will be taken into account."  

Kerry


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cox, Simon (L&W, Highett)
> Sent: Thursday, 28 May 2015 12:38 AM
> To: Andrea Perego; Taylor, Kerry (Digital, Acton)
> Cc: Yolanda Gil; SDW WG; jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com; Bruce Bannerman;
> Clemens Portele
> Subject: RE: UCR isssue: Is provenance in scope? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
> 
> > 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.
> 
> I fully agree with Andrea here.
> ISO 19115-2 (metadata for imagery) includes a more elaborate provenance
> model than basic ISO 19115.
> A revision has just commenced, in context of ISO/TC 211 processes.
> I have joined the Project Team with the specific goal of aligning it
> with PROV.
> This is a practical step in the direction suggested by Andrea.
> 
> Meanwhile, Kerry wrote -
> > it may not align with this: https://ontohub.org/socop/ISO19115.owl

> 
> ... and the latter has no formal status anyway. There are several
> provisional OWL encodings of ISO 19115 around. I've even done one
> myself based on the UML->OWL conversion rule from ISO 19150-2 - see
> http://def.seegrid.csiro.au/isotc211/iso19115/2003/metadata . I think
> we all would agree that no-one in their right mind would use these for
> real work, but such rigorous conversions might at least provide a basis
> for traceability of an 'aligned' solution.
> 
> Simon
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrea Perego [mailto:andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu]
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 May 2015 8:05 AM
> To: Taylor, Kerry (Digital, Acton)
> Cc: Yolanda Gil; SDW WG; jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com; Bruce Bannerman;
> Clemens Portele
> Subject: 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#C

> > itizensAsSensors
> >
> [2]https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/BP_Requirements#Be_able_to_ann

> >
> otate_data_with_a_specification_of_what_the_information_is_.2F_where_d
> >
> o_you_find_the_geographic_information_for_the_wellknown_reference_like
> > _a_zip_code
> >
> [3]http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html#P

> > ublishingGeospatialReferenceData
> >
> > 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/1PSnpJYQDgsdgZgPJEfU

> > U0EhVfgFFYGc1WL4xUX9Dunk/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 Wednesday, 27 May 2015 15:31:06 UTC