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

Hello,

It seems this issue is about ready for closing, again after insightful
discussion. I have suggested a rephrasing in the notes of the requirement
in the issue tracker <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/11> and
I have changed the status of this issue to 'pending review'.

If anyone thinks the proposed solution could be improved, please make it
known.

Regards,
Frans

2015-05-28 1:16 GMT+02:00 <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>:

> > 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.
>
> Will do. Thanks Kerry. Thanks also for uploading your prezi to the OGC
> meeting folder, from where I've just grabbed it, to use at the ISO f2f
> meeting in 10 days' time! This kind of coordination is essential if we are
> to successfully herd all these cats.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taylor, Kerry (Digital, Acton)
> Sent: Thursday, 28 May 2015 1:30 AM
> To: Cox, Simon (L&W, Highett); Andrea Perego
> Cc: Yolanda Gil; SDW WG; jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com; Bruce Bannerman;
> Clemens Portele
> Subject: 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.
>
>


-- 
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 <http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer>