[OSGeo-Discuss] Should OSGeo get involved in the Information Architecture realm and nurture the development of definitive spatial ontologies?

[Bruce.Bannerman at dpi.vic.gov.au]

IMO:


The discussion below has been extracted from a thread currently running on 
OSGeo-AustNZ that is exploring options for supporting the development of 
an ANZLIC Profile to GeoNetwork.

This related discussion may be of interest to other members of the discuss 
list.




Rob Atkinson has proposed that OSGeo may be the right body to nurture the 
development of a set of consistent ontologies describing commonly used 
spatial entities.

This could make it much easier for us to build targetted applications in 
the long term.

It could also become a key reason to adopt OSGeo products, particularly if 
it is consistently adopted across the OS stack.


This suggestion has merit and should be explored further.

Please see below for context.


I'd be interested in other peoples thoughts on this proposal.



Bruce Bannerman





> > As a long term participant in OGC, I think it is capable of 
> > providing A computational view of a reference architecture.
> > 
> > We may want to support parallel views - for example a registry can 
> > easily support CSW. ebXML, Z39.50, SPARL, OAI etc interfaces from 
> > the same content.
> > 
> > This "profiling pattern" is possibly within the OGC purview, but its
> > not handled well at the moment IMHO because its something that 
> > affects deployers, not technology developers: the need to maintain a
> > consistent _information architecture_. OGC is a technology vendor 
> > association primarily.
> > 
> > GSDI could own a SDI reference architecture - but doesnt seem geared
> > up for it. 
> > 
> > OSGEO should at least consider the commonality between its projects,
> > out of business sense. If databases and services and clients and 
> > registries dont handle common metadata, the pieces dont fit together
> > well. Every time I get asked to advise someone on building tools I 
> > have to warn them they have a huge job gluing the pieces together 
> > into a coherent whole, and there will huge amounts of redundant 
> > information scattered across the configurations of each component 
> > that will make it all expensive to build, test and maintain. 
> > 
> > Proprietary systems do tend to be better at this, since inter-
> > component interoperation is often the key to marketing success. 
> > Peopele want an application - and they buy all the components with 
> > the expectation the application will work. IMHO OSGEO could 
> > significantly improve its offerings by having a common information 
> > architecture (without necessarily mandating all projects use it).
> > 
> > 2c, but with inflation $64million :-)
> > 
> > Rob
> > 
> > 
> > 




> Rob,
> 
> Your response highlights the pressing need for a good extensible
> Metadata Catalogue. 
> 
> 
> 
> (warning: ramblings follow...)
> 
> 
> This is further highlighted by OSGeo's OWS-5 screen casts that Raj Singh
> posted about today on the OSGeo Discuss
> list.   http://www.opengeospatial.org/pub/www/ows5/demo.html
> 
> The demos provide an exciting glimpse of what may be possible in the
> future using OGC web services. However we have a lot of work to do
> before we get there.
> 
> Again, OWS-5 has also highlighted the need for a good catalogue /
> registry as well as the potential of the information architecture that
> you discussed.
> 
> 
> This stresses the importance of GeoNetwork to the ASDI, and also
> highlights that the ANZLIC Profile work is just the beginning. We are
> going to need a suite of 'profiles' or definitive registry lists going
> into the future (again a subject that you have been discussing for a
> number of years). I suspect that we'll also need strong support for
> ebRIM as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With regards to Information Architecture:
> 
> From memory, you touched on Information Architecture and the need for
> consistent ontologies describing data during your Keynote Address at the
> recent WALIS Forum.
> 
> 
> When you consider the big picture issues that we are currently facing
> e.g. Climate Change, Water Management, Security etc; it is becoming
> apparent that we need to have consistent schemas / ontologies to
> describe our data both nation-wide and world-wide in order to conduct
> effective spatial analysis.
> 
> As anyone who has tried to integrate, a contiguous spatial dataset
> covering a large regional, or even continental area with spatial data
> coming from a number of data providers will attest, it is like opening
> Pandora's box and not an exercise to be undertaken lightly.
> 
> We all call the same spatial entity type by a different name, record
> different aspatial attributes, or possibly the same attributes but with
> different and inconsistent values and data types, rendering successful
> analysis a joke.
> 
> I understand that this issue has been around for years and that there
> have been a number of attempts at consistency, e.g.:
> 
> - The ICMS Harmonised Data Model 
>    ( http://www.icsm.gov.au/icsm/harmonised_data_model/links.html )
> 
> - Ordnance Survey's Master Map
> 
> - ESRI's Geodatabase Data Models
> 
> 
> Probably the most advanced that I'm aware of is the GeoSciML work for
> describing Geoscientific data
> ( https://www.seegrid.csiro.au/twiki/bin/view/CGIModel/GeoSciML ).
> 
> GeoSciML has proven to be effective during a series of test beds in
> allowing someone to integrate relatively consistent geology served from
> a number of country's Geological Surveys. This data was served via a
> series of WFS servers from around the world.
> 
> It has taken the geoscience community four to five years to get where
> they are to date. We have a lot of catching up to do.
> 
> As I recall that you stated in your keynote, the model that the
> geoscience community have developed to help put together this ontology
> could well be adopted by other communities of practice to develop
> ontologies describing their own data.
> 
> This is not a light undertaking.
> 
> Is it something that could be fostered by OSGeo? Possibly. It could
> certainly thrive within an Open Source Model. 
> 
> It would also be a huge undertaking! 
> 
> 
> Should this be something that OSGeo undertakes? That is something for
> the community to decide.
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce Bannerman
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


Notice:
This email and any attachments may contain information that is personal, 
confidential, legally privileged and/or copyright.No part of it should be reproduced, 
adapted or communicated without the prior written consent of the copyright owner. 

It is the responsibility of the recipient to check for and remove viruses.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by return email, delete 
it from your system and destroy any copies. You are not authorised to use, communicate or rely on the information 
contained in this email.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20080522/947aa243/attachment-0002.html>