Third Meeting of GEO Task ST-09-02: GEO Label and GEOSS Citation Standard - Open Meeting
September 15, 2011, 9:00 - 18:00
Minutes (Version 0.1 of 2011-10-23 13:51)
Participants:
Hans-Peter Plag,
NBMG, University of Nevada, Reno
(ST-09-02 Co-Lead (IEEE) and Point of Contact)
Ian McCallum,
IIASA
(Contributor)
Bente Lilja Bye,
BLB
(Contributor, EC - EGIDA)
Joan Maso,
UAB
(Contributor, OGC)
Stuart Marsh,
British Geological Survey
(Contributor, U.K.)
Veronica Guidetti,
ESRIN, Frascati
(GeoViQua)
Mark Parsons,
National Snow and Ice Data Center, University Colorado, Boulder, USA
(Guest)
Mustapha Mokrane,
ICSU
(Guest)
Paul Uhlir,
NAS
(Guest)
Douglas Cripe,
GEO Secretariat
(Contributor, GEO Sec.)
Agenda:
1
Welcome, introduction, and purpose of the meeting: Towards a GEOSS Citation Standard and a GEO Label (9:00 - 9:30)
2
Summary of status of Activity 2.1: GEOSS Data Citation Standard (9:30 - 10:00)
Version 1.0; Comments from Reviewers; Comments from ExCOM.
presentation
.
3
Summary of status of Activity 2.2: GEO Label (10:00 - 10:30)
EGIDA, GEOViqua, ST-09-02.
presentation
4
International discussion of Data Citation: a review (11:00 - 11:45)
ICSU CODATA; WRCP; ESIP; DataCite, Creative Commons, ...
presentation
5
A review of labeling and certification (11:45 - 12:30)
presentation Plag
;
presentation Bye
presentation GEOVIGVA
6
Draft Version 2.0 of the GEOSS Data Citation Standard Version (14:00 - 15:00)
7
Linkage of GEO Label to Data Citation (15:00 - 15:30)
8
A GEO Label concept (15:30 - 16:00)
9
Implementation of a GEO Label: Selfassessment versus external assessment (16:30 - 17:30)
10
Schedule and actions (17:30 - 18:00)
Notes:
1
Welcome, introduction, and purpose of the meeting: Towards a GEOSS Citation Standard and a GEO Label (9:00 - 9:30)
Hans-Peter Plag
opened the meeting and welcomed the participants. A round of introduction was not
necessary since all participants present at the meeting were known to each other. Several
participants joined by WebEx.
Concerning the agenda,
Joan Maso
asked whether his presentation was included.
Hans-Peter Plag
confirmed
that the presentation should be given under item 5.
Hans-Peter Plag
reviewed the purpose of the meeting:
-
Review the status of two main activities of ST-09-02, which also
have a high priority for the STC. These activities are derived from the STC Road Map,
which was endorsed by the GEO Plenary.
-
Align these activities with other relevant initiatives inside and outside of GEO.
Make progress to tangible results this year.
-
Agree on who is going to do what and when.
2
Summary of status of Activity 2.1: GEOSS Data Citation Standard (9:30 - 10:00)
Hans-Peter Plag
summarized the status of the GEOSS Data Citation Standard
(see
presentation
).
He reported that the Version 1.0 of the Data Citation Standard had been reviewed under
coordination of EGIDA by two reviewers, who provided valuable comments. During the STC-16)
(April 14, 2011, Sydney, Australia), the STC decided to present the V1.0 to the ExCom. At
the 22nd ExCom meeting, the ExCom provided feedback on the document and requested that it
be further developed in coordination with other relevant activities before it can be presented
to the GEO Plenary.
Douglas Cripe
commented on the interaction with the ExCom and emphasized that the
ExCom needs to see documents in a timely manner. At the 22nd meeting, the ExCom had seen the
draft for the first time. He pointed out that it is difficult to draw attention to specific
parts in the document during the meeting. To the ExCom members, it was not sufficiently
clear that all other alternatives were considered.
At STC-16 (September 12-13, 2011, Salzburg), the STC agreed to write a letter to the ExCom
to clarify the situation.
Stuart Marsh
reported on the letter to be written. He pointed
out that the next version of the Citation Standard need not be a version 2 but rather a
summary of what is going on and how ST-09-02 has taken into account all on-going
activities. This new version could be part of the STC report to the Plenary, or it could be a
separate plenary paper.
Douglas Cripe
supported this approach. He cautioned to aim in the letter
for more latitude to introduce the standard in the report, and he pointed out that if there is
a document that is referenced in the report then it should be annexed to the report.
Stuart Marsh
clarified that
Stuart Minchin
is writing a statement on what data citation means.
Douglas Cripe
agreed that this could work if v2.0 of the standard is not part of the written report.
The report should make a reference to the standard, and provide more details.
Hans-Peter Plag
commented that the next version will include more details as part of the standard.
The general opinion in those organizations working on data citation is that a standard should be
tested as soon as possible because it is expected that a test would reveal issues not considered
current.
Stuart Marsh
agreed on the importance of a test drive.
Douglas Cripe
agreed to check what could, and could not be, asked of the Plenary. In any case, it
would be good to present where the work stand. He has to check whether a test drive of the
standard could be done.
Action Item
ST2-M3-1:
Douglas Cripe
will check whether there is a possibility to do a "test drive" of the GEOSS
Data Citation Standard and whether such a test drive would require authorization from
the GEO Plenary.
Responsible:
Douglas Cripe,
Deadline:
2011-10-20.
3
Summary of status of Activity 2.2: GEO Label (10:00 - 10:30)
Hans-Peter Plag
summarized the work done on the GEO label by the STC, ST-09-02, EGIDA,
and GEOViqua (see
).
The discussions in the various forums revealed a broad spectrum of opinions
about what a GEO Label should be and aim for, and showed that there are many problems that
need to be addressed in order to find a viable and attractive solution for the GEO Label.
Particular controversial opinions are related to the question of self-assessment or external
assessment as a basis for the label assignment, assessment within or outside of the GEO
contexts, and integration of certification into the label concept.
He also mentioned a new initiative exploring a commercial avenue for the labeling of
geo-referenced data sets/products and services. This initiative carried by several
small-medium enterprises (SMEs) in Europe focused on a EuroStars
proposal to be submitted by 22 September 2011.
Douglas Cripe
expressed concerns about the coordination of Eurostars with GEOVIQUA and EGIDA.
Hans-Peter Plag
explained that both partners of both projects were members of the EuroStars proposal
team, thus ensuring a high level of coordination between the projects.
In the ensuing discussion,
Hans-Peter Plag
referred to the GEO Committee meetings that took place in
the previous three days, and he expressed his opinion that the future of GEO was rather unclear
due to the fact that the current director was in a lame-duck situation and the future
management structure for the GEO Works Plan was unclear. The possible situation of the
proposed new structure not being accepted by the Plenary would leave GEO with weakened
Committees, while, if the new structure was accepted, a lot of time would have to be spent on
making this structure work.
Douglas Cripe
responded to these comments and stated that the current Director should not be
considered as a negative. He emphasized that the Work Plan contents were not under
discussion and well defined.
Hans-Peter Plag
added that the participation on the Committee meetings was extremely low and considered
this as a possible indicator of a growing disengagement.
Stuart Marsh
agreed that the numbers were low, and he confirmed that there had been a lot of
discussion concerning the process of developing the new management structure, about the
director, and GEO's future. However, his feeling was that organizations sometimes go through
bumpy rides but come out well. He also emphasized that there were no issues with the Work
Plan contents, but the issue could be how to manage the new Work Plan with the old structure,
in case the new structure would not be accepted.
Joan Maso
agreed on the statements of
principles for the new management. In his opinion, the new Boards should have open membership,
not solely restricted to task leads. It was mentioned that the STC comments will be forwarded
to the GEO Secretariat.
4
International discussion of Data Citation: a review (11:00 - 11:45)
Hans-Peter Plag
gave an overview of the on-going relevant international discussions;
see
presentation
. Key players are ICSU's CODATA;
the WRCP; ESIP; DataCite, Creative Commons. None of these organizations, however, have reached
a status where a draft standard is available, except for ESIP, which has a draft based on
the IPY guidelines.
In the discussion, there was consensus that the ESIP draft provides a good starting point
for the development of V2.0. The issues identified by CODATA also should be considered.
5
A review of labeling and certification (11:45 - 12:30)
Hans-Peter Plag
reviewed a number of issues related to the GEO label, see
presentation
. He emphasized the need to
prepare a comprehensive reference document that would inform the GEO Plenary about the
various options and their advantages and disadvantages. He also provided a list of
possible goals for the GEO Label and underlined that the label will depend on what goals
GEO will agree on.
Joan Maso
emphasized that the GEO Plenary will need a specific proposal.
Hans-Peter Plag
agreed to
this but would like to see a position paper that could be made available for the
2012 Work Plan meeting.
Bente Lilja Bye
gave an overview of other labels and the approach taken by going through
a number of examples, see
presentation
.
Joan Maso
summarized the approach taken by GeoViqua, see
presentation
. He showed several options for the
graphical representation of the label. He introduced a questionnaire to be used to
get feedback on various label options.
Veronica Guidetti
commented that only the providers can do a quality report, while users can
express their rating.
Therefore, the GEO portal should have an environment allowing users to provide comments.
She sees the need for someone from GEO to control/edit this.
The label could be link to a certificate, which would lead to entering the commercial world.
The label should also provide information on what data have been used for so far.
Ian McCallum
suggested to do the first survey without introducing the graphical examples.
Veronica Guidetti
disagreed and stated that the survey should propose the graphics and ask for feedback on
these.
Hans-Peter Plag
pointed out that there are ISO standard relevant to data quality, and
one aspect would be to ensure that data quality has been ensured and assessed consistent with
these standards. He agreed that expressed user feedback would have to be part of the
label, which should be designed to handle many responses.
Veronica Guidetti
informed that ESA is compliant with relevant ISO Standards, but the picture
gets more complex for higher level products.
Hans-Peter Plag
commented that the GEO label has to be designed for far more than ESA and other space
agencies and also cover in situ and airborne data.
Joan Maso
stated that if one asks a user "Do you want quality?", one normally gets the answer
"Yes," but users often do not understand how quality information is provided. He uses
Enterprise Architect to construct use cases that illustrate the value of the GEO label
under several assumptions. This software is free for GEO members.
Hans-Peter Plag
suggested
that similar sketches should be developed for each of the goal
alternatives he listed in his presentation, focused on GEOSS and with a global view.
6
Draft Version 2.0 of the GEOSS Data Citation Standard Version (14:00 - 15:00)
During this discussion,
Paul Uhlir
and
Mark Parsons
joint by WebEx.
Hans-Peter Plag
gave a brief summary of
the previous discussions on the GEOSS Data Citation Standard.
Paul Uhlir
commented that it
was very good that GEO was working towards a first version of a GEOSS Data Citation Standard,
which could provide valuable feedback to the other organizations working on data citation rules
and standards.
He informed that CODATA was working on a White Paper to be made available in 2012. He suggested
that GEO should be represented in CODATA and participate in this work.
Mark Parsons
was pleased to see that the V1.0 of the GEOSS Data Citation Standard adopted the ESIP
guidelines and recommended that the next version would take into account the further
development of these guidelines. He was extremely interested in the testing that
would result from the implementation of the standard in GEOSS. He reported that he might get
support for the development of tools from a NSF EGER project, and offered cooperation
for the implementation in GEOSS.
7
Linkage of GEO Label to Data Citation (15:00 - 15:30)
Initially,
Hans-Peter Plag
commented on linkages between label and citation: (1)
the number of citations of a data set, product or
service could be part of the label, and (2) the label could support evaluation of the author
and contribute to the determination of merits. Once the label has established itself as an
authority, one could also agree that data sets without label are not cite-able.
Ian McCallum
asked whether there was an intention to force people, who want to use a product to use
the label.
Hans-Peter Plag
explained
that using the label for citation could be part of the license, which could state
that data are free,
as long as they are cited correctly.
Bente Lilja Bye
pointed out that there is an increasing request for the identification data
sources. Therefore, the label needs to be a label that providers use, too, which would
provide access to the source through the label.
There was consensus that the linkage needs to be explored in more depth in both direction.
Bringing the two issues together might strengthen both, and an
explicit linkage might also stimulate more data sharing.
8
A GEO Label concept (15:30 - 16:00)
There was consensus that the development of the label concept required three steps
(1) Goal definition, (2) criteria development, (3) use cases (in this sequence. The questionnaire under development by GeoViqua w
9
Implementation of a GEO Label: Selfassessment versus external assessment (16:30 - 17:30)
Hans-Peter Plag
asked
Veronica Guidetti
to comment on the question of whether a label can be based on
self-assessment or requires external assessment.
Veronica Guidetti
wanted to keep the question
open. If there are external bodies that can provide assessment, they should be invited
to do so, However, any assessment would have to be compliant with standard. She also
informed that ESA works on certification, particularly in the frame of the
European Association of Remote Sensing Companies. This working group will meet in
November 2011. In this group, self assessment is not an option.
Ian McCallum
in basically agreed with ruling out the self-assessment option, but saw the need to
discuss this with the STC because STC members might disagree. For him, user assessment
would be an essential part of the label.
10
Schedule and actions (17:30 - 18:00)
Ian McCallum
pointed out that EGIDA has a deliverable related to the
GEO label. It was agreed that this deliverable should provide summary of what has been
done so far in GEOVIQUA, EGIDA, ST-09-02, ESA, and the Eurostars proposal. The agreed
upon time line is:
-
Draft: 7 October 2011
-
To be send to ST-09-02, GEOViqua, EGIDA, QE4EO, ...
-
Deadline for feedback: 1 November 2011
Action Item
ST2-M3-2:
Ian McCallum
will compile a draft GEO label deliverable for EGIDA summarizing
the work done so far and send this draft for review to EGIDA, GeoViqua, and ST-09-02.
Responsible:
Ian McCallum,
Deadline:
2011-10-20.
Concerning the questionnaire, the following time line was agreed:
-
Finalization of questionnaire: 14 October 2011
-
Questionnaire published: 15 November
-
Close of questionnaire on 20 December
Action Item
ST2-M3-3:
Joan Maso
will report back to ST-09-02 on the development of the GEO label questionnaire.
Responsible:
Joan Maso,
Deadline:
2011-10-20.
Minutes prepared by
Hans-Peter Plag
|