Al: Where will this video be displayed?
Will (with Josh): Through the Architecture and Data Committee (ADC), AIP will be preparing videos for each Societal Benefit Area that has been undertaking work through the AIP process. IGWCO is also preparing a hand out brochure, and the Sustainable Agriculture Community of Practice will also have a booth or side-event. I believe the duration of the taping is about 20 or 30 minutes.
Josh: Some of the AIP-3 taped events may only last 3 minutes; others may be much longer
Will: Since we went to a lot of effort to get Stefan, Mike, and Justin together here, let's move our focus back to the question: how do we achieve interoperability among the three systems? Mike has a global mapping web service running at NIDIS, as does Stefan.
Justin: we don't have a mapping web service up and running.
Will: Not to ask any embarrassing question, but why does the African Drought Monitor not have more products beyond April?
Justin: Ah, we ran out of our funding on the project (UNESCO).
Mike: We can use the NIDIS mapping web service: ( http://www.drought.gov/portal/server.pt/community/drought.gov/map_viewer ). Richard and I have been thinking about global content to display on this map.
Stefan: We should stay focused on a tight achievable end. Even linking together these three systems will be a major accomplishment.
Will: Richard, do you have any other drought information--what Mike was referring to? I know that Australia Bureau of Meteorology has some drought (actually precipitation deficiency mapping) that we have not yet included.
Doug: Given the drought in Russia, including Russia would be a good idea, if it is possible.
Richard: We (NCDC) have some Russian datasets available, but not yet processed into usable form.
Will: I tried to locate a Russia drought monitoring product and was unsuccessful.
Stefan: We looked into this; having the ability to verify drought products is very difficult to do over Russia. But given the tight timeline we should focus on the three systems.
Will: There are two parallel time tracks: AIP-3 and AIP-4. What Stefan says of AIP-3 is certainly true. For AIP-4, Richard, what drought monitoring efforts are you aware of in South America?
Richard: Based upon our April meeting, we decided that a global network should be bottom up, not top down. Look at continent by continent capability. Countries within each continent have specific problems with providing information. Some countries can contribute, but bringing them all along is a challenge.
Doug: We should stay on a tight, achievable goal.
Immediate need is to pull present dataservices together and see if it makes a reasonable story for a demo.
Josh: There is still the need to consider registration within the GEOSS Common Registry.
Mike: NIDIS is already registered.
Will: Justin, is there any problem about registering the Princeton African Drought Monitor?
Josh: three threads would need to be followed for a feasible demo in the next few weeks:
Will: We need to not only use the NIDIS global map as an integrator for these three systems but also the EDO web map server. That way we can test Stefano and Mattia's system, i.e., the augmented search capability.
Stefan / Mattia: at least some of the various European data sources (Spain, Drought Management Center for Southeast Europe) could be linked to the EuroGEOSS broker, if not all of them.
Al: This sort of demo would of interest to display in both Water Cycle and Sustainable Agriculture booths. Good to keep the focus narrow to produce something usable. Should we hold a side event? Would Ministerial people be present?
Doug: They are probably on a tight schedule.
Exchange of data links and sets by email to see whether there is a critical mass of data, to be followed by discussion of logistics and schedule another call in 2 weeks or so.
Water Quality scenario usable for Beijing meeting.
IGWCO coordination with AIP-3 working group
GCI leverage in water quality decision support
Josh Lieberman, Will Pozzi, Bill Sonntag, Tom Shyka, Steven Greb, Brand Niemann
Will: Given the short timeline, we need to look if we have enough development for the Gulf of Maine cases of shellfish closure and beach closure to be able to pull together a demo for the Beijing meeting. If so, we have to backload the GCI connection.
Josh: Each Societal Benefit Area community is setting targets, building up a community catalog, and networking to build a community of practice.
Will: The Water SBA is somewhat unusual, unlike some of the other SBAs in the sense that the IGOS program for water was carried over to GEO. The Integrated Global Water Cycle Observations (IGWCO) theme has some machinery to develop datasets of essential climate variables for Water and develop GEO water subtasks. Steve, whom I'm glad to see here today, is the sherpa for water quality. In addition to that, AIP attempts to develop the GEOSS IT infrastructure at the same time as SBA projects, such as for water, is implemented through AIP. The AIP technology working groups develop the IT machinery through use case development. For example, the drought issue covered by the Water Working Group is developing semantics. At the same time, the water quality SBA cases may also require some semantic development, besides registration of datasets within the GEOSS Common Registry, and may involve the modeling use case. The end result would be a tool accessible via the GEO Water SBA portlet that users could access, as an example of what can be done.
Tom: GMRI group is an (jntegrated ocean observing system (IOOS) participant / component. Looking to build / expand on Exchange Network capability for decision support.
Specific scenario: site-specific NEXRAD rainfall data available in a tool for coastal managers to decide on beach warnings and bed closures.
Josh: specific AIP angle is to conceive of these scenarios using service offerings and the discovery mechanisms of GCI.
Tom: some work on discerning the decision making process currently being employed, but not yet definitive beyond looking at rainfall.
Josh: Would be great to look at both closure decisions and re-opening decisions.
Will: What about the Decision Support System (DSS) box? Is there some kind of software that you are using to compare between precip and bacterial counts, for example, to help decision makers decide on the closure issue?
Tom: Rutgers is developing a web-based tool for use by beach managers. Thresholds can be set. Obviously, each individual locality is unique (some have rivers, and some do not, etc), so the setting of thresholds is very locale-specific.
Some work in the southeast may be undertaken for the shellfish closure case.
Bill: Tom, is this going to require a lot of work? We might want to start looking at possible sponsors for further development.
Will: Looking at immediate Beijing / AIP-3 time line of 2 months, that is too soon for proposal writing and award--although AIP-4 is another matter. Each demo will probably be 20 minutes so another question to ask is the development far enough along to assemble content for a 20 minute demo?
Josh: Dialectic for an AIP demonstration is deployment, registration and discovery of observation data and processing services, use of an application for a societal benefit, e.g. decision support, visualization, then video capture of these steps along with wiring diagrams and narrative to play back "canned" as needed.
Bill: Next steps: We don't want to hand to Tom a lot of work.
Will: Rather than Tom have to prepare something, we could hold another telecon to go through a higher level of detail.
All: Next telecon is scheduled for Tuesday, the 24th.
Bill & Steven +/- to look at available data products & services, specifically NEXRAD data.
Josh to help with AIP-3 dialectic, GEOSS Common Infrastructure tools, and demo logistics.
Tuesday, August 24 @ 1pm Eastern, same logistics.
Ontology - vocabulary updates
Josh Lieberman, Will Pozzi, Bill Sonntag, Hervé Caumont, Brad Lee, Cristiano, Damien
Bill - would be good to report on this next week in Knoxville, also to understand how scenario development and implementation will connect to GMRI funding from EPA.
Damien / EO2HEAVEN - July 26th telecon to update on possibilities for a location in Uganda.
Will - Looking at global drought monitoring efforts to showcase at Beijing meeting. Looking for an Australia-wide drought alert facility.
Action - Brad will look into this.
Will - update on water and drought ontology. Have looked at the present thesaurus holding in EuroGEOSS. Sparse on drought / soil moisture terms.
Cristiano - really no thematic thesaurii at present. Need submissions in SKOS with mappings to GEMET so that inferences and queries can be performed.
Will - putting together drought terms such as soil moisture and available water reserves and usage, including groundwater. Will need consultation on technical structure for this to be usable in the broker. Working with Nate Booth on groundwater terms.
Brad - how to go about mapping contributed modules to GEMET terms and by whom?
Cristiano - look at the SKOS relationships (e.g. broader - narrower - equivalent, etc.)
Will - how do we assess how useful an ontology is in practice.
Josh - best to explicitly simulate the whole discovery process for discovery chains which should work and are already known. When that is successful, then look at unexpected results which are not (yet) known to work.
Will - there is not a lot of drought information as yet registered. Best to register datasets or a community catalog?
Josh - best to register community catalogs, but doesn't mean a single community catalog needs to be set up for water already. First step is to motivate providers to prepare for registering by good metadata / documentation of resources.
Will - for Beijing it would be good to show global drought severity.
Josh - severity might be a good first test case for the end to end implementation of data provision - discovery - access - exploitation.
Brad - catalog being set up today. Will provide more information soon.
Next meeting: July 30
Local time: http://timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=7&day=16&year=2010&hour=13&min=0&sec=0&p1=0
Dimdim & Telecon Info: http://my.dimdim.com/joshlieberman/
Telecon Access Code: 719290# # Telecon: Conference Dial-in Number: * USA (712) 432-1600 * Austria: 0820 4000 1552 * Belgium: 070 35 9974 * France: 0826 100 256 * Germany: 01805 00 76 09 * Ireland: 0818 270 021 * Italy: 848 390 156 * Netherlands: 0870 001 920 * Spain: 902 886025 * Switzerland: 0848 560 179 * UK: 0844 58 191 02
Water quality scenario
EO2HEAVEN Health scenario
Coordination with Water Cycle Community of Practice
Josh Lieberman, Will Pozzi, Veronica Guidetti, Doug Cripe, Cristiano, Mattia Santoro, Damien, Lionel Menard, Marten Hogeweg, Hannes
Mattia: Demonstration of the EuroGEOSS broker, including a visual graphical plot linking together related concepts within the query expansion being carried out within the EuroGEOSS "discovery augmentation".
Cristiano: The semantic component in the EuroGEOSS query expansion is based upon SKOS relations, as provided by a different thesaurus for each SBA.The water thesaurus was provided by Brad Lee (at CSIRO). How is this different from the CUAHSI ontology?
Will: The CSIRO ontology was partly developed, using the CUAHSI ontology, based upon efforts of Simon Cox and others. Clearly, you have already prepared some EDO-drought related terminology for the SKOS relations; can this be examined in order to find concepts that overlap between the CUAHSI water ontology and the water thesaurus currently loaded in EuroGEOSS broker?
Veronica: can users modify the ontology?
Mattia & Cristiano: users can make extensions or add new ontologies. Tools work on only one repository at present, but more federated operation can be implemented in the future.
Mattia: There is also another user mode in which the tool automatically expands a simple query.
Will: Yesterday's Biodiversity telecon included an overview of a model being developed that links Holdridge life zone variables (minimum Temperature, Maximum Temperature, and Precip) to life zone boundaries. The output of this model is a suitability weighting factor that can be mapped. The use of the model is analogous to using a model to either classify an area under severe drought or moderate drought (a drought indicator) or to a drought impact susceptibility weighting factor (that can also be mapped). As in the case of the Biodiversity Working Group, we have to explore the role that the EuroGEOSS broker can play in the modeling effort, i.e., retrieiving input datasets for a decisionmaker user, etc.
Mattia: there will be a connection built between the broker and WPS for BDCC. This could be used for drought as well if a WPS can be implemented for index calculation.
Josh: how does the connection to the GEOSS Clearinghouse work?
Mattia: Client component works with discovery component which has a semantically extended OpenSearch interface and works on top of a SPARQL search component. This latter component can federate to other CSW components such as a clearinghouse as long as they support ISO Profile records and query-support.
Will: can the thesaurii in the repository be browsed?
Cristiano: the repository can be queried through SPARQL endpoint, but the current endpoint is protected to avoid damaging queries (i.e., security). A page will be / is put up listing the contents (ontology / thesaurus packages) of the repository in lieu of query access. Cristinao will send a UID (user ID) and password to Will so that the water thesaurus can be browsed.
Will: Will survey the repository contents to see whether the controlled vocabulary (i.e., the thesaurus) needs to be extended to cover NIDIS, the Canada Drought Response Initiative, and Princeton global drought monitor.
Josh: Water quality for closure decisions is still being drafted, but has four main stages: Model discovery and calibration / Process initiation from weather predictions / Decision calculation and communication / Calibration refinement from post-decision data collection.
Veronica & Damien: EO2HEAVEN looked for a Mozambique partner for data collection without success. Now looking to partner with University of Makerere in Uganda where there also are cholera issues.
Will: We can send the Gulf of Maine draft scenario to Damien and our EO2Heaven colleagues.
Will: We shall try to engage Steve Grebs again on water quality and link the global drought telecon effort (a spin-off of the Winnipeg DRI drought conference and the North Caroline drought impact conference) so that global drought visualization and dataset query support is possible.
Call next Friday to dig into water quality more deeply
Doug to reach out to Steve Grebs IGWCO Water Quality Cluster
Drought ontology update and EuroGEOSS coordination
Water quality scenario and next steps
Josh Lieberman, Doug Cripe (Secretariat lead for global water cycle CoP)
Doug - Steve Greb in Wisconsin is interested in health aspects of water quality. Doug will reach out to him
Rick Lawford involved in global water cycle community of practice. Working on initiative for global drought warning index.
Josh Lieberman, Will Pozzi, Mattia Santoro, Brad Lee
Josh: Discussion with Gulf of Maine and NH people at NECODP:
Shellfish bed closures are based on 2-3 year correlations between rainfall and microbial concentration in water column and organism.Will: Drought scenario can have both work on drought ontologies and drought prediction components.
Beach advisories are not based on formal correlations, because beaches are not actually closed. So data are collected, but correlations remain to be done
Proposal to branch the scenario into decision support for shellfish and statistical analysis for beaches.
Mattia: How shall ontologies be published, in what form?
Will: CUAHSI ontology is currently in OWL modules. Intend to add drought components in Protegé (from Princeton US and Global as well as European Drought Observatory terms) and re-export as OWL.
Mattia: should consult with Cristiano on what ontology structures can be accommodated. Initial structure seems to be SKOS entities, but unknown whether a more general structure (OWL Lite, OWL DL) is tractable.
Will: I have uploaded two presentations that demonstrate drought systems for Spain. The Spain "indicators" system is based upon monitoring groundwater levels and reservoirs levels, water usage, and precipitation levels (sensor web of sorts) so that the ability to withstand a drought can be assessed in terms of having supplemental water form reservoirs or groundwater. If supplemental water sources are available, then the drought response might be downgraded from an emergency to simply an alert. Setting up an actual system (drought alert system) will be complicated; here in AIP we will offer a more simplified case. However, the EDO scenario is expressed as decision makers being presented with a drought index (areas colored as red or yellow or green), and the decision maker has to evaluate the severity based upon mitigating factors, i.e., reservoirs and groundwater sources (or the ability to substitute treated wastewater for fresh irrigation water in agricultural operations). The decision maker can query datasets using EuroGEOSS broker to search for this level of detail of information. To support this scenario, the ontology has to include these components, reservoirs, groundwater, as well as soil moisture and drought variables as used by both the EDO and Princeton case studies. But work is not limited to expanding the ontoloogy; we also have to select a localized enough area as a test grounds to ensure that datasets covering these indicator components will be registered in the EuroGEOSS GI-cat catalog (and GEOSS common registry).
What steps are missing to leverage the semantic capabilities and merge drought scenarios?
Josh: But we can't be limited to an area; the methodology has to be scalable and extensible to other areas.
Will: That is the reason for using the upper level semantics: to permit the datasets for each river basin to be integratable together (and retrievable through) the appropriate terms in the ontology.
Josh: Ontologies could be simply utilized in two stages: query expansion to find data sources for evaluating a particular area (same-as and broader-term / narrower-term relationships), then result translation in to multiple threat notification / categorization schemes (may need a category calculation as well as mapping).
Mattia: essential role of broker is to expand keyword searches to find related datasets.
Will: interest in pulling in other data related to or mitigating drought hazard.
Josh: Three elements to enabling this, probably requires some iteration:
Mattia: First steps should be to expand queries by one relationship level, then investigate what other relationships or patterns may be important for later steps.
Will: Worth looking at Noesis for ideas. Need at this point to try out some concrete cases with real datasets.
Will: Next steps?
Josh: Consider starting with a "canonical" drought estimation workflow, including discovery steps. Operate it in one region. Then move to another region and utilize ontology mappings to discover the right datasets to carry out the workflow.
Will: The right datasets need to be registered in order to do this.
Will: Are these problems arising within the other SBA working groups in AIP needing term mapping / expansion?
Josh: should be a question in the plenary as to where the other groups are with needing semantic integration.
Brad: every group will face this, whether they are prepared to grapple with it now or not. Registration and cataloguing is a major effort along, though
Josh: This is a potential value of catalog federation, so that the registration task becomes one of hooking up existing catalogs according to a particular interface, not starting from scratch.
Brad: have been using SKOS as basis for water ontologies for now since the relationships are more traversible than those of more complex ontologies. What we use is largely homegrown, but a student at Muenster is working on expanding that.
Document WQ scenario.
Describe drought estimation workflow, so that requirements for broker functionality can be expressed and reviewed.
Look at BDCC group semantic processing requirements (telecon next week).
Pozzi - what can be done for the Beijing GEO ministerial summit? It takes place first week in November 2010. Implies demo preparation in October.
Pozzi email: Both the EDO and the Princeton soil moisture and soil moisture anomaly fields (and drought index) are prepared using models, the Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC) model in the case of Princeton. Both sets of models take inputs, such as precipitation fields, vector wind, specific humidity fields, solar and terrestrial radiation, soil porosity, vegetation stand height, root zone depth, and other variables to calculate soil moisture and soil moisture anomalies.
Under Stefano's scenario, EDO provides drought indexes (step 01), and in step 02 the drought hazard detection model is used to estimate drought hazard: if a threshold is exceeded (or a hazard is detected), an alert is issued (to the "decision support system").
Under Stefano and Stefan's scenario, in step 03, a user submits a query to discover drought hazard related information. The augmented search component includes an ontology service.
For this system to work, there will have to be an ontology for the hazards (I'm speaking of socio-economic hazards here, not agricultural crop vulnearbility), an ontology for crops and agriculture, and an ontology for water. The term for precipitation (and its sub classes) will have datasets registered to it, and these are the same datasets that are used as driving datasets in the EDO, the Princeton, (and other) drought models. The agricultural ontology will include phenology (growth stage of the crop) and will be crop specific.
There is several other issues here, however. Since both the EDO system and the Princeton system (as well as NIDIS and the Australia BoM) are near-real-time, these values have to be updated. Hence a catalog updater is required (as well as a catalog publisher, required to extend the catalog (and variables). To meet this task, "web services" are suites of code for accessing remote data repositories, in order to update these values, not only the secondary data from the models (VIC, etc), but the primary data (precipitation, streamflow for validatiion, etc). The amount of effort to set up a system is huge and will require multiple data transfer standards (including the water data transfer standard, Brad), in order to automate the process of updating the holdings.
Stefano - European Drought Observatory should be able to publish data on specific areas, e.g. Spain and Italy. Proposal to focus on Spain for an AIP-3 scenario
François - EO2HEAVEN will work on identifying datasets and refining scenarios, but does not have scope within AIP-3 to stand up their own software. Agreement with ESA to access data sets (Veronica joins).
Veronica - Discussion with Damien - Neventropic... about correlation work between water quality and cholera. Suggestion to make use of ESRIN SSE infrastructure for data / processing / model services.
Josh - It would be a good focusing point to publish a water community catalog, possibly as a Web Accessible Folder, but preferably as a CSW catalog. Good to distinguish that from deployment of access / processing services. So, issues include identification of relevant data types, available datasets, available IT infrastructure for cataloging, serving, processing, visualizing / analyzing / deciding.
WIll - Third issue is development and publication of applications / portals to leverage these services. Veronica: most of visualization may have to wait for AIP-4.
Josh - There can be a spectrum of "models" between exploratory statistics and policy decision support. A scenario of publishing and exploring data for drought / health correlations is entirely appropriate for a November target.
Will - A very common denominator is the development and publication of a model processing use case. Josh - topic for E2E call on Monday. Good to distinguish between GEOSS publication of modeling (inputs, outputs, algorithm, metadata) and deployment of model processing to the Web itself for general use. The former is essential. The latter will be nice to have in the future.
Stefano - Vocabulary systems for drought, also a research topic. Will - work on CUAHSI ontology to expand it for drought, drought risk, and health risk terms.
Josh - Piasecki will discuss development of CUAHSI HIS ontology at the Geosemantics Summit in Silver Spring - http://www.ogcnetwork.net/geosemantics
Josh - Water Quality (Gulf of Maine) scenario still under development, but will be vetted a bit at NeCODP meeting next weekend.
Stefano - ontology logistics: SESAME stack for managing knowledgebases, SPARQL for query. RDF and SKOS files (e.g. GEMET) but which tools are used to create / manage GEMET is not known.
Veronica - will bring up maritime perturbation as a possible scenario addition (email and topic for next week)
Telecon next week.
Further work pulling together scenarios, defining a scope in each for a demonstration by Beijing meeting.
Research on infrastructure (catalog, access, processing services) which can be used to support water quality-drought-health community
Time: 13h00 UTC (14h00 CET, 09h00 EDT)
Telecon: 702-473-3463 passcode 567454#
Time: 14h00 UTC (16h00 CET, 10h00 EDT)
Telecon: 702-473-3463 passcode 567454#
Josh Lieberman, Will Pozzi, Bill Sonntag, Phil Yang, Stefano Nativi, Brad Lee, Veronica Guidetti
(Yang) GMU participation in USG Clearinghouse development activities
(Pozzi) Coordination of datasets will generate requirements for semantic interoperability; is EDO planning on putting any drought content on the GEO portal?
(Stefano) believes Stefan is considering doing so for Spain.
(Sonntag) Gulf of Maine scenario activity being organized for summer ESIP meeting around shellfish and beach closures from microclimate and water quality data. Discussions with Seattle, Great Lakes and Mediterranean groups as well.
(Veronica) EO2Heaven cholera / water quality scenario. Needs François to discuss. Veronica mentioned WQ projects carried out by ESA at other sites.
(Stefano) Semantic broker for connecting water vocabularies. EuroGEOSS presently connecting drought, biodiversity, and forestry systems by brokering to form a federation. Now adding "augmented discovery component" with vocabulary-based semantic capabilities using GEMET and a multi-lingual GEOSS SBA vocabulary.
(Lee) Using a component from meteorology to validate documents based on ontologies and query vocabularies based on Auscope vocabulary service implementation.
(Lieberman) In order to choose tractable semantic problems to solve, we should work towards a water specialization of a semantic term mapping and discovery use case.
(Pozzi) We have capability in existing water ontology, augmented discovery components which are vocabulary-based, and discovery of datasets by identifying discovery key terms. We have each of the subsystems and can perform some integration for AIP-3 and some for AIP-4. Term discovery service? (Lieberman) Basically a faceted spatial search of resources by keyword terms, extended by semantic inference and mapping.
(Stefano) Will send a description of the EuroGEOSS infrastructure and semantic capability plan. Cristianio is part of JRC / Genesis project which is another similar activity.
(Lieberman) Need to look at what can be done in AIP-3 on three fronts:
(Stefano) Working on extended OpenSearch interface for generating SPARQL queries to derive extended terms then using those terms against CSW federated catalog.
(Pozzi) Datasets are available in US, Spain, etc.We can display existing, current capability of soil moisture maps (for EU) and USA (by Princeton) and for global (Princeton), and a mapping utility can allow users to draw a map around a desired available domain, and have the soil moisture and soil moisture anomaly fields retrieved for that area, with the specified key word (given by user) mapped to terms in the ontology or vocabulary (and from these to the datasets).
(Lieberman) Building the connections from queries of interest to dataset descriptions will be the hard work. Suggestion to post vocabularies on collab site so that they can be utilized in the multiple search /mediation facilities being developed in advance of a GCI capabiility. Should also consider building ontologies to represent the predictive modeling / decision support workflows in the drought and water quality scenarios, so that they also can be referenced in queries and the vocabulary matching capability can be directly connected to the scenarios.
(Lee) Will document and make available the auscope capability and register services in GEOSS to start with enhanced discovery.
(Veronica) Will the system be scalable to other geographic areas?
(Will) Will and Stefano will exchange the scenario to build a common scenario-use case with drought (including DRI and GMU).
Dial-in 702-473-3463 passcode 567454#
AIP-3 Water Working Group Panel Meeting to finish Drought Scenario and Drought Use Case
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, May 10-14,
1-10 of 10