[Ica-sdistandards] Contribute to a paper about the ICA model of stakeholders in an SDI?

[Serena Coetzee]

Thanks for your comment resolution, Antony. Where does that leave the
paper? How do we contribute to the things that need some work?

Serena Coetzee (GPr GISc 1245)
University of Pretoria
Professor and Head of Department Geography, Geoinformatics and Meteorology
Geography Building 1-3.7, Hatfield Campus, Lynnwood Road, Hatfield, 0083,
South Africa
email: serena.coetzee at up.ac.za · Web: www.up.ac.za/ggm · Mobile: +27 82 464
4294 · Tel: +27 12 420 3823

Stakeholder analysis of the governance framework of a national SDI dataset
– whose needs are met in the buildings and address register of the
Netherlands?
<https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17538947.2018.1520930>
Geographic Information Metadata—An Outlook from the International
Standardization Perspective <https://www.mdpi.com/2220-9964/8/6/280>


On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 10:19 PM Antony Cooper <ACooper at csir.co.za> wrote:

> Dear Commission members
>
> Thank you for all your comments, which I have consolidated and
> discussed below, with some of the results of the study by EuroSDR and
> OGC and some things that occurred to me.  Iwona has also come on board
> as a co-author.
>
> Hopefully our stakeholder model is robust enough to cater for all the
> issues you raised, as we found with VGI for our ICC 2011 paper.
> However, some of these are technology or business issues that might need
> updates to our SDI models from the Enterprise, Information and
> Computational Viewpoints.
>
> (1) Big data.
> Geospatial data were one of the first forms of big data, before the
> term even existed, so our SDI models should already cater for big data!
> :-)
>
> (2) Standards.
> Given the name of our Commission, our models should cater for
> standards!  :-)
>
> (3) Cloud computing, data cubes, semantic web, geosemantic web, linked
> data, liked open data (LOD), ontologies, open data, open source, open
> SDI, digital transformation, XaaS (X as a service), 3D/4D data,
> workflows, patterns.
> These are technologies or tools that the stakeholders could use, so I
> don't think they should affect our SDI stakeholder model.
>
> (4) Internet of Things (IoT), AI, machine learning, deep learning.
> These could also be considered to be technologies or tools that the
> stakeholders could use.  However, they could be considered to be aspects
> of devices or software that make them stakeholders in an SDI, or
> automated or virtual stakeholders.  They could be on the input and the
> output sides of an SDI.  Do such stakeholders need to be treated
> differently from people or organisations in our SDI stakeholder model?
>
> (5) From SDI to spatial knowledge infrastructure (SKI), knowledge
> extraction.
> One of you SKIers will need to provide more details on the SKIing
> stakeholders.
>
> (6) Applications of SDIs, such as smart and sustainable cities, digital
> heritage, emergency response, intelligent transport systems (ITS),
> precision farming, climate change, integration with mainstream
> eGovernment solutions, etc.
> Our stakeholder model should be sufficiently application-independent to
> be able to cater for all applications, though possibly with the addition
> of very specialised types of stakeholders (generally beyond the scope of
> our work).
>
> (7) BIM (building information modelling), geoBIM, etc.
> I guess that this depends on whether nor not anyone has modelled
> stakeholders in the BIM environment?
>
> (8) Mixing up of roles, actors, business models, subtypes and
> functionality.  Inadequacy of labels such as *specialization*,
> *activity*, *perspective*, *dimension*, *viewpoint*,
> *role*, *sub-class*, *parent class*, *child class*,
> *attribute*, *status*, etc.
> This definitely needs some work by us.
>
> (9) Relationships between stakeholders, such as the End User accessing
> the SDI through intermediaries (VAR and Broker) or accessing Providers
> and Producers directly.  SDI as a two-way engagement platform connecting
> government and citizens.
> This might also need some work.
>
> (10) Providers of metadata.
> We might need to add some metadata-specific stakeholder subtypes.
>
> (11) VAR and Broker conducting research.
> Yes, they need to - otherwise they will go bankrupt because they have
> no clue about their markets, etc.  This might just require improving
> their definitions, rather than adding subtypes.
>
> (12) Figure explaining Négociant.  Set of diagrams describing different
> SDI situations.
> Yes to both.  Actually, we probably need figures explaining all the
> stakeholders and their subtypes better.  These figures might bulk up the
> paper(s) too much, though journals now-a-days allow additional files to
> be included with papers.
>
> (13) Attitude or competence or experience or whatever of stakeholders.
> Yes, and these should probably be implemented as qualifiers that can be
> applied to all the stakeholders and subtypes, etc.
>
> (14) Liability, security, access control, safety, privacy, GDPR
> (General Data Protection Regulation), licences, commercially-sensitive
> data, mischief, etc.
> Stakeholders need to be responsible for dealing with such issues,
> though I am not certain if these are new subtypes of stakeholders or
> aspects to include in the definitions of existing subtypes.
>
> (15) Negative stakeholders.
> I have not been able to find a suitable antonym for 'stakeholder',
> other than, say 'enemy' or 'fifth columnist'.  In any case, Oxford
> Dictionaries (though now labelled as Lexico) defines a stakeholder as "a
> person with an interest or concern in something, especially a business",
> so a stakeholder can be negative.  Other options are 'antagonistic
> stakeholder' or 'anti-stakeholder'.
>
> Any comments?
>
> Thank you
> Antony
>
>
> >>> On 30 September 2019 at 22:33, in message <5D9266A6.457 : 36 :
> 51817>, Antony
> Cooper wrote:
> > Dear Commission members
> >
> > Thank you all very much for your responses, which I have seen from
> Jan,
> > Stefan, Petr, Adam, Joep, Tatiana and Ivana.  Anyone else?  It is not
> too
> > late to contribute.
> >
> > Firstly, thank you very much, Petr, for converting the text into MS
> Word.
> > If any of you have  further comments or inputs to make, you can mark
> them up
> > in this version.  In the interim, I will try to consolidate all your
> comments
> > into a new version, but I am a bit behind with things ...
> >
> > Secondly, which journal should we target?  An obvious choice is
> IJGIS, as
> > our SDI model papers were published there.  Alternatives are the
> journals
> > connected with the ICA: International Journal of Cartography (IJC),
> The
> > Cartographic Journal, Cartographica and Cartography and Geographic
> > Information Science (CaGIS).  It is preferable now-a-days to publish
> open
> > access, but unfortunately, all of these are closed journals and I do
> not have
> > the funds to pay for APCs.  Do any of you?  :-)
> >
> > Of these, all but IJC are on the ISI list of accredited journals, for
> whom
> > this is important (such as me).
> >
> > As I mentioned in Tokyo, there is also the South African Journal of
> > Geomatics, which is open access and which charges no APCs because it
> is fully
> > funded by the profits South Africa made off hosting the ICC in 2003.
> So, it
> > does have an ICA connection, but it is not on an ISI list.
> >
> > Thank you
> > Antony
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ICA-SDIStandards mailing list
> ICA-SDIStandards at lazarus.elte.hu
> http://lazarus.elte.hu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ica-sdistandards
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lazarus.elte.hu/pipermail/ica-sdistandards/attachments/20191020/c3cd1673/attachment.html>