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

[Antony Cooper]

Dear Commission members

I trust that you are all well and avoiding COVID-19.

I have eventually got around to splitting up our paper.  Attached is the
current draft of the first part, the review of the literature about our
model of stakeholders in an SDI.  I included the points in the email
below in the paper, so they still need to be dealt with in this part, or
moved to the second part.  There are other comments in the attached that
also need to be dealt with.

I also had a look at the literature citing our SDI model papers that was
published over the last year or so.  Fortunately or unfortunately, none
of these papers comment on the SDI stakeholder model or propose
alternatives. Hence it was not necessary to include them in the
literature reviewed in the attached draft.

I still need to fix up the second part before circulating.  It will
contain the new, updated model, so a lot of work needs to be done on it.


Please send through your inputs as soon as possible.

Thank you
Antony



>>> Antony Cooper 10/17/19 10:19 PM >>>
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 con(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


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Cooper et al - A review of the ICA model of stakeholders in a spatial data infrastructure - 20200422.docx
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 140113 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lazarus.elte.hu/pipermail/ica-sdistandards/attachments/20200423/587df1be/attachment-0001.obj>