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

[Rapant Petr]

Dear Antony, dear Commission members,

I send you my inputs to the article in the attachment.

I want to mention some general comments here:

1) In general, I have a feeling that we strive for perfection, which leads to excessive complexity. We should apply KISS principle - Keep It Simple, Stupid - to avoid an explosion of details which, lacking generality, do not make it possible to achieve a widely acceptable result. We should simplify the model, not break it down into smaller and smaller details (for example, a large number of stakeholder subtypes). We should keep in mind that, for example, for each stakeholder subtype, we should ultimately define the unique functionality of SDI. 

2) We should avoid mixing stakeholders and their roles with the natural and legal persons who carry them. The provider has a clearly defined role - to provide data and metadata - and cannot do anything else, such as generate added value, etc. But the National Mapping Agency can play the role of provider and also the role of VAR. 

3) To avoid mistakes, we can use some counterexample to check our ideas. E.g. we can see SDI as an information system (IS). We are discussing if we should include negative stakeholder to our model. OK, when you think about e.g. economic IS, are you going to include negative stakeholder to this IS and functionality provided to him, e.g. supporting stealing money from the system? I do not think so. 

I can help with the development of some figures/schemas.

With regards
Petr

-----Original Message-----
From: ICA-SDIStandards <ica-sdistandards-bounces at lazarus.elte.hu> On Behalf Of Antony Cooper
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 4:40 PM
To: Ica-sdistandards at lazarus.elte.hu
Subject: Re: [Ica-sdistandards] Contribute to a paper about the ICA model of stakeholders in an SDI?

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_Rap.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 146828 bytes
Desc: Cooper et al - A review of the ICA model of stakeholders in a spatial data infrastructure - 20200422_Rap.docx
URL: <http://lazarus.elte.hu/pipermail/ica-sdistandards/attachments/20200426/bcd2e24e/attachment-0001.docx>