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

Mon May 4 22:43:10 CEST 2020

Dear all,

I like Joep's proposal to have a zoom call. I think we need a bit of
discussion to get everyone on the same page on how to move this paper
forward.

Antony, if that works for you, you could send out a doodle poll? I can
schedule the zoom call once we have agreed on a time.

Regards,
Serena

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

On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 12:57 PM Joep Crompvoets <joep.crompvoets at kuleuven.be>
wrote:

> Dear Anthony and other Commission members,
>
> First of all, I hope that you are all healthy.
>
>
> I just had a good look to the latest version of the ICA-paper that Petr
> and Tatiana sent us.
>
>
> Please find attached my comments. A suggestion from my side is that I
> call/Skype you, Anthony, sometimes in the next week to clarify how we could
> go forward.
>
>
> Wishing you all the best and stay healthy/safe.
>
>
> Kind regards, Joep.
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *Van:* ICA-SDIStandards <ica-sdistandards-bounces at lazarus.elte.hu> namens
> Tatiana Delgado <tatiana.tsp at gmail.com>
> *Verzonden:* donderdag 30 april 2020 23:17
> *Aan:* Antony Cooper
> *CC:* Ica-sdistandards at lazarus.elte.hu
> *Onderwerp:* Re: [Ica-sdistandards] Contribute to a paper about the ICA
> model of stakeholders in an SDI?
>
> Dear Cooper and you all,
>
> My best wishes to all in this so complicated pandemic time of COVID-19.
> I read carefully the draft version of the paper. Considering my late entry
> in its elaboration, I just propose some simple suggestions.
> Attached you can find my modest contribution.
>
> Feel free to consider them or not at all.
>
> Best wishes and take care of yourself!
>
> Tatiana
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 10:39 AM Antony Cooper <acooper at csir.co.za> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ICA-SDIStandards mailing list
>> ICA-SDIStandards at lazarus.elte.hu
>> http://lazarus.elte.hu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ica-sdistandards
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200504/3fb99ff5/attachment.html>