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

Tue May 5 02:33:48 CEST 2020

Hi Anthony and all,

Anthony, thanks for your work on splitting the paper!

I like Joep's and Serena's proposal to schedule a teleconference to discuss
the paper and best way forward - it'll help to provide sensible
contribution to both papers.

Regards,
Ivana

On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 4:43 AM Serena Coetzee <serenacoetzee at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200505/50d003c4/attachment-0001.html>