<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none"><!-- p { margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; }--></style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr" style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;background-color:#FFFFFF;font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<p>Dear Anthony and other Commission members,<br>
</p>
<p>First of all, I hope that you are all healthy. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I just had a good look to the latest version of the ICA-paper that Petr and Tatiana sent us.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Wishing you all the best and stay healthy/safe.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Kind regards, Joep. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div style="color:rgb(33,33,33)">
<hr tabindex="-1" style="display:inline-block; width:98%">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" color="#000000" style="font-size:11pt"><b>Van:</b> ICA-SDIStandards <ica-sdistandards-bounces@lazarus.elte.hu> namens Tatiana Delgado <tatiana.tsp@gmail.com><br>
<b>Verzonden:</b> donderdag 30 april 2020 23:17<br>
<b>Aan:</b> Antony Cooper<br>
<b>CC:</b> Ica-sdistandards@lazarus.elte.hu<br>
<b>Onderwerp:</b> Re: [Ica-sdistandards] Contribute to a paper about the ICA model of stakeholders in an SDI?</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">Dear Cooper and you all,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>My best wishes to all in this so complicated pandemic time of COVID-19.</div>
<div>I read carefully the draft version of the paper. Considering my late entry in its elaboration, I just propose some simple suggestions. </div>
<div>Attached you can find my modest contribution.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Feel free to consider them or not at all.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best wishes and take care of yourself!</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Tatiana</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 10:39 AM Antony Cooper <<a href="mailto:acooper@csir.co.za">acooper@csir.co.za</a>> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204); padding-left:1ex">
Dear Commission members<br>
<br>
I trust that you are all well and avoiding COVID-19.<br>
<br>
I have eventually got around to splitting up our paper. Attached is the<br>
current draft of the first part, the review of the literature about our<br>
model of stakeholders in an SDI. I included the points in the email<br>
below in the paper, so they still need to be dealt with in this part, or<br>
moved to the second part. There are other comments in the attached that<br>
also need to be dealt with.<br>
<br>
I also had a look at the literature citing our SDI model papers that was<br>
published over the last year or so. Fortunately or unfortunately, none<br>
of these papers comment on the SDI stakeholder model or propose<br>
alternatives. Hence it was not necessary to include them in the<br>
literature reviewed in the attached draft.<br>
<br>
I still need to fix up the second part before circulating. It will<br>
contain the new, updated model, so a lot of work needs to be done on it.<br>
<br>
<br>
Please send through your inputs as soon as possible.<br>
<br>
Thank you<br>
Antony<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
>>> Antony Cooper 10/17/19 10:19 PM >>><br>
Dear Commission members<br>
<br>
Thank you for all your comments, which I have consolidated and discussed<br>
below, with some of the results of the study by EuroSDR and OGC and some<br>
things that occurred to me. Iwona has also come on board as a<br>
co-author.<br>
<br>
Hopefully our stakeholder model is robust enough to cater for all the<br>
issues you raised, as we found with VGI for our ICC 2011 paper. <br>
However, some of these are technology or business issues that might need<br>
updates to our SDI models from the Enterprise, Information and<br>
Computational Viewpoints.<br>
<br>
(1) Big data.<br>
Geospatial data were one of the first forms of big data, before the term<br>
even existed, so our SDI models should already cater for big data! :-)<br>
<br>
(2) Standards.<br>
Given the name of our Commission, our models should cater for standards!<br>
:-)<br>
<br>
(3) Cloud computing, data cubes, semantic web, geosemantic web, linked<br>
data, liked open data (LOD), ontologies, open data, open source, open<br>
SDI, digital transformation, XaaS (X as a service), 3D/4D data,<br>
workflows, patterns.<br>
These are technologies or tools that the stakeholders could use, so I<br>
don't think they should affect our SDI stakeholder model.<br>
<br>
(4) Internet of Things (IoT), AI, machine learning, deep learning.<br>
These could also be considered to be technologies or tools that the<br>
stakeholders could use. However, they could be considered to be aspects<br>
of devices or software that make them stakeholders in an SDI, or<br>
automated or virtual stakeholders. They could be on the input and the<br>
output sides of an SDI. Do such stakeholders need to be treated<br>
differently from people or organisations in our SDI stakeholder model?<br>
<br>
(5) From SDI to spatial knowledge infrastructure (SKI), knowledge<br>
extraction.<br>
One of you SKIers will need to provide more details on the SKIing<br>
stakeholders.<br>
<br>
(6) Applications of SDIs, such as smart and sustainable cities, digital<br>
heritage, emergency response, intelligent transport systems (ITS),<br>
precision farming, climate change, integration with mainstream<br>
eGovernment solutions, etc.<br>
Our stakeholder model should be sufficiently application-independent to<br>
be able to cater for all applications, though possibly with the addition<br>
of very specialised types of stakeholders (generally beyond the scope of<br>
our work).<br>
<br>
(7) BIM (building information modelling), geoBIM, etc.<br>
I guess that this depends on whether nor not anyone has modelled<br>
stakeholders in the BIM environment?<br>
<br>
(8) Mixing up of roles, actors, business models, subtypes and<br>
functionality. Inadequacy of labels such as ‘specialization’,<br>
‘activity’, ‘perspective’, ‘dimension’, ‘viewpoint’, ‘role’,<br>
‘sub-class’, ‘parent class’, ‘child class’, ‘attribute’, ‘status’,<br>
etc.<br>
This definitely needs some work by us.<br>
<br>
(9) Relationships between stakeholders, such as the End User accessing<br>
the SDI through intermediaries (VAR and Broker) or accessing Providers<br>
and Producers directly. SDI as a two-way engagement platform con(10) Providers of metadata.<br>
We might need to add some metadata-specific stakeholder subtypes.<br>
<br>
(11) VAR and Broker conducting research.<br>
Yes, they need to - otherwise they will go bankrupt because they have no<br>
clue about their markets, etc. This might just require improving their<br>
definitions, rather than adding subtypes.<br>
<br>
(12) Figure explaining Négociant. Set of diagrams describing different<br>
SDI situations.<br>
Yes to both. Actually, we probably need figures explaining all the<br>
stakeholders and their subtypes better. These figures might bulk up the<br>
paper(s) too much, though journals now-a-days allow additional files to<br>
be included with papers.<br>
<br>
(13) Attitude or competence or experience or whatever of stakeholders.<br>
Yes, and these should probably be implemented as qualifiers that can be<br>
applied to all the stakeholders and subtypes, etc.<br>
<br>
(14) Liability, security, access control, safety, privacy, GDPR (General<br>
Data Protection Regulation), licences, commercially-sensitive data,<br>
mischief, etc.<br>
Stakeholders need to be responsible for dealing with such issues, though<br>
I am not certain if these are new subtypes of stakeholders or aspects to<br>
include in the definitions of existing subtypes.<br>
<br>
(15) Negative stakeholders.<br>
I have not been able to find a suitable antonym for 'stakeholder', other<br>
than, say 'enemy' or 'fifth columnist'. In any case, Oxford<br>
Dictionaries (though now labelled as Lexico) defines a stakeholder as "a<br>
person with an interest or concern in something, especially a business",<br>
so a stakeholder can be negative. Other options are 'antagonistic<br>
stakeholder' or 'anti-stakeholder'.<br>
<br>
Any comments?<br>
<br>
Thank you<br>
Antony<br>
<br>
<br>
>>> On 30 September 2019 at 22:33, in message <5D9266A6.457 : 36 :<br>
51817>, Antony<br>
Cooper wrote:<br>
> Dear Commission members<br>
> <br>
> Thank you all very much for your responses, which I have seen from<br>
Jan, <br>
> Stefan, Petr, Adam, Joep, Tatiana and Ivana. Anyone else? It is not<br>
too <br>
> late to contribute.<br>
> <br>
> Firstly, thank you very much, Petr, for converting the text into MS<br>
Word. <br>
> If any of you have further comments or inputs to make, you can mark<br>
them up <br>
> in this version. In the interim, I will try to consolidate all your<br>
comments <br>
> into a new version, but I am a bit behind with things ...<br>
> <br>
> Secondly, which journal should we target? An obvious choice is IJGIS,<br>
as <br>
> our SDI model papers were published there. Alternatives are the<br>
journals <br>
> connected with the ICA: International Journal of Cartography (IJC),<br>
The <br>
> Cartographic Journal, Cartographica and Cartography and Geographic <br>
> Information Science (CaGIS). It is preferable now-a-days to publish<br>
open <br>
> access, but unfortunately, all of these are closed journals and I do<br>
not have <br>
> the funds to pay for APCs. Do any of you? :-)<br>
> <br>
> Of these, all but IJC are on the ISI list of accredited journals, for<br>
whom <br>
> this is important (such as me).<br>
> <br>
> As I mentioned in Tokyo, there is also the South African Journal of <br>
> Geomatics, which is open access and which charges no APCs because it<br>
is fully <br>
> funded by the profits South Africa made off hosting the ICC in 2003. <br>
So, it <br>
> does have an ICA connection, but it is not on an ISI list.<br>
> <br>
> Thank you<br>
> Antony<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
ICA-SDIStandards mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:ICA-SDIStandards@lazarus.elte.hu" target="_blank">ICA-SDIStandards@lazarus.elte.hu</a><br>
<a href="http://lazarus.elte.hu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ica-sdistandards" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lazarus.elte.hu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ica-sdistandards</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>