1. 1 Collaborative Research, Development and Demonstration Ecoinformatics International Technical Collaboration Copenhagen, Denmark March, 23 2009 Bruce Bargmeyer Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Berkeley Water Center University of California, Berkeley Tel: +1 510-495-2905 bebargmeyer@lbl.gov

2. Collaborative Research, Development and Demonstration F SciScope u Microsoft, LBNL, Berkeley Water Center, EPA, USGS, EEA? n Involves UCB researchers, data cubes for water data, u Accomplished: Demo using terminology connected to metadata and data to access STORET and NWIS water data n SciScope running on computers at LBNL u Current effort n Extending to include some things that were “hardwired” in demo n documenting code, creating SDK n Install at new site to validate n June milestone u To discuss n Further work on terminology and linkage to metadata n Extensions: Citizen Observatories, Citizen Science n Extensions: Social computing n Hosting and Governance –Consortium of Universities for the Advancement of Hydrologic Science( CUASHI) 2

3. SciScope F STORET has 758 sites in Texas, TCEQ has 8407. F STORET has 47,602 sites in Florida, NWIS has 27,906. F NWIS has 121,545 in Minnesota, STORET has 22,260. TCEQ data from David Maidment Source: Bora Beran, Microsoft Research

4. Citizen Observatories & Citizen Science Quick Examples F Weather Underground F Community Collaborative Rain, Hail and Snow Network. CoCoRaHS F Microsoft World Telescope 4

5. Building Blocks F Terminology and Ontology F Metadata Registration F Collaborative authoring and Wikis F Information and Data Modeling 5

6. The Wiki Way Collaborative authoring and Wikis F The ability for any member of the community to contribute to the resource F A history mechanism F The ability to add links, tags, keywords and classifications F A rapid, "organic" evolution cycle. F The ability to leave information un (or under) specified F Federation – virtual "wiki space". F Multilingual Collaborative authoring and Wikis Semantic Wiki F The ability to add "meaning" to links, tags, keywords and classifications F The ability to import and export more formalized knowledge - e.g., ontology descriptions The ability to represent the same information across the "formalization spectrum" (!) - 6

7. 7

8. 8 Ecoinformatics Challenge: Draw Together Concept Systems, Metadata & Data IDDateTempHg A06-09-134.44 B06-09-139.32 X06-09-136.778 NameDatatypeDefinitionUnits IDtext Monitoring Station Identifier not applicable DatedateDateyy-mm-dd Tempnumber Temperature (to 0.1 degree C) degrees Celcius Hgnumber Mercury contamination micrograms per liter Facilitate discovery, access, use and understanding Data: Metadata: BiologicalRadioactive Contamination leadcadmium mercury Chemical Concept system:

9. Ecoinformatics Research F Web 2.0 F Semantic Technology - the tools for creating, disseminating and using terminological resources such as dictionaries, classification schemes and ontologies have now reached the point that it is possible to maintain a centralized terminology that can be used to describe data resources in a queryable and interoperable fashion. F Metadata Repositories - ISO 11179 Edition 3 provides a common model to record, manage and disseminate semantic annotation of information resources. This provides a framework for acquiring, integrating and sharing catalog content. F Semantic Wiki - wiki technology has demonstrated the viability of community generated content. Semantic wiki has demonstrated that community generated content can exist across a continuum of formality. This provides the ability to collect information about catalog content in a format and level of formality that suits each user's needs and to gradually transform user input into a shared structure and semantics for distribution, integration and sharing. F Data Modeling and Model Driven Architecture - it is now possible to automatically upload and integrate the contents of most modern SQL catalogs, information models, schemas, spreadsheet templates, etc. This technology makes it possible to create an inventory of physical data resources very quickly. 9

10. Issues for Strategic Discussion 10

11. Strategic Discussion Major Results F XMDR u ISO/IEC Standard u Prototype - Open Source Software u EPA System of Registries u In-house DOD u National Cancer Insitute caBIG n caDSR is key part of caCORE u Now demonstrating for DOE Nuclear Non- Proliferation n Model Integration 11

12. caGrid Data Description Infrastructure F Client and service APIs are object oriented, and operate over well-defined and curated data types F Objects are defined in UML and converted into ISO/IEC 11179 Administered Components, which are in turn registered in the Cancer Data Standards Repository (caDSR) F Object definitions draw from controlled terminology and vocabulary registered in the Enterprise Vocabulary Services (EVS), and their relationships are thus semantically described F XML serialization of objects adhere to XML schemas registered in the Global Model Exchange (GME) Source: National Cancer Institute, caBIG

13. Collaborative R&D Issues

14. Ecoinformatics Activities & Research Two kinds of activities: F Advances/activities as part of current operations with internal agency resources u Ecoinformatics result: primarily technology transfer by sharing ideas. F Activities requiring additional resources (contracts, research grants, …) u Ecoinformatics result: technology transfer of ideas, research results, and tools/infrastructure. 14

15. Expressed Intent – Coordinate R&D in Ecoinformatics F Share cost and benefits through coordination of US & EU (& Asia?) ecoinformatics R&D F Identify key advances needed at the core of ecoinformatics u Semantics management, semantics services, semantic computing u Terminology web services u IT support for indicators, u … u Demonstrate in ecoinformatics “Test Bed” u Develop an “architecture” of advanced ecoinformatics technologies? F Research, Development and Demonstration projects ranging from improvements in operations to strategic breakthroughs 15

16. How to Share Tasks & Results of Ecoinformatics R&D F Conduct the international R&D in separate projects that are funded separately (but aware of others) F Conduct the R&D with interlocking workpackages/tasks/deliverables. u International R&D with integrated results 16

17. Coordinating International Ecoinformatics R&D F Who funds whom? F US NSF and EU 7 th FP do not fund internal government agency activities. R&D funds to academe, Govt. labs, and private industry. F Environmental agencies have operational and “R&D” funding used to fund outside R&D organizations. F Government staff participate on their agency’s own dime. Contract/award staff participate under project funding. 17

18. Coordinating International Ecoinformatics R&D F How to coordinate? F Government agencies can collectively coordinate priority areas of international ecoinformatics R&D. (EEA, EC DGs, EPA, USGS, NSF, …) F Funding agencies can declare that international joint R&D efforts are encouraged. (But will all partners get funded?) F Government agencies can combine funding. F However, it is difficult for funds to cross oceans (or major political boundaries) 18

19. Coordinating International Ecoinformatics R&D Getting down to brass tacks: F How do R&D organizations submit international proposals with interlocking workpackages/deliverables? F How do R&D organizations submit proposals in which all of the international participants get funded? F R&D proposals can be funded with expectation of future international linkage. F Funding agencies can establish international linkage of proposal review process. u More difficult as more agencies are involved F Different proposal & funding processes can be utilized, outside of the usual “call” or “RFP” process. u Some kind of incremental process? 19

20. Coordinating International Ecoinformatics R&D F What are the next steps in coordinating international Ecoinformatics R&D? F Probably multiple approaches. F Discussion 20