Proposed Workshop Ideas

Three Workshop Types from NSF grant

  1. Controlled Vocabulary Workshops: Describe where to find them, how to make new ones, and how to make them interoperable (e.g. publishing them in Web Ontology Language). Produce on-line materials from these workshops to make their content accessible to the community.
  2. Transition to the community our vocabulary mapping workshops: The MMI will host one enhanced workshop, co-host a second workshop with a collaborating community, and help facilitate several other vocabulary mapping workshops. A deliverable of the enhanced MMI workshop will be a workshop curriculum kit (developed by the Cookbooks team), which will enable others to hold similar workshops for their domains. Another goal will be to expand vocabulary mapping into more advanced semantic web products (e.g., more descriptive ontologies).
  3. 'Small science' metadata trainings: illustrating the application of MMI guidance to create effective interoperability between research projects. The material from this training will be made available via the web, so that anyone can readily access the presented information, and so team members can easily present it.

Specific Opportunities (which fit into the three workshop types above)

Controlled vocabulary workshops

  • Transatlantic Workshops on Coastal Atlas Interoperability - controlled vocabularies and vocabulary mapping; NSF-funded. See CAI workshop page (Contact: Dawn Wright)

Vocabulary mapping workshops

  • Transatlantic Workshops on Coastal Atlas Interoperability - controlled vocabularies and vocabulary mapping; NSF-funded. See CAI workshop page(Contact: Dawn Wright)
  • Vocabulary Workshop for Ocean Observing (Contacts: John Graybeal, Matt Howard, Janet Fredericks, Stephanie Watson, Luis Bermudez) - First Workshop:
  • A metadata training activity that involves the DMAC Technical Coordinators (or their designates) from the 11 Regional Associations and the DMAC Metadata Expert Team (could be expanded from this to the following: principle programmers in the OOSTethys/OOSTECH group, NOAA offices involved in marine sciences (NCDDC,CSC,NDBC), Gulf of Mexico Research Collaborative, National Water Quality Monitoring via the Gulf of Mexico Alliance - Steven Wolfe, FL DEP). Focus on the Principles of mapping. Done in a generic fashion where people can hold their own application in their head without being distracted or disenfranchised by a vocabulary that isn't in their field. I'm thinking a workshop in which contrived vocabularies are constructed, accompanied by a storybook that defines relationships between words (is contained by, is part of). People then map, and a test is conducted to see how perfectly they did, plus feedback on why the mapping did or did not work. (Contact: Matt Howard)
  • Gulf of Mexico Regional Collaborative - possibly constructing an ontology for a regional system (or systems), reusing some of the ontologies in the MMI site, or adding more as needed. (Contact: Tom Gulbransen, working with our colleagues at UAH - been communicating with Luis) - Rahul Ramachandran from UAH is building them.
  • Luis, what about CUAHSI as a potential partner organization? Would they be interested in pushing our vocabulary mapping concepts?
  • USGS Hydrology - vocabulary mapping (contact name? Communicated with John at AGU)
  • Platforms ontology for SESAR - vocabulary mapping (contact: Bob Arko)
  • International Ocean Drilling Program - vocabulary mapping (Contact: Bernard Miville - he's been communicating with John)

Small science metadata training

  • A workshop that would instruct the data providers on what metadata to provide and how to provide it as well as demonstrate the process of how it is used by these systems and/or end users. Workshop goal could be:"how to" metadata guidance for data providers, or maybe a demonstration of a data/metadata flow process that can then be recommended to DMAC. Still must answer what metadata elements need to be provided. Tie to vocabulary work. For example,the DMAC Metadata team (which Tom Gulbransen is on) is working up relationships (soon to be an ontology) between the IOOS core variables and the GCMD Earth Science key terms for a demo GCMD IOOS portal. This can be way to apply a semantic index to the data and can be used by OOSTethys and other systems. Giving the data providers instruction/insight into how and why controlled vocabularies can be applied would be worthwhile. Would also be a worthwhile exercise to take a data providers "information" about a given individual observing system, compile a comprehensive metadata record for that system in say the FGDC standard, and then show how that same information is displayed in other standards and XML schema. First showing people that "it's not so bad" and then showing the value of that information through it's applied use by other "systems" like OOSTethys or a GCMD portal can give the OOS community some momentum toward metadata development. (Contact: Julie Bosch)
  • Metadata tutorials for Scientists at Ocean Sciences '08. These may also be held at Fall AGU 2008 in San Francisco- stay tuned.

Unknown which workshop type would apply - Please help categorize these!

  • Building IOOS. Workshop about how to get faster or implementing whatever it was agreed at the Oostend Meeting. (Contact: Luis [Added 20070402] )
  • Metadata Web Services Interoperability workshop: This could include: 1) What metadata needs to be sent and how to achieve integrated ocean observing systems?; 2) Types of data ?; 3) Best Web Service to get/send data..(Contact: Luis)
  • At some point there's the possibility of providing service/guidance to an ORION CI IO, but with no or relatively little funding. But they might be willing to adopt the program.
  • What about doing a workshop to achieve the sensor ontology (and maybe follow up on the platforms ontology)? The sensor and platform ontology development is beginning.
  • Free Open Source Software for Geospatial: http://, where we can host a workshop about interoperability
  • OOSTECH (Philip)

Additional Comments on the Three Workshop Types

Re: Type 1. Lessons we learned from Boulder (for adapting the 1. vocabulary mapping workshops)

These lessons are being included in the draft template for holding a vocabulary mapping workshop.

  • try to "finish" with first set of domains, then branch to other domains (need to make a priority list of other domains, probably per IOOS needs, considering the source for some additional funds)
  • more thorough "guidance", as illuminated in first workshop report, p. 41
  • more pre-workshop training, communication, downloads, etc.
  • more training in IM etc. to enhance workshop communication
  • minimize user interface, mapping process and ontology navigation issues
  • additional technical leadership available to all teams
  • fewer non-mapping activities to allow for more mapping time
  • more role refinement and training
  • be use-case driven with a relatively small, targeted group with a common goal
  • engage science library community
  • mechanism to update vocabularies
  • others...

Re: Type 2: transitioning to community

Who are the right people to design the program or 'curriculum'? I'm thinking Luis could play a significant role here. Karen also has been in a teaching position with some metadata concepts, I wonder if there's overlap? And there's the whole Irish (?) teaching program mentioned above.

Re: Type 3: small science workshops

start to finish, perhaps focus on OOS community (who are very pressured to make data publicly available in real time or near real-time...)

Philip, Matt, and Julie might all have ideas on what would fit the OOS community needs. See workshop suggestions from Matt and Julie above.

A little brainstorming/focus grouping on what people might need to know -- maybe with some real 'small scientists' -- would be good.

Fall AGU 2008 is an obvious candidate location for this meeting -- with over 10000 people already there, and a strong informatics focus, it would be by far the largest possible outreach.

  • If you do hold such a meeting at AGU, it'll be important to start right away and focus on this, because (a) reserving appropriate space is hard, (b) you'll want to be announced in the AGU materials, and (c) you (we) will have to work up material.
  • Also you'll want to try to do a pilot run in a much smaller scale, so you know what to expect and can iron out the difficulties. Received some helpful info. via email on this from Bill K. to John