EGIDA Project

Towards a sustainable GEOSS:the EGIDA methodology and its assessment

P. Mazzetti (CNR-IIA)

Outline

• EGIDA Methodology objectives and structure

• Design process

• Assessment process and overview of results

• Conclusions and next steps

THE EGIDA METHODOLOGY

Rationale

The GEO provides a general framework for the GEOSS implementation, e.g. through the GEO Workplan and GEO Boards activities. However, due to its voluntary-based approach, GEO does not directly fund its activities and must leverage members’ efforts.

There are on-going and planned initiatives funded in the context of national and regional projects which contribute or might contribute to the GEOSS implementation (e.g. FP7 projects).

GEOSSGEOSS

Top-down Top-down actionsactions

Bottom-up Bottom-up actionsactions

Objective

• The FP7 EGIDA project aimed to combine the top-down approach from GEO (GEO STC Roadmap support) and the bottom-up approach from national/regional initiatives.

• The EGIDA Methodology consolidates the EGIDA project experience for future exploitation by defining a general methodological approach which can be adopted by national/regional S&T communities

Definition

• The EGIDA Methodology is a general methodological general methodological approachapproach for implementing a (re-)engineering process (re-)engineering process of the S&T national infrastructures and systems, which can be adopted by national/regional S&T communitiesnational/regional S&T communities, for a sustainable contribution to the GEOSS sustainable contribution to the GEOSS and relevant European initiatives based on a SoS approach, through the mobilization of resources mobilization of resources made available from the participation in national, European and international initiatives and projects.

DESIGN OF THE EGIDA METHODOLOGY

General approach for the design of the EGIDA Methodology

GEO Capacity Building StrategyGEO STC Roadmap

EGIDA analysis of national and European initiativesEGIDA use-cases

EGIDA activities in support of GEO STC Roadmap

EGIDA Deliverable D4.2, D4.8

Structure

• The EGIDA Methodology is structured as a set of guidelines for activities aligning the on-going and planned national/regional actions with the GEOSS objectives, addressing:– Technical Activities for:

• Capacity building (System-of-Systems Engineering, lowering entry barriers,…) according to a SoS (re-)engineering process

– Networking Activities• National/Regional S&T communities engagement• Sustainability

Activities in the EGIDA Methodology

Document structure

Section

Activity

Sub-ActivityDescription

Example box

ASSESSMENT OF THE EGIDA METHODOLOGY

Assessment: use-cases (1/2)

1. “Hot-spot pollution in the Mediterranean” [S. Cinnirella, CNR-IIA]– EM transfer in a FP7 project (Knowseas)– regional, involving developing countries, thematic;

2. “Mediterranean region” [N. Bonora, ISPRA]– EM transfer the context of regional initiatives

(UNEP-MAP/InfoRAC, ENPI/South - SEIS) – regional, involving developing countries, multi-thematic;

3. “Air Quality for Health” [A. Vik, NILU]– EM transfer in a network of European projects– pan-European, thematic;

Assessment: use-cases (1/2)

4. “Slovenia” [S. Lojen, IJS] – EM transfer in a small country– national, multi-thematic (then focused on hazards in the Soça

catchment);

5. “GEO-Spain” [J. Maso, CREAF]– EM transfer for restarting a national GEO initiative– national, multi-thematic

Evaluation and Assessment of the EGIDA Methodology in the five use-cases

Event, - Place, Dte

Assessment results: general outcomes

• Positive feedbacks– The five use-cases were in general able to demonstrate the

feasibility of the EGIDA Methodology transfer in a set of very different contexts.

– This implicitly demonstrates the validity of the EGIDA Methodology idea, approach and current implementation.

– Some of the use-case reports, explicitly confirm this, highlighting its flexibility

“methodology proved to be a useful general methodological approach, which can easily be adopted or amended regarding the specific needs of a topical use case” [“Slovenia” use case report].

Assessment results: general outcomes

• Negative feedbacks– Need of more balance between activities.

• Indeed the first version did not include results from the second year of activities in the EGIDA Project

– Need to improve clarity• Indeed the EGIDA Methodology is currently described in a project

deliverable with all its constraints. Other layouts investigated (book, web site)

“A more user friendly lay-out of the document may be helpful in this respect” [“Air Quality for Health” use case report].

Assessment results

• Assessment reports include:– Suggestions on the most critical actions in the process– Requests for more guidelines on some actions – Proposal of new guidelines based on use-case activities proven

to be effective;– Feedbacks on which actions/sub-actions/guidelines aspects

should be stressed and highlighted

• All the suggestions fit in the existing actions/sub-actions structure– No need for revising the current EGIDA Methodology structure,

just modifying/adding new guidelines and good practices

Assessment results

• Many approaches tested and proposed– study the national legal

framework and the national R&D funding system;

– mobilize project groups, professional and technical associations in search for potential stakeholders;

– study the national approach to NSDI (e.g. for INSPIRE);

– explore the national participation in GEO European projects;

• Collaboration with international initiatives to be stressed.

Assessment results

• A general lack of awareness of GEO/GEOSS initiative and/or benefits has been found.

• Sometimes this depends on a more general lack of awareness in the data sharing and interoperability issues.

Assessment results

• Personal contacts found to be effective

“personal communication proved to be the most efficient in the first phases of the networking process, in particular in activities of identification of stakeholders and motivating them to participate in the network”

“clearly recommend the personal contact as the most effective way to get people involved”.

Assessment results

• One of the most cited points

“a comprehensive list of recommended ways how to assure a long term funding for a sustainable re-engineering process should be compiled and possibly included in the methodology”.

“A national/international central coordination point like the national GEO secretariats could be a first step towards organising a sustainable GEOSS contribution, which especially means supporting the search for funding.”

Assessment results

• Involvement of personnel with skill and interest in IT needed

• Need of suggestions on how to overcome common legal barriers

– International legal frameworks to be considered

– Embargo period for scientific publications

• Economical barriers are common

– To fund efforts to provide metadata

Assessment results

• Concerns expressed about:– Metadata and data

standards adoption– Contribution to multiple

data sharing initiatives

• Links back to the lack of awareness on interoperability solution and GEOSS architecture– SoS and brokering

approach

TA.4•Implementation of the system

Conclusion and next steps

• The EGIDA Project released a first version of the EGIDA Methodology in November 2011

• In 2012 the EM was evaluated in the context of five different use-cases

• Feedbacks have been collected and elaborated, and a final improved version of the EGIDA Methodology will be released in December 2012

• Different ways to publish and disseminate the EGIDA Methodology will be investigated

EGIDA Project

http://www.egida-project.eu

Event, - Place, Dte

BACKUP SLIDES

THE DESIGN PROCESS

Design of the EGIDA Methodology

D3.D3.44

EGIDA EGIDA MethodoloMethodolo

gygy

THE EGIDA METHODOLOGY

By typology:•Research•Industry•Public Administrations•Citizens•Standardization Bodies•Experts•Other prgrammes/initiatives

By role:• (Intermediate and final) Users•Information Providers•Technology Providers•Advisors

By scope:•Priority setting•User Requirements identification and refinement•Assessment and validation through the running of pilot projects and case studies•Consultation on specific issues (e.g. interoperability)•Exploitation•Sustainability

Selection of relevant stakeholdersHow to address/engage them

Build on the outcomes of activities to “Show GEOSS at work “ (Activity 2d)

GEOSS PortfolioOther Compelling examplesPossibly post-poned after the first TAs

Strongly depending on the type of initiative:

•Workshops•Mailing –lists•…

Mobilization of resources from relevant on-going initiatives

Addressing national and supranational fundings

Build on the outcomes of activities to “Catalyze research and development resources” (Activity 2g)

Governance of the (re-) engineering actionsIntegration of top-down and bottom-up approaches

Internal structuring of the working groups

Identification of relevant themes•Data policy

Barriers to information sharing:•Behavioral•Legal•Economical•Technical

Re-engineering of existing systems

Identify what is missing:•Infrastructures•Resources

Re-use approach

A portal provides visibility to the initiative

Usually there is no objection to metadata sharingOpen tools/specifications availableVisibility to the initiative

As for the catalog

Lack of data policies often considered a barrier to resource sharing

If the policy is clear the deployment of access services is straightforward

MediationProcessingWorkflow…

Evaluate and assess the result of the (re-) engineering process for refinement

Interoperability testsRegistration of components