Adoption of earth science informatics standards: key factors

1. Adoption of earth science informatics standards: key factors Simon Cox1, Bruce Simons2, Gavin Walker1 1CSIRO, 2GeoScience Victoria EGU 2011

2. Outline • Two projects • GeoSciML • Water Data Transfer Format • Factors leading to adoption • Reflections on some other projects • Conclusions

3. GeoSciML • Scope: • transfer of interpreted geology data • (geological maps) ESSI @ EGU 2011 – Vienna,

4. In the beginning … Strong Conceptual Basis 200 years of geological map-making 1815 William Smith “Map that Changed the World” Stable shared scientific model Geologic units, faults, contacts, age, rocks Standard ‘formal representation’ – geological maps Any geological map can be ‘understood’ by any geologist

5. The geological map ‘ontology’ Geological unit descriptions GeoSciML:MappedFeature GeoSciML:GeologicUnit Geometries Geological descriptions GeoSciML:GeologicFeature Earth’s surface Geological structure descriptions GeoSciML:GeologicStructure O&M:samplingFrame Vertical section

6. NADM & XMML – precursors to GeoSciML 2004 meeting adopted NADM and XMML as design basis

7. Face to Face Meetings Orleans 2008 Ottawa 2005 Perth 2004 Orleans 2006 Tucson 2007 Liege-Brussels 2006 Melbourne 2007 Rome 2010 Uppsala 2008 Quebec 2009

8. Challenges – New tools of trade

9. Current GeoSciML 2.0/2.1 WFS services • Number of data layers (feature types) being served as GeoSciML WFS: • 36 • From 19 Geological Survey Organizations • Still GeoSciML 2.0 and 2.1 (3.1 expected in 2011)

10. Current GeoSciML WFS Clients OneGeology portal AuScope portal Boreholes 3D GeoModeller Boreholes

11. GeoSciML • Scope • Interpreted geology, as typically portrayed on geological maps • Stakeholders • Geological surveys, who want to publish data online • Funding • None direct, participants • Project style • Voluntary collaboration • Timeline • (1999-)2004-present • Technology • UML, GML, SKOS • Evidence of adoption • Endorsed by IUGS • Used in oneGeology, AuScope, US-GIN • Basis for ERML, GWML

12. Water Data Transfer Format (WDTF) • Scope: • Ingestion of water observations data into a data warehouse • 200+ data suppliers ESSI @ EGU 2011 – Vienna,

13. Growing Urban Demand Over-allocation to Irrigation Drying & Warming Climate Expanding Plantations Uncapped Groundwater Extraction Bushfire Recovery Impacts Expanding Farm Dams The Environmental Flows Imperative Context: Water scarcity in Australia  Water restrictions everywhere!

14. El Nino Southern Oscillation Indian Ocean Dipole Southern Annular Mode Trend in annual rainfall across Australia.

15. 2007 National plan for water security • A new Murray-Darling Basin Authority • Understanding the potential of Northern Australia • Commonwealth = Environmental Water Holder • National irrigation delivery system upgrades • National on-farm water savings measures • National water use metering and telemetry • National water information initiative • BoM - $450M / 10 years

16. Scope

17. Scope

18. History Start Jul 2008

19. Multiple levels of agreement WaterML2.0 + I-Lin (USGS) Nate (USGS) Vocabulary set WaterML2.0 defined Data types Quality Processing types OK Eric (NRCan) Want data! ‘Custom’ Datum definitions Qualifiers Eh? E.g. MyCustomStreamLevelReferenceMethod E.g. - “QF 4 - Dodgy measurement technique.” “QF 5 - Manual measurement, performed while tired.” A continuous, daily measurement of water level was made (or derived). Someone has assigned a ‘WaterML2 good’ quality to it. I don’t know what datum the values are referenced from, and the values contain a qualifier of some sort.

20. Vocabularies very important

21. Wider architecture • Multiple validation services querying with distributed authoritative vocabulary services BOM Authority VocService WDTF Validation Aust. Authority VocService International Authority VocService WaterML 2.0 Validation SI Units VocService

22. Water Data Transfer Format (WDTF) • Scope • Ingest of water observations into a data warehouse • Stakeholders • Australian Government • Bureau of Meteorology • 200+ data providers • Funding • >$12M, $10M direct to data providers • Project style • Contract technology provider • Timeline • 2008-present • Technology • XSD, Schematron, GML • Evidence of adoption • BoM portal • Validation service, viz. tool

23. Compare: • INSPIRE • Strong legal mandate • Use-cases and overall vision is dilute • Top-down with grudging support from agencies forced to comply • 27 member states + dozens of agencies  heavy process • CUAHSI-HIS • Strong vision and leadership • Academic + agencies (USGS, EPA) • Hardware/software provided and installed • Black-box to end-users, limited engagement

24. Conclusions • Geo-informatics standards can be successful (i.e. deployed) for various reasons • Domain maturity • Consensus is easy if the technical language is mature (Geology) • Community organization • Homogeneous structures reduce communication barriers (Geological surveys) • Mandate • If the project is top-down/legally enforced, $ still helps a lot! (WDTF) • Timeliness • Full consensus process takes a long time which is only available in non-critical domains (GeoSciML) • Small design team can be efficient (WDTF) but a legal mandate and serious funding helps!

25. Contact Us Phone: 1300 363 400 or +61 3 9545 2176 Email: enquiries@csiro.au Web: www.csiro.au Thank you CSIRO Earth Science Simon Cox Research Scientist +61 8 6436 8639 Simon.Cox@csiro.au GeoScience Victoria Bruce Simons Senior Information Geoscientist +61 3 9658 4502 Bruce.Simons@dpi.vic.gov.au CSIRO ICT Centre Gavin Walker Research Engineer +61 2 6216 7030 Gavin.Walker@csiro.au