”There’s more to see than can even be seen, …”

1. ”There’s more to see than can even be seen, …” COST Workshop and MC 7 Riga, Latvia, 14-16 October 2004 Jaap Zevenbergen, WG 2 coordinator OTB, Delft University of Technology,The Netherlands

2. Agenda • MoU revisited • Models • Transparency • Costing • Ontology • Progress • Final Remarks

3. MoU of our Action • Even neighboring pair of countries • Has remarkable differences • Making it a challenge to elicit a common set of concepts and models (p. 4)

4. MoU of our Action • Improve transparency of real property markets • Provide a stronger basis for reduction of costs of real property transactions • by • Preparing a set of models of real property transactions (correct, formalized and complete) • Assessing economic efficiency of these transactions • models also for education and (re-)engineering

5. MoU on WG’s • Ontology (now: Law and Models) • Real Property and Cadastral Law (now: Cadastral Science) • Transaction Costs (now: Economy) • Early years all work Action-wide • WG 1 and 2 very intertwined

6. 3. Models (transaction) • Verbal (semi formalized) descriptions • Activity Diagrams in (quasi) UML • Discussed with expert(s) from at least one other country (mainly during STSM’s) • Comparisons between sets of countries (esp. SLO, SE, DK) • Level of detail vs. abstraction in comparison ? • Functional analysis ?

7. 1. Transparency ? • Describing the process in an understandable way ? • Assigning authority and responsibility for certain activities to certain actors • Going behind the ‘cadastral system’: what objective(s) are meant to be met (and which side effects has it) ? • differences in (stated and implied) objectives • How to deal with less prescriptive countries (describe a ‘normal’ case), esp. UK (NL, ..) ?

8. 2. Costing ? • Do the descriptions allow for ‘costing’ ? • Can we than do meaningful cost comparison ? • [issue is getting more attention: German research firm was doing some comparison study for German Gov.] • What if certain ‘objective’ is met in another way (and paid through other channel) • rest for WG 3

9. (3. Models) Ontology • Ontology focus of Bremen Workshop • provide common base for modeling • strong start at Bremen Workshop • 2nd, parallel track of modeling with Class Diagram (core (data ?) model) • Towards a Cadastral Domain Model/Ontology • not as the base, but after a learning curve ? • “UseCases to Classes and back” (Erik at WG 2)

10. Progress • Modeling (3.) completed to a large extent: • Further formalization in some cases (eg. UML) • Erik’s “and back” from emerging ontology • Andrew at WG 2: modeling is not the goal, don’t keep refining, but use the richness of the data gathered to answer research questions • From the Action MoU (1. and 2.) • New ones (e.g. risk attribution)

11. Progress • UML (or other) only a tool for modeling • Are methods used already clearly described ?  methodology (domain specific ?) • Participants had very different pre-knowledge of modeling; influenced progress, esp. in comparing and underlying terminology  domain ontology

12. ‘Decisions from WG 2’ • Every country will complete the national report (use template from Hungary and Denmark) by … • Use example cases for comparison (see WG 3) • Re-iterate the ‘UseCases to Classes and back’ for more countries • Make comparison within comparable groups • Aim at final book of the action results

13. Next WG 1 + 2 event: • Workshop ‘Standardization in the cadastral domain’ (together with FIG, commission 7) • in Bamberg (Germany), 9-10 December 2004 • http://www.kinf.wiai.uni-bamberg.de/SICD/ • Register and book in time !

14. There’s more to see than can even be seenMore to do than can ever be doneThere’s far too much to take in here … More to find than can ever by found Zevenbergen 2002 (phd), p. 0; taken from Lion King Soundtrack (lyrics by Tim Rice) OTB, Delft University of Technology,The Netherlands