1 / 26

Brand Niemann (US EPA), Chair, Semantic Interoperability Community of Practice (SICoP)

FEA DRM Schema Specification (Draft Version 0.1): Analysis and Two Use Cases (Taxonomy and Interoperability). Brand Niemann (US EPA), Chair, Semantic Interoperability Community of Practice (SICoP) Best Practices Committee (BPC), CIO Council May 17, 2005 (Updated June 14, 2005)

shirleye
Download Presentation

Brand Niemann (US EPA), Chair, Semantic Interoperability Community of Practice (SICoP)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. FEA DRM Schema Specification (Draft Version 0.1): Analysis and Two Use Cases (Taxonomy and Interoperability) Brand Niemann (US EPA), Chair, Semantic Interoperability Community of Practice (SICoP) Best Practices Committee (BPC), CIO Council May 17, 2005 (Updated June 14, 2005) http://web-services.gov/ and http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP

  2. Overview • 1. FEA DRM Schema Specification (Draft Version 0.1) • 2. Analysis • 3. Use Cases: • 3.1 Taxonomy • 3.2 Interoperability • 4. Some Next Steps • 5. First Public DRM Forum SICoP Pilots, June 13, 2005 • 6. Collaborative Expedition Workshop Demonstrations, June 28, 2005 • 7. National Infrastructure for Community Statistics CoP Meeting, June 30, 2005

  3. 1. FEA DRM Schema Specification (Draft Version 0.1) • History: • Volume 1 Released October 19, 2004. • Karen Evans Memo, December 22, 2004. • First DRM Work Group Meeting, February 7, 2005. • First DRM Public Forum, June 13, 2005. • http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/drm/schema/Draft_FEA_DRM_Schema_20050611.htm • See http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2005-06-20-a.html • Issues: • No Votes (4) from organizations: • EPA – Transforming the DRM effort into an XML Schema development completely disregards the fostering of a standards-based approach to data management. • FAA – Need more information on the context and benefits of the schema. • GSA – Need to use RDF/OWL to support Model-Driven Architecture (MDA). • IC – The prescribed use of DRM XML has not been identified and agreed upon. • Public Forum: • What will OMB use this for? • W3C: • Jim Hendler: “Going XML/XSD for this is a mistake, it is exactly wrong for this, and that it is foolish given there is already a well-though out ontology for this.”

  4. 1. FEA DRM Schema Specification (Draft Version 0.1) • drm:ExternalTaxonomyRef: • Points to subject taxonomies created using an approved standard. For a standard to be approved, it must be: • 1. An open, widely implemented standard, available free-of-charge and unencumbered by royalty or patent claims, or a standard implemented by a government agency • 2. A well-documented, durable standard (i.e., under version/change control, well-documented, backward compatibility, etc.) • 3. Provides semantics for modeling, at a minimum, taxonomy/thesaurus nodes/terms and relationships between taxonomy nodes/terms (generic, whole-part, equivalence, associative). • 4. Provides semantics for assigning an identifier per element that is guaranteed unique within the particular model. • Candidate standards for implementing data exchange services include: • 1. XTM (XML topic maps) • 2. NASA taxonomy Format (http://nasataxonomy.jpl.nasa.gov/xml.htm) • 3. MeSH taxonomy Format (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/xmlmesh.html) • 4. UDDI tModel (http://uddi.org/taxonomies/UDDI_Registry_tModels.htm) • 5. XBRL taxonomy (http://www.xbrl.org/Taxonomies/) • 6. Simple Knowledge Organisation System (SKOS) (http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/)

  5. Levels (number): L1 (1) L2 (5) L3 (15) L4 (11) L5 (50) L6 (25) L7 (46) L8 (7) L9 (14) L10 (4) L11 (2) Total: 180 Some redundancy in elements at multiple levels. Levels extend to 11! A total of 180 elements! 2. Analysis

  6. drm:DataReferenceModel (L1) @ xml:base (L2) drm:SubmissionMetadata (L2) drm:DataDescription (L2) drm:DataSharing (L2) drm:DataContext (L2) Root node of the DRM XML instance document. Defines a base URI for the document, thereby allowing relative URIs to be used throughout the document. Container for all metadata related to one particular instance of a DRM submission. This element implements the "data description" portion of the DRM meta-model. The element contains the data sharing portion of the FEA DRM meta-model. A container for elements that implement the data context portion of the DRM meta-model. 2. Analysis

  7. 3. Use Cases • 3.1 Taxonomy • Definition: An information model (typically hierarchical) that defines the scope of a knowledge domain. • Rationale: • (1) The other FEA Reference Models have taxonomies (See FEA 2005 in the Dynamic Knowledge Repository). • (2) The need for use cases – what will this be used for question. • (3) The need for Formal Taxonomies in the U.S. Government (Daconta article – see next slide). Note formal taxonomies are ontologies. • Action: Repurposed Web Page and Created a Taxonomy. See slide 9. • Clients: Non-XML users that need to classify their data and information. • 3.2 Interoperability: • Definition: See slide 10. • DRM Information Sharing Definition: What agencies share now or will share in a year. • Action: Add to that “information that makes sense to make interoperable” (e.g. Proposed Indicators for EPA 2006 Report on the Environment). • Clients: National Infrastructure for Community Statistics (NICS) CoP, the Key National Indicators Initiative (KNII), and those concerned with the interoperability of water data and information.

  8. 3. Use Cases Transportation Class Hierarchy OWL Listing: <?xml version="1.0"?> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#" xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#" xmlns:daml="http://www.daml.org/2001/03/daml+oil#" xmlns="http://www.owl-ontologies.com/unnamed.owl#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xml:base="http://www.owl-ontologies.com/unnamed.owl"> <owl:Ontology rdf:about=""/> <owl:Class rdf:ID="Transportation"/> <owl:Class rdf:ID="AirVehicle"> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#Transportation"/> </owl:Class> <owl:Class rdf:about="#GroundVehicle"> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#Transportation"/> </owl:Class> <owl:Class rdf:about="#Automobile"> <rdfs:subClassOf> <owl:Class rdf:ID="GroundVehicle"/> </rdfs:subClassOf> Etc. Source: Formal Taxonomies for the U.S. Government, Michael Daconta, Metadata Program Manager, US Department of Homeland Security, XML.Com, http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2005/01/26/formtax.html

  9. 3. Use Cases See Best Practices Repository at http://web-services.gov

  10. Integration: Participant systems are assimilated into a larger whole Systems must conform to a specific way of doing things Connections (physical and logical) are brittle Rules are programmed in custom code, functions, or scripts Standard data vocabularies are encouraged Interoperability: Participant systems remain autonomous and independent Systems may share information without strict standards conformance Connections (physical and logical) are loosely coupled Rules are modeled in schemas, domain models, and mappings Local data vocabularies are encouraged 3. Use Cases Source: Semantic Information Interoperability in Adaptive Information, by Jeffrey Pollack and Ralph Hodgson, Wiley Inter-Science, 2004, page 38.

  11. 3. Use Cases See Best Practices Repository at http://web-services.gov

  12. 3. Use Cases Source: State of SICoP, Brand Niemann, May 16, 2005, slide 68.

  13. 3. Use Cases Ontologies on Web Servers Standard namespaces: XMLS Datatype OWL Specification RDFS Specification RDF Specification Ontologies being Used/Extended OWL namespace references Ontology Steward’s Web Server Imports Ontology Information Publisher’s Web Server Ontology- specific Datatypes compliant with OWL OWL Imports RDF Instance Data Source: Ontology Architecture in Lee Lacy, OWL – Representing Information Using the Web Ontology Language, Trafford, 2005, page 144.

  14. 4. Some Next Steps • Keep a Wise Balance Between “Work Locally” and “Work in Wider Groups” (see next slide). • Compare the DRM XSD to Other Government XML Schemas (e.g. RecOneStop, IC MWG, etc.) for Lessons Learned. • Address the DRM Comments and Non-Concur Issues. • Construct a DRM ontology in OWL-DL and Apply It in Use Cases to Demonstrate the Benefits of Ontology (see slide 16). • Carry out the Tim Berners-Lee Recommendations for the “Role of Government” (see slide 17).

  15. 4. Some Next Steps Sir Tim Berners-Lee at the SWANS Conference, April 7 on “the constant tension” Keep a wise balance. The semantic web allows a mixture of the two approaches, and smooth transitions between them.

  16. 4. Some Next Steps • Substance of the Semantic Web: Deborah McGuinness, Stanford and Mike Dean, BBN, SWANS Conference, April 7, 2005: • Selected Technical Benefits of Ontology: • 1. Integrating Multiple Data Sources • 2. Semantic Drill Down / Focused Perusal • 3. Statements about Statements • 4. Inference • 5. Translation • 6. Smart (Focused) Search • 7. Smarter Search … Configuration • 8. Proof and Trust

  17. 4. Some Next Steps • Sir Tim Berners-Lee at the SWANS Conference, April 7 on the Government Role: • Making public data available in standard Semantic Web formats. • Requiring funded data to be available in Semantic Web formats • Encouraging flagship applications. • Supporting Web Science research for advanced tools.

  18. 5. First Public DRM Forum SICoP Pilots, June 13, 2005 • 1. Building Ontologies and Taxonomies from Unstructured and Semi-structured Information using the Public Domain Databases for Semantic Searching and Ontology Building announced at the SWANS Conference, April 7,2005 FAST Enterprise Search Platform (for structured and unstructured data, advanced XML search, multilingual support and scalability) and ProPublish Publishing/ Content Management (Enterprise Search of Distributed Content Managed with Taxonomies and Ontologies) – Bobbie Browning and Erik Franklin, FAST Presentation. • Initial Pilot: Building an Ontology of the National Health Information Network (NHIN): Status Report and See NHIN Pilot in the Dynamic Knowledge Repository • 2. Networking Ontologies and Taxonomies to Promote Reuse and Integration - SICoP Ontology and Taxonomy Coordinating Working Group (ONTAC WG), Pat Cassidy, Lead. • Also see Slides 44-46 in The State of SICoP and Many Taxonomies in the Dynamic Knowledge Repository.

  19. 5. First Public DRM Forum SICoP Pilots, June 13, 2005 • 3. The RDF Network Data Model by Susie Stephens and Proposed Pilot with Ali Niazi, and Timothy Taylor, Oracle, Russ Ruggiero, Human-Markup.org, Adam Hocek, Broadstrokes, Inc., and Rex Brooks, Starbourne. • Also see: An RDF Data Model for the Semantic Web (5th Oracle Life Sciences User Group Meeting, May 16-17, 2005) Note: Includes Use of Siderean's Seamark Navigation Server HayStack - BioDASH Demonstration. • 4. Evolving Data Models & Standards: Collaborating to Achieve Semantic Interoperability ... (from ISO 11179, ebXML Core Components, UBL, HL7, UML ... to UML2/OCL, RDF, OWL, OWL-S, SWRL, SUMO, DOLCE, SCL and other emerging semantic web services technologies and standards) – Peter Yim, Co-Convenor of the Ontolog Forum. • Also See Initial Pilot Under 1. Above and Extended Metadata Registry (XMDR) for Complex Semantics, Kevin Keck, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. Presented at the Open Forum 2005 on Metadata Registries.

  20. 5. First Public DRM Forum SICoP Pilots, June 13, 2005 • 5. Building Composite Applications with Multiple Ontologies, Business Rules, Events, etc. that Reduce the Number of Separate Applications and/or Databases with the Digital Harbor PiiE Platform. Presentation by Rohit Agarwal and Ken Sivaraman, Digital Harbor. • Initial Pilot: Semantic Harmonization of the FEA Performance Reference Model, Performance Assessment Rating Tool and the Exhibit 300 into an Integrated Application for Enterprise Architecture Governance and Accountability (Demonstrating the Value of EA Through "Line of Sight" in Ontology-Driven Information Systems and Linkage to Agency Strategic Plans) FEA 2005 Pilot in the Dynamic Knowledge Repository. • 6. Putting Context to Work: Semantic Keys to Improve Rapid First Response (A Composite—Infrastructure Application with An Event Ontology First Shown at the SWANS Conference, April 7-8, 2005, as “an end-to-end Semantic Web application.”). Presentation by Adam Hocek, Broadstrokes, and Participating Companies: Broadstrokes, Inc, contact: Adam Hocek; MyStateUSA, contact: Claudia Bitner; Image Matters, contact: Mike Alexander; Starbourne, contact: Rex Brooks; and TargusInfo, contact: David Win. • Also see Pilot Presented at the SWANS Conference, April 7-8, 2005 and Region 4 Pilot in the Dynamic Knowledge Repository.

  21. 6. Collaborative Expedition Workshop Demonstrations, June 28, 2005 • Open Standards for Government Information Sharing: Timing the Transformations Needed for Sustained Progress By Combining the Expertise of Multiple Communities, June 28th: • How to Build Readiness: Advancing Discernment and Value Through Implementation Profiles and Pilots: • IRS Topic Maps with the IRS Tax Products CD-ROM • Hands on Taxonomy Learning from the Montague Institute • Terragram for Taxonomies at the World Bank • SVG Maps for Knowledge Management and Taxonomies • Geospatial Ontologies for the Geospatial Profile • Taxonomies and Metadata for the Intelligence Community

  22. 7. National Infrastructure for Community Statistics Meeting, June 30, 2005 • NICS CoP Research Symposium: “The Emerging Tool Kit for NICS”: • Panel Discussion: Implications of Today’s Presentations for NICS: • Brand Niemann, US EPA, and Chair, SICoP. • The FEA DRM Context for: NICS Ready, NICS Services, and NICS Products. See next slides from April 20, 2005. • Troy Anderson, KnowledgePlex, FannieMae Foundation. • Valerie Gregg, Digital Government Partnering Group.

  23. Mind Maps for the National Infrastructure for Community Statistics Reno Conference Initial Convening Charter Executive Committee Operations Group Program Group Formation Transition Organization Local Organizations State organizations Federal Organizations National Non-Profit & Commercial Core Operating Committee Staff Market Place Tools & Resources Sustainability NICS Learning Phase Implement- ation The Community Clients Use Cases KNII CIC (2) ICFS FEA-DRM Etc. Data Intermediaries Community Data Users Foundations/Investors State Agencies Federal Agencies Non-profit Commercial Identity Projects Pittsburgh Twin Cities Affiliates NEPH EPA Region 4 NICS Ready NICS Services NICS Products

  24. Principles for Use Cases • Principle 1: All NICS CoP Members should work towards becoming “NICS Ready” • E.g., everyone has a “Use Case”. • This helps the Program Group with the agendas for the CoP Meetings and the needs of the Operations Group for “best practice” examples for marketing NICS. • Principle 2: NICS CoP Members that need help with Principle 1 should partner with other NICS CoP Members that can help them. • E.g., everyone finds a “win-win” relationship in the CoP. • This helps the CoP deals with resource constraints during startup. • Principle 3: The NICS Operations should help those NICS CoP Members that need resources find those resources. • E,g, everyone can get help with their business case and marketing.

  25. Principles for Use Cases • “NICS Ready” means data tables that have metadata that address at least the following: • Title, Explanation, Row and Column Labels Defined, Footnotes, and Source. • Note: This follows the Statistical Abstract of the U.S. format. • “NICS Services” means those “NICS Ready” data tables are available in an interoperable format (e.g. RDF/XML). • “NICS Products” are those that have been vetted within and outside the NICS CoP by a Peer Review Process to be defined. • All NICS “Community Statistics” need to be place in a broader context (see next slide).

  26. Principles for Use Cases • Context for Community Statistics: • National Statistics at the State Level: • Statistical Abstract of the U.S. • National Statistics at the County Level: • Census County Quick Facts • National Statistics at the City and Town Level: • Census City and Town (>25,000) Facts • NICS Community Statistics: • NICS CoP Member Sponsor and Host See http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html

More Related