charme's presentation on wp300 - rv1 - eu brussels dec 2013

WP300

Raquel Alegre (on behalf of all WP300 participants)

University of Reading

[email protected]

http://www.charme.org.uk

CHARMe 1st Annual Review Meeting 3rd-4th December 2013, Brussels

Introduction

WP310 establishes the requirements for the system from the point of view of users.

UREAD, STFC, CGI, INFOTERRA, DWD, TERRASPATIUM, ECMWF, KNMI, UKMO

UREAD INFOTERRA STFC DWD ECMWF KNMI CGI TERRA

SPATIUM UKMO

4 2.9 2 2 2 2 1 5 2.5

Effort in person-months

WP320 surveys existing technical solutions and recommends best-practice approaches.

STFC, UREAD

WP330 highlights gaps in existing technical capability and reveals where new technical development must be focused.

UREAD, STFC

WP300

Summary of Progress (Year 1)

WP300

Summary of Progress (Year 1)

Submitted deliverables: D300.1 – User Requirements Document

D300.2 – Analysis of Existing Technologies

D300.3 – Gap Analysis

User workshop Reading, March 2013

User Questionnaires Different backgrounds

Different locations (Europe and African Communities)

Discussion pages User scenarios

List of annotations types and targets

Deliverables

Communication with US groups NCPP = NOAA, University of Colorado, NCAR, …

WP300

Overview of work done

WP310 – User Requirements

WP320 – Analysis of Existing Technologies

WP330 – Gap Analysis

WP300

User Requirements Process

WP310 – Overview of work done


Gathering of User Ideas

Analysis of User Input

Use Cases User

Requirements Document

1. Interrogate potential users/advisory panel/project partners to gather some ideas. User Scenarios/Questionnaires/Workshop CHARMe Partners experience Project meetings




Use Cases User



2. Put some order and analyse users’ inputs.





Use Cases User



2. Put some order and analyse users’ inputs. 3. Envision CHARMe actors and their interactions with the CHARMe system.





Use Cases User



2. Put some order and analyse users’ inputs. 3. Envision CHARMe actors and their interactions with the CHARMe system. 4. Elaborate a URD deriving user requirements from use cases.



User feedback

Type of user # Users Replies # Free-text Comments # Questionnaires

Scientists and Researchers 26 45 15

Commercial users 4 24 0

EO Modellers 3 11 0

Humanitarian Institutions 3 4 2

Policy Makers 1 5 0

Partners 2 8 0

Other 3 4 2

Total 42 101 18


User Workshop Reading (UK), 14th March 2013



Attendees: Data producers and suppliers Meteorological services providers Climate modellers Users of all hierarchy of data, from L0 to L3, ancillary and Cal/Val

IT management of climate data Commercial users of solar energy In situ and airborne observations analysts




Brainstorming sessions Relationship with the data Judging fitness-for-purpose Supporting information needed





Brainstorming sessions Relationship with the data Judging fitness-for-purpose Supporting information needed

Outcome: Coincidence with user ideas from user questionnaires and forms 2 new use cases

Follow/Unfollow a dataset Moderation of commentary

Several suggestions out of scope, but valuable for possible next iterations of the project


Analysis of Existing Technologies

• Existing data models ISO standars

Community specific models e.g. MOLES, Metafor CIM

• Mechanisms for data citation DataCite

• Data linking Linked Data and Open Annotation

• Related projects

• Current practice in data archives

• WP400 (D400.1-3)


• Data linking

Open Annotation, built on Linked Data approach

o Targets could be datasets o The body is something the author of the annotation wants

to say about the target o An annotation can

have other useful information like motivation, author, creation time…


Analysis of Existing Technologies

Gap Analysis • Gaps studied by “technical areas” Data model Storage Network Protocol User Interface Authentication WP700 tools


• Classification of gaps Level of impact: Low, Medium, High

Type of gap: implementation, knowledge or expertise

Gap Analysis

Gap Analysis

Description Impact

Initial population of the CHARMe’s database of

Commentary metadata.

H

Role of CHARMe Administrators and Moderators and

specification of their interaction with CHARMe.

M

Issue: Difficulty to find consensus for D300.1 Resolution: Steering technical group, regular face to face meetings, several document iterations and revisions from all partners.

Issues encountered and resolution

WP300



Issue: Lack of technical information to elaborate the Gap Analysis Resolution: Technical study of the CHARMe system and discussions in the steering technical group

WP300



Issue: UK users participation in user workshop not proportional compared to other European countries Resolution: Creation of questionnaires to send to remote parties.


WP300



Issue: More use cases gathered than expected, most of them out of scope Resolution: Keep track of them in the URD for future versions of the project



WP300



Issue: New risks detected while looking for gaps Resolution: Risk Register updated with conclusions from Gap Analysis

Issue: More use cases gathered than expected, most of them out of scope Resolution: Keep track of them in the URD for future versions of the project



WP300

Deliverables and Milestones Deliverables

Steering technical group: UREAD, CGI and STFC

Regular face-to-face meetings held to discuss WP300, mainly D300.1: • 23rd April 2013 • 3rd July 2013 • 3rd September 2013

Updates to D300.1 are expected as the project progresses

ID Title Delivery date (DoW)

Date of first draft

Issued version (ECAS)

Updated versions (internal)

D300.1 User Requirements 31/05/13 23/05/13 19/08/13 21/10/2013

D300.2 Report on existing technical best practice

31/03/13 14/05/13 27/06/13

D300.3 Gap Analysis 31/05/13 17/10/13 13/11/13

WP300

Deliverables and Milestones Deliverables

V1 of D300.1 issued late - impacted on SRD (WP500), Data Model (WP400) and D300.3.

D300.2 “Analysis on existing technologies” was late, but there was no impact on other WPs.

Unsuitable scheduling in DOW of D300.3 resulted in a very late delivery. No significant impact.

WP300

ID Title Delivery date (DoW)

Date of first draft

Issued version (ECAS)

Updated versions (internal)

D300.1 User Requirements 31/05/13 23/05/13 19/08/13 21/10/2013

D300.2 Report on existing technical best practice

31/03/13 14/05/13 27/06/13

D300.3 Gap Analysis 31/05/13 17/10/13 13/11/13

Deliverables and Milestones

ID Title Delivery date

MS1 Baseline requirements established Month 3

Milestones

Compiled following workshop and revised during the rest of WP and project.

WP300

Use of resources

UREAD INFOTERRA STFC DWD ECMWF KNMI CGI TERRA

SPATIUM UKMO

4 2.9 2 2 2 2 1 5 2.5

Effort in person-months

Planned use of resources

Final figures aren’t ready yet to compare, but no significant difference between planned hours and actually spent hours

All partners collaborated in this WP • Distribution of user questionnaires

• Participation in user workshop

• Steering technical meetings (STFC, CGI, UREAD)

• Deliverable review iterations

• WP discussions on the wiki

WP300

Questions?

WP300

End of presentation.

Annex – User scenarios Type of user Scenario

Scientists Researchers

Seasonal forecasting Uncertainties assessment and estimation Climate change trends investigation Phenological studies Monitoring tropical forests Compare datasets from validation sites to validate sensors

Commercial users Mapping of carbon/oil/gas/mineral sources Environmental mapping of geological features

EO Modellers Operational monitoring and provision of climate services to generate tailored products

Validation of ocean reanalysis Statistical patterns of rainfall and temperature

Humanitarian Institutions

Plotting of extreme events Rapid response mapping for flood disaster events Impact studies (disease, crop, hydrological)

Policy Makers Land use studies

Other Data archiving Forecasting of wind and fog

Annex – User questionnaire

Name and institution:

1) What do you need to use climate data for? Can you briefly describe a typical example?

2) Where do you go to find climate data?

3) Once you have found a likely dataset, how do you judge whether that data is fit for your purpose? What is most useful? (In particular we are interested in information beyond the temporal or spatial coverage of a dataset)

4) Can you find all the information you need to make that judgment? What information is particularly hard to find?

5) Can you imagine a tool that would help you find and use this supporting information? What would it be like? Would it be in the place you go to find the data?

Annex - User Workshop Supporting information needed

Stability, Precision Clearness Accessibility Multi-media learning materials Compliance flags Cost Availability Policy Popularity Version Modifications Free text comment, Description of dataset for climate scientist, Usage tracking by location and time to discover related datasets Links to forum, chatrooms or blogs Usage tracking of datasets and metadata, Quantitative comparisons, Feature/event tagging external events Algorithms e.g. average calc for temp. Usability (completeness) Access to s/w used on data Licence, its access, status & cost Timeliness Dataset dependencies e.g. coastline discrepancies Uncertainties especially with reference to external events Availability e.g. valid for location or time series Durable/persistent/continuous/lifetime, critical mass of usage Provenance – traceability Information about versioning Mapping between datasets & journals Journal/papers/tech notes don't report problems Means to feed back that an issue has been fixed Attribution & contact point for further info. Changes: calibration, external (climate) events Validity time of info provided

Judging fitness-for-purpose

Expert knowledge commentary Ability to discern expert trustable assertions from the rest Endorsement from other users on comments to show credit Peer reviewed papers as well as non peer reviewed like technical reports Discover events critical for identifying real and false trends Identify gaps in the data, changes in algorithms and observing platform Uncertainty characterisation available in a clea, open and accessible way Link to ancillary data used in the algorithm to process satellite data Information on fitness of supporting information such as land maks Information on calibration of raw satellite data User manuals Links to contextual information Change log on evolution of the data Information about SW tools to process and explore the data with moderated user feedback Provenance tree Contact info to trace user comments Data comparison information

Annex – Risks from Gap Analysis Technical Area Risk ID Description

Data model for

annotations

No risks foreseen.

Storage for

annotations

2.2 - 1 The amount of data in the CHARMe triplestore escalates to an extent that the system’s performance is

compromised and/or causes unexpected problems.

Geospatial

referencing for

annotations

No risks foreseen.

Network Protocol

for exchanging

annotations

2.4 - 1 The CHARMe system’s efficiency is compromised when trying to cope with several parallel queries or

interactions with the data stored in the CHARMe Nodes.

User Interfaces 2.5 – 1 The CHARMe Plug-In may compromise the Data Provider’s site’s security and inadvertently expose information

to unknown or malicious users.

Authentication /

Authorization

systems

2.6 – 1 Risk that user registration authentication and security domains not clarified at an early enough stage in the

design process.

2.6 – 2

Risk that CHARMe plugin will not provide the required security and that a full CHARMe node will have to be

implemented per site.

Faceted Search

Facility

No risks foreseen.

Significant Events

Viewer

No risks foreseen.

Inter-Comparison

Tool

2.9 - 1 The data model has a structure that doesn’t allow metadata inter-comparison.

Fine-Grained

Commentary Tool

No risks foreseen.

Other 2.11 - 1 CHARMe Moderators not able to review all possible requests on metadata manipulation.

2.11 - 2 Initial CHARMe database not populated in time for testing.

charme's presentation on wp300 - rv1 - eu brussels dec 2013

Technology

draft issued version

uk users participation

analyse users inputs

steering technical group

existing technologies d300

envision charme actors

european countries resolution

targets deliverables communication