 |
| Titel |
"Where did my data layer come from?" The semantics of data release |
| VerfasserIn |
Adam Leadbetter, Justin Buck |
| Konferenz |
EGU General Assembly 2015
|
| Medientyp |
Artikel
|
| Sprache |
Englisch
|
| Digitales Dokument |
PDF |
| Erschienen |
In: GRA - Volume 17 (2015) |
| Datensatznummer |
250104323
|
| Publikation (Nr.) |
 EGU/EGU2015-3746.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
| Zusammenfassung |
| In his lecture, "Theory of Creative Fitting" (Margullis, Corner & Holt, 2006), Ian McHarg
introduced his vision for cross-disciplinary data and information sharing networks with the
end goal of producing detailed overlay maps for the purposes of ecological architectural
planning. Within McHarg’s networks, experts in various fields, such as hydrology or surface
geology, would provide data layers to the final overlay map with full provenance,
such that the users of the overlay maps would know the originator of the data, the
"value systems" by which the data were created and could place their trust in the
outcomes.
In the light of McHarg’s statements and in order to allow the encoding of value systems in
a cyber-GIS, analyses of: data quality (Giarlo, 2013); data publication networks (Reinsfelder,
2012); trust in collaborative research networks (Leadbetter, 2015); and the metaphors of data
publication, data release and data ecosystems (Parsons & Fox, 2013) have been synthesised
into a logical model of the data release lifecycle. This model concerns the actors in the data
release process; the data-information-knowledge ecosystem through the various stages of the
data release process and the impact of data release on perceptions of trust through the data
release lifecycle.
The data-information-knowledge ecosystem described how the collection of data can be
presented in new ways to form information products, and how these information
products can inform conversations amongst information-consumers who integrate the
information into new knowledge. The actors concerned in the process comprise:
researchers
data publishers
academic publishers
& academic administrators
Finally, the lifecycle of data release involves the initial release of a data-layer, possibly with a
Persistent Identifier (PID) more generic than a Digital Object Identifier (DOI). A
data description paper can be written about the dataset, which then necessitates
the assignment of a DOI to the datasets; the DOI can be seen as an indicator of
trust through "benevolence". A technical document citing the dataset may then be
informed by the dataset release or the dataset description paper. These citations may
show the "competence" (in terms of a trust model) of the original datasets, and
the dataset description papers or other technical articles show the integrity of the
dataset.
The synthesised logical model has been represented in freely available ontologies, such
that data layers can be annotated with metadata about their provenance and stage within the
data release lifecycle before incorporation into a cyber-GIS, in which distributed data
providers provide for a collaborative research environment.
References
Giarlo, M. (2013). Academic libraries as data quality hubs. Journal of Librarianship and
Scholarly Communication 1(3): eP1059. doi: 10.7710/2162-3309.1059
Leadbetter, A. (2015). Examining trust in collaborative research networks. In P. Diviacco, P.
Fox, C. Pshenichny, and A. Leadbetter (Eds.) Collaborative Knowledge in Scientific Research
Networks, Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi: 10.4018/978-1-4666-6567-5.ch002
Margulis, L., Corner, J. and Hawthorne, B. (Editors), 2006. Ian McHarg: conversations with
students. Dwelling with nature. New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press.
Parsons, M., and Fox, P. (2013). Is data publication the right metaphor? Data Science Journal
12, 32-46. doi:10.2481/dsj.WDS-042
Reinsfelder, T. (2012). Open access publishing practices in a complex environment:
conditions, barriers and bases of power. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly
Communication 1(1): eP1029. doi: 10.7710/2162-3309.1029 |
|
|
|
|
|
|