Upload
raquel-alegre
View
114
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Citation preview
WP300
Raquel Alegre (on behalf of all WP300 participants)
University of Reading
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
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
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
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
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
User Requirements Process
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
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
2. Put some order and analyse users’ inputs.
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
2. Put some order and analyse users’ inputs. 3. Envision CHARMe actors and their interactions with the CHARMe system.
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
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 Requirements Process
WP310 – Overview of work done
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
WP310 – Overview of work done
User Workshop Reading (UK), 14th March 2013
WP310 – Overview of work done
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
WP310 – Overview of work done
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
Brainstorming sessions Relationship with the data Judging fitness-for-purpose Supporting information needed
IT management of climate data Commercial users of solar energy In situ and airborne observations analysts
WP310 – Overview of work done
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
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
IT management of climate data Commercial users of solar energy In situ and airborne observations analysts
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)
WP320 – Overview of work done
• 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…
WP320 – Overview of work done
Analysis of Existing Technologies
Gap Analysis • Gaps studied by “technical areas” Data model Storage Network Protocol User Interface Authentication WP700 tools
WP330 – Overview of work done
• 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: 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
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: 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
Issue: UK users participation in user workshop not proportional compared to other European countries Resolution: Creation of questionnaires to send to remote parties.
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: 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
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
Issue: UK users participation in user workshop not proportional compared to other European countries Resolution: Creation of questionnaires to send to remote parties.
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: 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
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
Issue: UK users participation in user workshop not proportional compared to other European countries Resolution: Creation of questionnaires to send to remote parties.
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
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.