Difference between revisions of "Water Cluster Telecons"

From Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP)
Line 26: Line 26:
 
===Notes===
 
===Notes===
  
'''Water Telecon – April 1, 2010'''
+
===Water Cluster Telecon – May 6, 2010===
 
 
'''Present'''
 
  
 +
Present:
 
*Bill Sonntag
 
*Bill Sonntag
 
*Brian Rogan
 
*Brian Rogan
*Carol Meyer
+
*Louis Sweeny
*Luis Bermudez
 
 
*Bruce Bargemeyer
 
*Bruce Bargemeyer
*Jami Montgomery
+
*Tim Gleason  - EPA Region I
 +
*Tom Shyka -  Gulf of Maine Research Center
 +
*Will Pozzi
 +
*Chuck Spooner
  
 +
'''Introduction of Participants'''
  
'''Review of notes from last call'''
+
New Participants introduced themselves.  Chuck Spooner introduced Tim Gleason and the reasoning behind his invitation to Tim to participate in the call.
  
There was a brief discussion of the notes from the last call
+
'''Review of last call'''
  
'''Discussion of use case development, status of discussions with Gulf of Maine programs'''
+
Identified a use case that could be used for a tangible construct.
  
Bill spent time last week talking with people about the use case development. The drought scenarios are moving forward quickly according to Will Pozzi.  They are using the work of CUASHI and HydroSeek and adding to it.  It is hoped that there can be a finalized use case scenario for the Gulf of Maine soonThere are some significant developments:
+
3 AIP-3 Gulf of Maine use case discussion
 +
Bill is looking for reaction to the document that he circulated by emailText Follows:
  
*MMI has been involved in the Gulf of Maine for a significant amount of time
+
Improving Access To Meteorological and Discharge Data
*Go MOOS has just gotten a new grant from the EPA as the lead in a multi state proposal.  It has been approved.  They have become GoMRI
 
*The interest in the ecoinformatics process as an institution in North America ties in as well.
 
  
 +
Business Need:
 +
  Managers have need to integrate weather data and water quality data to better understand meteorological relationships to water quality; Managers need site-specific meteorological information (rainfall) to improve decision making around closing/opening of shellfish beds and beach advisories; Shellfish monitoring programs could be improved by having access to more river/stream discharge/flow data; Managers need more timely rainfall data (last hour to last 24 hours) for beach monitoring programs.
  
'''AIP-3 Process update'''
+
Strengths:
 +
  USGS Is working on tool that allows users to access weather data
 +
  within an area of interest
 +
  Could develop rating curves - not as expensive as maintaining stream
 +
  gauges;
 +
  Could use NextRAD radar output to extract real time rainfall data
 +
  from specific location
 +
  Could involve multiple partners who would use/provide data - MWRA, DH
 +
  DES (beach) NWS modeling/forecasts;
 +
  Leverage EPA's Virtual Beach Model, by potentially using EPA Exchange
 +
  Network to access data needed to run model.
  
We currently have the capability of getting something in by May 3 to GEO.  While it may not work for the ministerial meeting there are some already selected for that meeting.  
+
Concerns:
 +
Currently don't have historical data for analysis;
 +
  Monitoring limited/date and time not based on rainfall.
  
'''Semantic ontology management - path forward'''
+
Additional Comments:
 +
Beach monitoring programs need real time data to make predictive
 +
  advisories (last hour to 24 hours)
 +
  Beach monitoring programs need more consistent rainfall data to do
 +
  analysis to see if predictive advisories can be done with rainfall,
 +
  or if other parameters are involved
 +
  Integrate periodic episodic storm events
 +
  Discrete models/elasticity for variables is critical (drought before
 +
  rainfall)
 +
  Example: Integrate weather data with FOCB data - look at changes to
 +
  WQ parameters with time - geospatially. Valuable for volunteers,
 +
  analysis. Data has discrete dates, look at rainfall 24 hours before
 +
  sampling, sunny, etc. Not full weather dataset - 24/48 summaries
 +
  around sample times/locations. Might explain some of the variation -
 +
  improve ability to explain deviations.
  
Previous work to build a semantic architecture was a bit optimistic that it could be done quickly but it needs to continue to be worked on. 
 
  
One big question is how do we manage ontologies.  
+
Tim gave a description of the work they are doing in Region I.  Their work is being approached by the user end rather than the data end.  
  
We have not gotten to the point where we are picking management schemes in the water domain.  
+
There are a number of questions involving this work and engaging users.  EPA is unaware of where NOAA is regarding regional downscaling.  It might be useful to bring in some NOAA people to the summer meeting who could address these concerns and understand their work efforts.  
  
In other informatics context, we have had a chance to look at the Stanford BioPortal. Luis feels that this the cornerstone of work at MMI
+
Bill talked with Luis Bermudez about organizing efforts in Knoxville to develop scenarios for three types of users. It needs to be come at it from the data side, science side and citizen side; a three user type engagement using semantic technologies.  
  
We are setting the stage to demonstrate the utility of an array of registries that will work for usWe are in a wait and see on the use case at this point.
+
1. need to identify the data sources
 +
2. determine their current configuration and how they could be use in semantic tools
 +
3. how they can reside in a semantic inventory
 +
4. What type of tool can be used to display them?
 +
5. Need to see if we can use some of the quickly maturing semantic techniques to integrate the data in ways that would be most useful to a number of different users.  
  
Bill is proposing that the group have deliberations on some of the utilities.   At the ESIP meeting, we can have a workshop to get the APIs and start to do some experiments with them to see how they serve us.  
+
Bill spent time with Tim Hendler at RPI.  They are using some fast paced demos that illustrate how quickly some of this work can be done. It was clear as to what was needed to get at the data and to find the right tools and it is doable over the next two and a half months.  
  
Bruce has been looking at the BioPortal and MMI portal to track evolutionary patternsHe is finding the MMI is using the backend of BioPortal. He is hoping that it can keep up.
+
Bruce noted that are a number of ideas that Luis put forward.  He noticed that a lot of this is being done at Hydroseek and CUASHI.  This has been put into Excel but not into OWL at this pointIt has been done with physical chemistry and less so in other areas.   He also talked with David Valentine but it has not been turned into an ontology at this point.  They are putting them into SCOS format.  
  
He feels that it will be similar to XMR in the future.  
+
He also talked with SCISCOPE personnel as well.  The SCISCOPE tool is set up for discovery and the ontology is embedded in it.  
  
Richard Hooper was going to expand the ontology used in HydroSeek.  Greg Ondich who is doing work for Gary Foley is also doing some ontology work and he is working with him to point out the work that has already been done.   
+
Will Pozzi discussed other efforts that he is aware of and noted that there are a lot of efforts underway internationally, particularly in Australia.   
  
Bruce wants to be sure the onotology work is coordinated between the different groups.  
+
Louis noted that if we have practical ontologies attached to coastal management, we could have much better data management.  He asked if any of these ontologies are veering into the administrative/programmatic domain?  i.e. monitoring, permitting, etc. activities.  
  
Luis wondered if this can be folded into the AIP initiative
+
The value of ontologies is to make it more user friendly. 
  
Bill mentioned that there is a potential to work with the ontologies group headed by Peter Fox to have a collaborative effort at the Summer Meeting.  
+
It might be worth thinking about getting the data out in an RDF consumable format.  Start to use it and grab ontology formats that already exist that will work for whatever is being examined.  Apply those into display tools that provide an interface to the decision maker on whatever particular question or interest they might have.  Perhaps the data sources are more important to the questions being asked and answer the questions using a display and integration tool.  
  
There would be a  series of demonstrations of portals that could occur during the next telecons leading up to the meeting.
+
This process would work best for OEI and would benefit their current holdings.  
  
We need to determine what can be accomplished between now and July and we need to reach out to the semantics group to see what we can doThere is also work that can be done with the Decisions cluster.  
+
It doesn’t need to be perfect to make it work.  It may be that people will need to work on pieces and then see how the whole worksIt isn’t clear how much can be done before the summer meeting.  
  
What are the difficult questions that still need to be answered?  It is worth trying to establish this list before moving forward.  
+
Action
 +
1. Need to look at the paper that was sent around and determine what is needed.
 +
2.   We need to look through the existing use case, see what data is available for it and determine what shape it is in
 +
3. can they be converted to a compatible format and made available to a limited experiment.
 +
4.   Construct an ontology from the datasets we want to use, rather than import an ontology into this work.  
  
Scientists want to know for a particular time when something passes a particular point and compare it to previous data.  It helps to be able to determine how well the buoys or other sensors are working.  
+
There is still a need to determine what will be accomplished at the Knoxville meeting.  
  
Bill will be sending around an email to compile a series of questions for the next conversation.
+
'''Preparation for Summer Meeting'''
  
'''Activities for ESIP Summer meeting'''
+
The schedule still needs to be determined.
  
Interest in reaching out to the other groups and see what kind of collaborations can created.
+
'''Other topics raised by participants'''
  
'''Other topics'''
+
The next call will be the first Thursday in June, June 3 at 3 PM
  
There were no other topics suggested.
+
'''Adjournment'''
  
The meeting was adjourned at 3:45 PM
+
Meeting ended at 3:58 PM
  
 
===Action Items===
 
===Action Items===
  
 
==[[Previous Telecons]]==
 
==[[Previous Telecons]]==

Revision as of 13:15, May 6, 2010

Main ESIP page >> Main Water Clusterpage


May 6 2010 Telecon

3 pm EST
Phone: Meeting Number: 877-326-0011
Meeting Code: *7884944*


Topics

  • Introduction of Participants
  • Review of last call
  • AIP-3 Gulf of Maine use case discussion
  • Preparation for Summer Meeting
  • Other topics raised by participants
  • Adjournment

Meeting Docs

Notes

Water Cluster Telecon – May 6, 2010

Present:

  • Bill Sonntag
  • Brian Rogan
  • Louis Sweeny
  • Bruce Bargemeyer
  • Tim Gleason - EPA Region I
  • Tom Shyka - Gulf of Maine Research Center
  • Will Pozzi
  • Chuck Spooner

Introduction of Participants

New Participants introduced themselves. Chuck Spooner introduced Tim Gleason and the reasoning behind his invitation to Tim to participate in the call.

Review of last call

Identified a use case that could be used for a tangible construct.

3 AIP-3 Gulf of Maine use case discussion Bill is looking for reaction to the document that he circulated by email. Text Follows:

Improving Access To Meteorological and Discharge Data

Business Need:

 Managers have need to integrate weather data and water quality data to better understand meteorological relationships to water quality; Managers need site-specific meteorological information (rainfall) to improve decision making around closing/opening of shellfish beds and beach advisories; Shellfish monitoring programs could be improved by having access to more river/stream discharge/flow data; Managers need more timely rainfall data (last hour to last 24 hours) for beach monitoring programs.

Strengths:

 USGS Is working on tool that allows users to access weather data
 within an area of interest
 Could develop rating curves - not as expensive as maintaining stream
 gauges;
 Could use NextRAD radar output to extract real time rainfall data
 from specific location
 Could involve multiple partners who would use/provide data - MWRA, DH
 DES (beach) NWS modeling/forecasts;
 Leverage EPA's Virtual Beach Model, by potentially using EPA Exchange
 Network to access data needed to run model.

Concerns: Currently don't have historical data for analysis;

 Monitoring limited/date and time not based on rainfall.

Additional Comments: Beach monitoring programs need real time data to make predictive

 advisories (last hour to 24 hours)
 Beach monitoring programs need more consistent rainfall data to do
 analysis to see if predictive advisories can be done with rainfall,
 or if other parameters are involved
 Integrate periodic episodic storm events
 Discrete models/elasticity for variables is critical (drought before
 rainfall)
 Example: Integrate weather data with FOCB data - look at changes to
 WQ parameters with time - geospatially. Valuable for volunteers,
 analysis. Data has discrete dates, look at rainfall 24 hours before
 sampling, sunny, etc. Not full weather dataset - 24/48 summaries
 around sample times/locations. Might explain some of the variation -
 improve ability to explain deviations.


Tim gave a description of the work they are doing in Region I.  Their work is being approached by the user end rather than the data end. 

There are a number of questions involving this work and engaging users. EPA is unaware of where NOAA is regarding regional downscaling. It might be useful to bring in some NOAA people to the summer meeting who could address these concerns and understand their work efforts.

Bill talked with Luis Bermudez about organizing efforts in Knoxville to develop scenarios for three types of users. It needs to be come at it from the data side, science side and citizen side; a three user type engagement using semantic technologies.

1. need to identify the data sources 2. determine their current configuration and how they could be use in semantic tools 3. how they can reside in a semantic inventory 4. What type of tool can be used to display them? 5. Need to see if we can use some of the quickly maturing semantic techniques to integrate the data in ways that would be most useful to a number of different users.

Bill spent time with Tim Hendler at RPI. They are using some fast paced demos that illustrate how quickly some of this work can be done. It was clear as to what was needed to get at the data and to find the right tools and it is doable over the next two and a half months.

Bruce noted that are a number of ideas that Luis put forward. He noticed that a lot of this is being done at Hydroseek and CUASHI. This has been put into Excel but not into OWL at this point. It has been done with physical chemistry and less so in other areas. He also talked with David Valentine but it has not been turned into an ontology at this point. They are putting them into SCOS format.

He also talked with SCISCOPE personnel as well. The SCISCOPE tool is set up for discovery and the ontology is embedded in it.

Will Pozzi discussed other efforts that he is aware of and noted that there are a lot of efforts underway internationally, particularly in Australia.

Louis noted that if we have practical ontologies attached to coastal management, we could have much better data management. He asked if any of these ontologies are veering into the administrative/programmatic domain? i.e. monitoring, permitting, etc. activities.

The value of ontologies is to make it more user friendly.

It might be worth thinking about getting the data out in an RDF consumable format. Start to use it and grab ontology formats that already exist that will work for whatever is being examined. Apply those into display tools that provide an interface to the decision maker on whatever particular question or interest they might have. Perhaps the data sources are more important to the questions being asked and answer the questions using a display and integration tool.

This process would work best for OEI and would benefit their current holdings.

It doesn’t need to be perfect to make it work. It may be that people will need to work on pieces and then see how the whole works. It isn’t clear how much can be done before the summer meeting.

Action 1. Need to look at the paper that was sent around and determine what is needed. 2. We need to look through the existing use case, see what data is available for it and determine what shape it is in 3. can they be converted to a compatible format and made available to a limited experiment. 4. Construct an ontology from the datasets we want to use, rather than import an ontology into this work.

There is still a need to determine what will be accomplished at the Knoxville meeting.

Preparation for Summer Meeting

The schedule still needs to be determined.

Other topics raised by participants

The next call will be the first Thursday in June, June 3 at 3 PM

Adjournment

Meeting ended at 3:58 PM

Action Items

Previous Telecons