Continuing work on data type registry

Hi Steve,
Thanks for sending this along. The current status is that there is a
draft charter coming together for a follow-on working group tentatively
entitled simply Data Typing. I’ve requested, and apparently been
granted, a BOF session for Tokyo with the hope that a new WG would be
approved by then but that now seems unlikely given the timing of it all,
community review, TAB review, Council approval, etc. But it should at
least be in process by Tokyo.
Also, you will have noticed that RDA/US just put out a call for a second
round of Adoption Proposals. The MacArthur Foundation gave us a little
money, I hope as a trial for more later, and we can fund something like
four short efforts at around $40K each and DTR is certainly still up for
adoption. Restricted to U.S. groups.
Best,
Larry

Hello Steve,
The status of the formal RDA DTR working group is that it has finished,
but the follow-on group on Data Typing is still brewing. I hope to
submit a proposed Case Statement to this list before P7 and there is
another BOF scheduled for that Plenary.
The final DTR output is at
https://rd-alliance.org/group/data-type-registries-wg/outcomes/data-type...
linked off the RDA home page, along with the other outputs and
Recommendations.
What you have done looks excellent and I hope you can help weave it into
the work of the next group. Note also that Simon Cox posted some
relevant links to this list a day after you sent this. All good homework
for the BOF in Tokyo.
Here at CNRI we have continued to work with U.S. government agencies and
have had a fair amount of interaction with ISO 11179 enthusiasts and I
note that spec shows up in your work as well.
Best,
Larry

Larry-- Yes, I have been looking at ISO 11179, and have also been on the editing committee for the XML implementation of ISO19110. I think the distinctions made in 11179 between conceptual data types (Data_Element_Concept) and their representations in information systems (Data_Element) is useful. The conceptual level is important for addressing queries of the sort a domain user would ask (I'm looking for datasets that have information about thermal conductivity in rocks), and working with semantic enrichment. The representation (implementation) level is important for scenarios that involve automating data integration or workflows that pipe output from one process to input to another process, requiring low level 'matching' involving primitive data types, specific implementations, and measurement units.
steve
-----Original Message-----
From: llannom=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of llannom
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 12:02 PM
To: Steve Richard <***@***.***>; Data Type Registries WG <***@***.***-groups.org>
Subject: Re: [rda-dtr-wg] Continuing work on data type registry
Hello Steve,
The status of the formal RDA DTR working group is that it has finished, but the follow-on group on Data Typing is still brewing. I hope to submit a proposed Case Statement to this list before P7 and there is another BOF scheduled for that Plenary.
The final DTR output is at
https://rd-alliance.org/group/data-type-registries-wg/outcomes/data-type...
linked off the RDA home page, along with the other outputs and Recommendations.
What you have done looks excellent and I hope you can help weave it into the work of the next group. Note also that Simon Cox posted some relevant links to this list a day after you sent this. All good homework for the BOF in Tokyo.
Here at CNRI we have continued to work with U.S. government agencies and have had a fair amount of interaction with ISO 11179 enthusiasts and I note that spec shows up in your work as well.
Best,
Larry

> The representation (implementation) level is important for scenarios that involve automating data integration or workflows
I've suggested we mention EML and ESML as precedents in this space, and also the emerging Data Package work coming out of Open Knowledge.
Simon
-----Original Message-----
From: steve.richard=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of srichardUSGIN
Sent: Friday, 12 February 2016 4:09 AM
To: llannom <***@***.***>; Data Type Registries WG <***@***.***-groups.org>
Subject: Re: [rda-dtr-wg] Continuing work on data type registry
Larry-- Yes, I have been looking at ISO 11179, and have also been on the editing committee for the XML implementation of ISO19110. I think the distinctions made in 11179 between conceptual data types (Data_Element_Concept) and their representations in information systems (Data_Element) is useful. The conceptual level is important for addressing queries of the sort a domain user would ask (I'm looking for datasets that have information about thermal conductivity in rocks), and working with semantic enrichment. The representation (implementation) level is important for scenarios that involve automating data integration or workflows that pipe output from one process to input to another process, requiring low level 'matching' involving primitive data types, specific implementations, and measurement units.
steve
-----Original Message-----
From: llannom=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of llannom
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 12:02 PM
To: Steve Richard <***@***.***>; Data Type Registries WG <***@***.***-groups.org>
Subject: Re: [rda-dtr-wg] Continuing work on data type registry
Hello Steve,
The status of the formal RDA DTR working group is that it has finished, but the follow-on group on Data Typing is still brewing. I hope to submit a proposed Case Statement to this list before P7 and there is another BOF scheduled for that Plenary.
The final DTR output is at
https://rd-alliance.org/group/data-type-registries-wg/outcomes/data-type...
linked off the RDA home page, along with the other outputs and Recommendations.
What you have done looks excellent and I hope you can help weave it into the work of the next group. Note also that Simon Cox posted some relevant links to this list a day after you sent this. All good homework for the BOF in Tokyo.
Here at CNRI we have continued to work with U.S. government agencies and have had a fair amount of interaction with ISO 11179 enthusiasts and I note that spec shows up in your work as well.
Best,
Larry
On 20 Jan 2016, at 16:53, srichardUSGIN wrote:
> I'm not sure what the status of this WG is, but I've been doing some
> work to advance a data type registry (I call it a vocabulary and
> information modelI registry...) for some EarthCube Projects. There's a
> post at
> https://rd-alliance.org/group/data-type-registries-wg/post/re-data-type-...
> [1], and the docs are online at
>
> Requirements:
>
> http://usgin.github.io/usginspecs/FunctionalRequirementsRegistrySystem
> s.htm
> [2]
>
> Model UML:
>
> https://github.com/usgin/usginspecs/raw/gh-pages/DataTypeModelDraft.pd
> f [3] > Draft UML model for vocabulary and information registry
>  The
> scope of this model is the formal representation of information
> objects that are the basic units of data representation in computer
> information systems.
> The model specifies the concept of a DataObject ('type', 'entity',
> 'object',
> etc.) that has a collection of attributes, with domains and
> cardinalities for those attributes, constituting the representation of
> instances of that type/entity. The model distinguishes the conceptual
> level definition of these objects and attributes from the
> implementation of those concepts with a particular representation.
> Description and documentation of the conceptual level (ObjectClass and
> Properties) is important for interfaces through which domain
> practitioners interact with data. Description and documentation of the
> implementation level (DataObject and DataElements) is important for
> software systems that automate operations on the data. Representation
> of the conceptual objects might be implemented as JSON objects, XML
> elements, rows in a relation, RDF graphs etc.
>
> If any one is interested in looking at the Enterprise Architect
> document, please contact me.
>
> cheers
>
> steve
> The representation (implementation) level is important for scenarios that involve automating data integration or workflows
I've suggested we mention EML and ESML as precedents in this space, and also the emerging Data Package work coming out of Open Knowledge.
Simon
-----Original Message-----
From: steve.richard=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of srichardUSGIN
Sent: Friday, 12 February 2016 4:09 AM
To: llannom <***@***.***>; Data Type Registries WG <***@***.***-groups.org>
Subject: Re: [rda-dtr-wg] Continuing work on data type registry
Larry-- Yes, I have been looking at ISO 11179, and have also been on the editing committee for the XML implementation of ISO19110. I think the distinctions made in 11179 between conceptual data types (Data_Element_Concept) and their representations in information systems (Data_Element) is useful. The conceptual level is important for addressing queries of the sort a domain user would ask (I'm looking for datasets that have information about thermal conductivity in rocks), and working with semantic enrichment. The representation (implementation) level is important for scenarios that involve automating data integration or workflows that pipe output from one process to input to another process, requiring low level 'matching' involving primitive data types, specific implementations, and measurement units.
steve
-----Original Message-----
From: llannom=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of llannom
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 12:02 PM
To: Steve Richard <***@***.***>; Data Type Registries WG <***@***.***-groups.org>
Subject: Re: [rda-dtr-wg] Continuing work on data type registry
Hello Steve,
The status of the formal RDA DTR working group is that it has finished, but the follow-on group on Data Typing is still brewing. I hope to submit a proposed Case Statement to this list before P7 and there is another BOF scheduled for that Plenary.
The final DTR output is at
https://rd-alliance.org/group/data-type-registries-wg/outcomes/data-type...
linked off the RDA home page, along with the other outputs and Recommendations.
What you have done looks excellent and I hope you can help weave it into the work of the next group. Note also that Simon Cox posted some relevant links to this list a day after you sent this. All good homework for the BOF in Tokyo.
Here at CNRI we have continued to work with U.S. government agencies and have had a fair amount of interaction with ISO 11179 enthusiasts and I note that spec shows up in your work as well.
Best,
Larry