search

nfdi-de / section-metadata-wg-onto

This reposotory is used to document the work of the NFDI Section (Meta)Data Working Group on Ontology Harmonization and Mapping.
https://www.nfdi.de/section-metadata/
7 stars 0 forks source link

knowledge sharing approach: CDIF (Cross Domain Interoperability Framework) #14

Open nbetancort opened 4 months ago

nbetancort commented 4 months ago

This issue is associated with the charter epic #4 and #7

Which mapping tool or framework do you want to discuss?

https://worldfair-project.eu/cross-domain-interoperability-framework/ Overview: https://doi.org/10.5446/66247#t=20:44 Deliverable Report: https://zenodo.org/records/11236871

Why do you think this mapping tool or framework is relevant in the context of our working group?

They work in the context of the WorldFAIR project, that sets out to produce recommendations, interoperability frameworks and guidelines for FAIR data assessment. Their approach is not to create mappings from every existing domain to another, because that is an infinite task, but to create a lingua franca that we can all agree on and communicate with.

What further steps are needed to be taken or discussed by/in our WG regarding this issue?

  1. [x] Start evaluation when more concrete specifications, recommendations or tutorials has been published
  2. [ ] Check and agree internally which parts of CDIF we want to implement and how, as in which areas CDIF can or cannot cover and how deep into details it can be applied.
  3. [ ] In case of positive agreement, discuss cooperation ways with the WorldFAIR team (for example, someone from our WG also being part of the CDIF WG)
StroemPhi commented 4 months ago

I believe evaluating CDIF is also part of epic #4.

Although I do agree that the CDIF approach makes total sense, given the fact that it is not yet mature enough, I suggest postponing its evaluation until more concrete specifications, recommendations or tutorials/how-tos are published. Currently, I feel like: "Yes it sounds all nice in theory, but how does it look/work in reality?"

So the best case would be to have someone from our WG also be part of the CDIF WG, who can regularly brief us on updates.

hgoerzig commented 2 months ago

CDIF is a related set of guidelines for providing metadata in a domain-neutral manner. CDIF will provide detailed recommendations for the use of specific standards (Schema.org, DCAT, ODRL, DDI-CDI, SKOS/XKOS, SSSOM, etc.) The usage of the standards is e.g.: • Understand data structure (DDI-CDI) • Understand semantics (SKOS/XKOS, OWL, SSSOM) • Determine origination/context (PROV-O, I-ADOPT/O&M)

It has been applied for the integration of climate data from Copernicus ERA5 and air quality data from the European Environmental Agency (EEA) with data from the European Social Survey (ESS) Integrated Data in ESS Lab. There might be more fields where it has been applied but I don't know about them.

Anyway, the CDIF approach has not been thoroughly enough tested to be recommended. Therefore, volunteers to do so are welcome. This means that it needs to be applied in different science domains. e.g. X-ray Absorption Spectroscopy (XAS) has developed its own de-facto standards, which are not used outside of that community and on different levels of the processing pipeline. Does CDIF work in this area to have a clear mechanism to integrate and use data from different sources with different standards to make XAS data easier discoverable, and to enable exchange it for processing and integration?

In general we need to check which areas CDIF can or cannot cover and how deep into details it can be applied.

nbetancort commented 2 months ago

Anyway, the CDIF approach has not been thoroughly enough tested to be recommended. Therefore, volunteers to do so are welcome. This means that it needs to be applied in different science domains. e.g. X-ray Absorption Spectroscopy (XAS) has developed its own de-facto standards, which are not used outside of that community and on different levels of the processing pipeline. Does CDIF work in this area to have a clear mechanism to integrate and use data from different sources with different standards to make XAS data easier discoverable, and to enable exchange it for processing and integration?

In general we need to check which areas CDIF can or cannot cover and how deep into details it can be applied.

That's very interesting - another example where it could be helpful is in the case of qualitative data (of different types, from different domains).

I think that testing and creating practical guidelines on how to use domain-agnostic standards is very important for interoperability and data exchange purposes, because the use of these powerful and flexible standards (like DDI-CDI, which we are testing for qualitative data https://ddi-alliance.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/DDI4/pages/3083862017/Qualitative+Data+Subgroup) could be applied in so many ways and for so many use cases that people might need guidelines and support on how to apply them, leading to harmonized use, which in turn leads to interoperability.

So I agree that we need volunteers to bring in different use cases and applications!

StroemPhi commented 1 month ago

In the context of our 8-5-2024 call where we talked about using DCAT/-AP, I would be interested in finding out how CDIF is planning on "extending" DCAT to attach domain-specific RDF. (cc @hgoerzig)

StroemPhi commented 2 weeks ago

CDIF was presented in our regular call on June 12th 2024. The slides, notes and recording are linked in its agenda.