Question 4: What actions should now be facilitated by the CIARD Task Forces?

The PhilAgriNet database uses FAO tools to share agricultural knowledge to possible users.  We use WebAGRIS, Agrovoc, and the new tool: AgroTagger.  The latter has been intorduced to our members and they are one in saying that AgroTagger would be very useful in subject indexing of Philippine agricultural literature.

Congratulations to FAO for the exciting news about AGROVOC, VocBench, and Agrotagger!

As defined in the "five-star" approach, the fourth star is about making your resources "citable" by identifying them with URLs, and fifth star -- the summit of the Linked Data mountain -- is about "linking your data to other people's data to provide context".

As I see it, linking your data to others' data is about embedding your data into a rich web of cross-references -- pathways by which people can discover your data. 

Some of those pathways may connect your resources with other resources -- "this research report is the basis for that article", or "this news item summarizes that conference paper".  Other pathways connect people to resources -- "Hugo wrote this report" or "Sanjay recommends that blog".  Others connect resources to "topics", as in "this research report is about maize (http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_12332)".

Focusing on simple connections suggests a way forward:

1) Ask: what Resources, People, and Topics are important enough to be linked to or cited?  Then aim at providing guidance on how to give those things URLs.

2) Then ask: What are the most important ways to link those things?  One could perhaps boil this down to a few types of statements such as those listed above.  Then aim at providing guidance on publishing simple metadata to make those connections.  The guidance would describe how to extract basic information from existing data.

3) Then ask: How can we pull these links together and make them searchable?  Some of these goals are already implicit in the CIARD Pathways to Research Uptake (http://www.ciard.net/pathways), just with a tighter focus on harvesting and querying the linked data.

A colleague of mine experienced in "selling" linked data approaches to organizations tells me that the single most convincing demonstration of the utility of the new approach is when people see their own data linked and discoverable in a new context.

Wow.  There have been lots of really good discussions on all of the questions so far and it's good to see that we're still going strong when addressing this final question. 

I'd like to start by considering who *is* CIARD anyway?   To me, CIARD is a community of practictioners.   The criteria for becoming part of the community, or more officially, a CIARD Partner, it essentially boils down to an agreement to follow a set of fairly simple principles.  Organizations can also be included in the CIARD RING and describe the services they provide in terms of subject areas, geographic location, the technologies they employ, etc.  Although there are CIARD Task forces,  but even though I've been an active participant  of the CIARD Content Management Task Force I'm not sure I could name all of the member of the CMTF as it exists today.   Clearly there are some communication issues even in our own house.

So what can CIARD do?  One area is to facilitate communication between those in the CIARD community.   As a technical contributor (with admin rights) to the RING itself I have seen a few limitations in how the RING can be used, as Valeria put it,  for "Sharing information on what we are sharing and how".   For those that have registered their organizations with the RING and have added a service you've probably notice that "we" ask a lot of questions.  However,  even when an organization fills out all the "required" fields there is still a lot of information about the information being shared that is not being captured.

For example,  if one looks at the "How To" section on the RING there is an "instructions" link which provides a view of all of the instructions that an organization provided about how to use their services.  In most cases, a boilerplate answer was provide regarding who could contribute to and/or consume information from their service.  That's probably not as useful as the base uri for the OAI-PMH provider an organization might support.

On the front page of the site you'll find a map of services that have been registered in the RING.  However,  when I looked at the complete list of services awhile back a significant number of them did not provide the location information and thus their services do not appear on the map.

In both of these examples,  an organization initiates communication with the RING, the  site captures some information, then the communication stops.    I don't have a formal solution but some mechanism where a working group could be established that would followup submissions to the RING to maintain communtication beyond a "Thank you for submitting your information" response.  For example, if a service indicates that they provide an RSS feed or indicates that they are an OAI Provider, a followup email asking for the appropriate URLs,  and capturing that information such that it's easily accessible by other RING partners would help improve the "How To" section.

The other area where I have contributed to is the creation of a  couple of tutorials on the RING.  I created one which had some boiler plate code for OAI-PMH harvesting and another which explains how to configure the Drupal Feeds module to consume an AgriFeeds RSS feed.   However, those are the only tutorials available via the RING. It seems to me that if we could encourage CIARD RING organizations to contribute tutorials on other topics the RING could be a wealth of information on how to interoperate between similar systems.  In general, if we can find a way to  encourage more CIARD partner created content the system will become much more robust.

A third area that could be explored would be how to capture and share information related to people, and all the related information about a person such as subject expertice, technical expertice, etc.  When registering with the RING, the user profile information is pretty limited.   VIVO has been mentioned a few times in our discussions and perhaps could be used to manage the user profiles of those that are part of the CIARD community.  So, for example, one could ask "who else is using ImpressCMS to disseminate information on Aquaculture" and the RING could provide an answer.

Anyway, that is just a few general ideas to toss out but they all boil down to how CIARD can improve communication to facilitate information sharing.

If we agree that there are multiple levels (stars) of sharing standardization and that we need to facilitate capacity building at all levels, perhaps we also need to recognize that the progress towards capacity will proceed at different rates. Capacity will be greatest amongst the global system participants and lowest at the most local level of system integration.

In order for globally shared data to reach the local level and local data to reach the global level there is a need to focus on the intermediate level as passthrough systems where global standardized data is accessed and locally standardized data is collected and shared. The intermediate level will need to involve IT developers and systems that have sufficient capability to understand and process both ends of the spectrum.

The intermediate, localized data sharers will be a critical link in connecting advances in agriculture with people who can put it into practice. If this is so, perhaps capacity building at the intermediate system level should be the focus in the near term and provide the biggest bang for the buck.

There we are at the end of this two week's discussion.  I just estimated more than 200 contributions to the 4 questions.  Valeria has done an excellent summary of the first week; I feel encouraged and nearly excited going now through the posts of the second week.

Many are asking the CIARD community to come out with a practical workplan that shows the way to go further

Many are afraid of the technological challenges of implementing something Linked Open data, but many are also enormously interested to implement  the solutions that technology now makes possible.

Very many contributions are asking that capacity development is an integral and very important part of any program for better interoperability and data sharing.

We have to follow all these threads. A summary and analysis of the entire discussion will need much more time than that what I have now at this Friday evening. GFAR and FAO, the CIARD partners,  which initiated this eConsultation will take care that nothing from the discussions of the eConsultation will get lost.  We also will take care that the ideas, concerns and proposals of this eConsultation will be available for the workshop that will take place in June in Beijing.

I am convinced that we have the elements to make a big and ambitious plan - to be implemented with many  small steps -  to achieve an information infrastructure for our community that makes sharing of information easy. We have started this endeavour now.

I am personally engaged in the CIARD Content Management Taskforce. Since January of this year Krishan Bheenick, Valeria Pesce and I are working on conceptual ideas how to make the work of the CIARD Content Management Taskforce more efficient, participatory and effective.  I think this eConsultation was a good step in this direction. But we cannot stop here.  I have seen a lot of enthusiasm and experience in this consultation that I want to harvest for the CIARD Content Management Taskforce. Please drop  an email to [email protected] if you want to participate in this discussion also after the closure of the eConsultation, if you want to participate in the development of the CIARD content management work plan, if you want to participate in the construction of an   information infrastrucuture  for our community.

johannes keizer

As some of you may know the CIARD RING site as well as several other AIMS related sites are based on Drupal, specifically version 6 of the Drupal CMS.

Although there has been much more active development with RDF in the Drupal 7 release there is a significant amount of development for Drupal 6.  I have a copy of the CIARD ring site on a development machine that I have been using to RDFize the CIARD RING site and have made a considereable amount of progress.  

On Monday Valeria and I will be having a skype call to discuss how to implement the additions that I have made on my dev site into the production CIARD RING site.  Once that happens, much of the content in the RING site will be exposed as RDF and it will support a Sparql endpoint for queries on the data contained in the RING.

Moving forward, I have done a bit of investigation into Drupal 7 and specificially any roadblocks that still exist that would prevent a migration form D6 to D7.   There are still a few obstacles but once those get resolved and D7 becomes more mature, the use of Drupal 7 as a content delivery mechanism means that all content in the site can be shared as RDF because RDF is built into the core of the system. 

Thumbs up to the 5 STARS example and big thanks to Johannes for sharing it in this forum.

The 5 stars is a down to earth and simplified approach to actions required.

Like Krishan already mentioned (and if you have a look on what was written on AICKM in Q1), our actions can start with any star level - It all depends where we evaluate ourselves to be in terms of human, financial & ICT resources.

But the 5 stars are also based on certain assumptions, and therefore we need to be prepared accordingly to reach the 5 stars platform. Let there be no exclusion.. as mentioned in the thread, if we want to go far, let's go together.

Here are therefore a few thoughts:

1. Capacity building

We should look at this holistically. First of all, capacity building will be required to bring institutions to Star 1. It is only then that they can initiate the process. Similarly, there should be capacity building for those on Star 1, 2, 3, & 5 respectively so that they can acquire the necessary knowledge and skills to skip to successive levels. What about Star 5 people: I am sure this is not the limit/ceiling to progress. So the Star 5 people (CIARD's CORE People?) should continue to work on systems communication models so that they can nurtue and guide the other STARS.

As you an see, there is different type of capacity building for different people.

2. A Website for all

We cannot expect contributions from institutions when in 2011 they still do not have an online platform - website?. Take the example of Seychelles Agricultural Agency, until last year they did not have a website, but through capacity building (SADC ICART Project) and help from their SADC colleagues they are now present on a free blog. In Mauritius we have several agricultural institutions that still do not have websites. Examples: Small Planters Welfare Fund, Small Planters Mechanical Pool, Farmers Service Corporation... So to tap all the information, we need to get all of them up on websites. Issue is how? If for financial resources they cannot afford it, then better take the example of Seychelles Ag Agency. Else, could there be a centralised hosting initiated by CIARD? e.g subdomain.worldagriculture.org? CIARD could offer wordpress, joomla, agridrupal, agrioceandspce etc... as flavours (choice... remember!).

3. Web 2.0 compliance

For platforms to communicate, Web 2.0 is essential. As opposed to above, many agri websites are not Web 2.0 compliant. So when you look at Star 1, it is not about putting everything on any web.. but on Web 2.0 enabled web so as to harvest the info. In Mauritius, I know the Food and Agricultural Research Council is currently redesigning its website and want it to be Web 2.0 compliant... but .. the government's portal which is supposed to host this, is not Web 2.0 compliant. In fact, the Mauritius National Computer Board, is still  planning on this (Source Euro AFrica ICT FP7 Awareness Workshop, Mauritius, 2010)?. So how do we upggrade existing websites? Easiest would be to get some kind of migration... but many Web 1.0 websites were designed from scratch...! Here I could see CIARD customising CMSs (as always with different flavours), provide a description of their features, and offer them to institutions. What about Hosting? Big problem if finance is limited - again could there be a centralised server?

4. Coordination

I don't know about CIARD's relationship with agricultural institutions, but other than the big ones (FAO, FARA, GFAR...), I doubt its effectiveness in communicating with smaller institutions. Especially in under developed or developing countries where political agendas are too often above other priorities (and also digital divide!). It would therefore perhaps help that CIARD works in close collaboration with regional authorities to push forward the community's philosophy.. e.g in Africa with SADC, COMESA etc... While it might sound dumb, countries affiliated to these institutions respond promptly to resolutions taken.

5. What else?

I believe there might be other issues involved to get to Star 1.

So this is your space to think about it.

Many thanks everyone for an interesting set of discussions. I was hardly able to keep up... and I look forward to the reports.

On Stuff, we should not distinguish too much between the 'stuff' and information about the stuff.  Both are important and we need to work on both in parallel. In reality, some 'stuff' is easier to make open and accessible than others. I think we must ensure at least that everything an organization produces is described with proper metadata - so we know it exists. We also need the full ‘stuff’! We already have plenty of stuff online, unfortunately not properly described and accessible!

On the stars, I think we should be careful not to see this as a mountain to climb, a sequence of steps to follow, with 5 stars better than 1 star!  Should we give 4 stars to an object with a URL, even if it is impermanent, hidden and not described properly?

Instead of seeing the stars as steps to climb, I think there is a multi-track 'continuum' or something of actions and choices we can take, with differing results. I think we should focus on the quality of these actions, or choices, ensuring they lead to the most open result in a given situation.

If we can find a way to rate and present our work as simply as the stars, this would be a good result.

Instead let's focus on choices and support for these ... (see next comment)

Following my earlier comment ... about stuff and stars, this comment suggest that CIARD focus on the choices people make and how to informa and support these:

Each day, we all make choices in how and where we share/publish/communicate what we do. The challenge is therefore to find ways to ensure that these choices are informed and biased towards maximum openness and accessibility.

Thus, as examples: We can choose open or closed/proprietary formats; We can choose simple web uploads or a CMS; we can choose an OAI-compliant repository or a traditional library system, or something home-made; we can choose a tool with or without RSS; we can adopt dublin core or make our own field structure; we can adopt standard vocabularies or make our own; we can build an open system, or a closed one, we can hold a closed meeting with no reporting or we can add virtual, multimedia social reporting; etc.

I recognize that our choices are usually limited by our situations, resources, knowledge, skills, connectivity etc. Often, even if we knew what choices are open to us, we think they are too big, too costly, too difficult, too time-consuming, beyond our skills, etc to be considered ... We choose something else, or to take no action.

Directions for CIARD?

I think:

1. We need to provide more information and support so people realise that there are different options and choices, that a different (more open) pathway is possible. This sounds a bit missionary I'm afraid; we need people to recognize that they have choices, in even the most difficult situations. [awareness]

2. In recognizing that we have choices, we also want an 'open' (or 'more open') outcome to be the 'no-brain' decision ...! But, lets recognize that jumping from 'closed' to 'open' is sometimes a massive leap, so we need to make sure that little steps are also possible, and are seen as good choices. [advocacy]

3. We need to support people to be able to make the 'right' choices - ie to make choices that result in more open and accessible systems, services, and stuff. I think this means bringing the possible tools and approaches and choices within (easy) reach.

This is important. I heard about some interesting ideas and tools on this discussion forum. How do I make the decision for ILRI to use these, instead of doing nothing, continuing as usual, or doing something else? Recalling that I and my team are already running full-speed doing what we have to do! The closer and easier any choices are, the more I am likely to make them.

This seems to be about making the decision as easy as possible - by making a new tool very easy to use and adopt, or widely applicable across platforms, for example; and/or by giving me the confidence, skills and resources to make the change. [mix of innovation to make 'easily-adoptable' choices as well as capacity reinforcement actions for adopters]

4. We should find a way to recognize and reward people who make the 'good' choices. Any decisions leading to 'more open' are better than staying closed. Here I go back to some original ideas in the CIARD founders that this be some kind of 'movement ' as well as an initiative ... something like the open access movement that energizes people to take action, promote action, and point to others who took action. [incentives]

In short, let CIARD:
1.Tell me about some feasible choices

2.Convince me that open choices are better

3.Make it as easy as possible for me to make (and implement) good choices [easy adoption; capacity reinforcement]

4.Reward me for making any choice that leads towards 'more open'

5.and perhaps also identify and devise and document new and emerging 'open' choices that I can consider taking.