Comments and Expanded Conversation on DRM 2.0 (2ZQB)
November 3, AIC Virtual Workshop on DRM (2ZX5)
Comments due on November 4, 2005 (2ZQC)
1. Send comments to Designated Agency Representative or send directly to red-team@cosine.cim3.net: (2ZQD)
- a. Subject line of message: cite document reviewed with version number followed by page number of comment (2ZQF)
- b. Put each comment in the body of your message and send a message for each comment, no attachments, please (2ZQG)
- c. Questions: Cheryl Manns 202-772-0890 or Cheryl.Manns@associates.dhs.gov or Susan Turnbull, 202-501-6214 or Susan.Turnbull@gsa.gov (2ZQH)
2. To participate in one or more of the DRM virtual workshops (teleconference-based) from 10-12 on Oct. 26, Nov. 1 and Nov. 3, please RSVP to Cheryl Manns 202-772-0890 or Cheryl.Manns@associates.dhs.gov. The agenda will be posted here: (2ZQI)
3. November 3, 2005 DRM Virtual Workshop (2ZV5)
Workshop Purpose: To engage conversation and comments on the draft DRM 2.0, building toward consensus. (5DW)
- Call-in: 1.800.882.3610 (2ZV6)
- Pin: 0221775 (2ZV7)
- Scribe: VenaMcCrimmon (5B7)
Tentative Agenda (2ZVA)
A. Opening Remarks, MichaelDaconta (2ZVC)
B. Orientation to Virtual Workshop, SusanTurnbull (2ZXA)
- Given the size of the group, please: (2ZXB)
- 1. Send comments to Designated Agency Representative or send directly to red-team@cosine.cim3.net: (2ZQD)
- 2. All email comments are archived and sorted by Subject line. (2ZXC)
- 3. Put your phone on mute. (2ZXD)
- 4. Don't put your phone on hold to take another call; hang up the conference and call-in again. (2ZXE)
- 5. If you join late, please announce yourself; your name will be added to the attendee list. (2ZXF)
- 6. If you need assistance, hang-up and call CherylManns at 202-772-0890 or SusanTurnbull at 202-501-6214 (2ZXH)
C. Agency Questions and DRM Orientation Session, All (2ZVE)
Resources for #1: (2ZVF)
- DRM 2.0 and Management Strategy: As Structured (XML), Integrated, and Searchable Documents from the DRM 2.0 Education Pilot that Demonstrates the Conceptual Metamodel for DRM 2.0 Implementation. (2ZVG)
Resources for #2: (6MW)
- Nov. 8 open workshop on Information Sharing across Diverse Collections wtith Complex Access Sensitivities (2ZZ4)
Suggestion from the DRM ITIT Team Lead (first) and Team Members (second): (6L3)
- Now I think we are ready to take the next step forward in information sharing and data architecture and would suggest reading: (6L4)
- The Navy Knowledge Management Strategy; and (6L5)
- The new book featured at the Inaugural Event of the National Center for Ontological Research this past week, Ontologies for Bioinformatics. Also see Introduction to the Semantic Web for Bioinfomatics, Ken Baclawski, Northeastern University. (6L7)
- Principles for Building Biomedical Ontologies by Professor Barry Smith, Director, NCOR-Buffalo, and Relations in Biomedical Ontologies, Genome Biology, 2005, 6 (5). (6L8)
- Comments based on the DRM 2.0 Virtual Workshop #1 Conversation: (6MQ)
- 1. The DRM management strategy is weak. (6MR)
- 2. In the 10/18 briefing to CIO Council, the presentation embraces the COI strategy for harmonization of data and information. But, the documents provide little definition or evidence of experience with working through and across COIs. So, this needs testing. (6MS)
- 3. The area of a registry (or other discovery mechanism) and related services to make it finding/sharing information effective... seems pretty un-thought-out by the DRM team. Core.gov is not an answer because it doesn't deliver the capabilities needed. DoD and Intel communities have more experience here. This needs testing. (6MT)
- 4. Exposing contexts, data descriptions, sharing services, and standards used for this is all a good idea. The goal should be to build up a catalog of data examples plus doing this across a range of asset categories. It would allow testing. (6MU)
- 5. Another good idea: coming up with better (plain english, simple picture) examples to explain the DRM to make it understandable by business line types who don't use IT technical vocabulary. (6MV)
Resources for #3: (2ZZ5)
- Upcoming Meetings: (3012)
- November 8, 2005, Advancing Information Sharing, Access, Discovery and Assimilation of Diverse Digital Collections Governed by Heterogeneous Sensitivities (301S)
- November 10, 2005, DRM ITIT Conference Call Meeting Combined with SICoP Public Meeting and Joint SICoP/Ontolog Forum Discussion (3013)
- December 6, 2005, Advancing Information Sharing and Data Architecture (301T)
- 1. Added EA 2.0 to DRM 2.0 Education Pilot for Harmonization: (3014)
- See 5.1.3. Data Architecture (Information Management) and 6. Appendix A: Artifact Descriptions (3015)
- 2. Management Strategy is Both Weak and Contradictory: (3016)
- Contradiction: OMB wanted testing before prescription and the document provides prescription before testing! (Statements that someone ought to do or not to do something.) (3017)
- 3. Metadata Registry Forum (aka ISO 11179) Comments: (301P)
- Excerpts from Discussion in the ONTACWG about ISO 11179 "Modernization": (3018)
- The DOD Net-Centric Data Management Strategy (May 3, 2003) Goals include "defining CIO-specific ontologies" (301O)
- 4. Geospatial Profile Review: (301B)
- Geospatial Profile Draft, October 31, 2005 (301C)
- The purpose of this geospatial profile is to establish a common geospatial perspective among collaborating organizations. The Geospatial Profile will address how geospatial data, technology and services can be integrated into each of the five Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) reference models. With a majority of Federal business lines having a spatial context, identifying common geospatial capabilities can have significant operational benefits. The guidance and recommendations would constitute a Geospatial Profile of the FEA that supports proven and emerging practices of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) and provide the ability for enterprise architecture practices to be compatible within and among collaborating federal, state and local jurisdictions. It is anticipated that the Geospatial Profile will be available for public review in November 2005. (301D)
- Use Cases for Implementation Pilots: (301E)
- 5. The Fall Metadata Summit, November 2, 2005: (301G)
- Comments from a Member of the DRM ITIT Team (Anonymous): (301H)
- A very “old” legacy (and wasteful) mind-set abounds there. (301I)
- I recall that DOD’s experience has proven conclusively that “regular people” are not “incented” to go through the painfully rigorous process of adding approved metadata to each and every document they interact with. In my view, ontology-based indexing of altered documents should automatically extract and append Dublin Core metadata to each document version – without the “author” needing to even think about the need for metadata. (301J)
- The closing presentation by Michael Deconta brought reality to the meeting, indicating that appending metadata “alone” was “a waste of time and resources” and that building “formal taxonomies” is the real goal. Formal in the sense that they are rigorous foundations for building future Ontologies, allowing query expansion and inferencing. (301K)
- Comments from a Member of the DRM ITIT Team (Anonymous): (301H)
- 6. National Infrastructure for Community Statistics (NICS) Community of Practice Meeting: Metadata and NICS: Joys, Sorrows, and Payoffs, November 2, 2005: (301L)
- Yes, we have a "metadata crisis" with two separate meetings on the same day! (301M)
- Statistical Metadata in the Data Reference Model (301N)
- 7. Lucian Russell can help us with bridging across the different viewpoints we are experiencing in explaining DRM 2.0, namely those that do or don't understand the use of abstraction/indirection in software/database design (DRM Abstract Model) and those that come from earlier data management/database design (e.g. ISO 11179) versus those that are now working with ontologies for the same purpose. (301U)
- 8. "Mr. Burk also said that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and OMB should explore, in the future, ways to develop an aligned process for reporting requirements for EA. Initial discussions on this alignment highlighted expanding to 30 reporting elements, and asking the National Institute for Science and Technology (NIST) to develop standards." (ARCHITECTURE AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE (AIC)JOINT MEETING Thursday, October 20, 2005, Meeting Highlights, page 3). (301V)