22.05.2012 Biodiversity

Meeting Notes Biodiversity Cluster 22-05-2012

TOPICs:

EB discuss the path to exploitation

LP discuss the CRIA contribution to iMarine

Participants:

CRIA: Canhos VanderLei, Daniel Bolgheroni, Dora, Renato

CNR: Lino Pagano, GianPaolo Coro

OBIS: Edward vanden Berghe

FAO: Anton Ellenbroek

CRIA contribution to iMarine

CV: The contribution of CRIA is split across WP3 and WP6. It is time now, also considering the progress and isues encountered in the OpenBio project, to fill in the plan.

LP: CRIA and openModeller have always be in the planning for iMarine e-InfrastructureAn operational combination of digital technologies (hardware and software), resources (data and services), communications (protocols, access rights and networks), and the people and organizational structures needed to support research efforts and collaboration in the large.. However, the expectation was to build on the output of the openBio project. In iMarine, we were planning occurrence data enrichment and reconciliation. modelling was to come in a later phase. We are now testing with AquaMaps data, later to be extended with openOcean. We will use a JAVA library and OGC services.

GC: We use a JAVA library connected to the e-InfrastructureAn operational combination of digital technologies (hardware and software), resources (data and services), communications (protocols, access rights and networks), and the people and organizational structures needed to support research efforts and collaboration in the large. and a Geonetwork node / Geoserver. The library is available through a Maven repository, and comes with documentation.

Dora: With openBio we have an issue with the availability of resources for the gCube integration.

DB: the initiative started in OpenBio, but for completion, CRIA requests resources from iMarine.

OB: Proposes to move activity from openBio to iMarine.

LP: The plan was to deploy OpenModeller as a platform in gCube, and use iMarine resources to make it exploitable by scientists. we will need to discuss this with D.Castelli and L. Candela.

DB: the integration aimed to have an openModeller platform that could exploit different back-ends (Venus-C, gCube). We would now like to discuss how to use imarine resources there.

LP: We have agreements with Back-end providers, so OM could be used in the e-infrastructure. we were planning on developing connectors, and implement a workflow on gcube hosting nodes. This would focus on marine species, and be a tool for scientist, rather than a platform for developers. The plan was to have the workflow implemtned in WPs. There were no resources planned to adapt the OM to gCube.

GC: we wanted to be more specific than Openmodeller, but target specific data sources and operations. Provide a community tool, not a generic OM environment. Maybe niche modelling for marine species with a subset of the algorithms. Management of computation has to be orchestrated, and we need time to design. We can not cover all of OM, but offer a smart proxy.

DB: We are aware of the requirements. Lino, the algorithm remains the same over marine / terrestrial environments.

LP: We can not decide now, we also need to align the activity with openBio. In iMarine, the idea was to exploit the CRIA expertise, discuss with communities, and develop a service for scientists, tested and validated. Not a platform for developers. The vision is now pushed back. CRIA is not in the developers WP’s, but the integration part was expected in the other project.

DB: First time participating to iMarine, assumes a discussion with SB is needed.

LP: Later we can discuss with WP3 (Anton and Edward) and have a next conf call to clarify which activities can be done in iMarine.

EB: Can donatella agree to shift effort?

Dora: CRIA can not do scientific work on modelling. We can build the tools for experts. Work on the gaps that other projects leave. We can develop the gCube component, make the tool available to others. Openbio does not fund the development of models, but integration. Will provide a list of proposed activity to D.Castelli.

LP: We need the discussion with Donatella and Leo on integration and extension. 3.4 task in OpenBio, for example, but agree to discuss further. Task 6.2. in iMarine talks about vertical integration, help the communities to use the models.

On next steps:

LP: Back to niche modelling in e-InfrastructureAn operational combination of digital technologies (hardware and software), resources (data and services), communications (protocols, access rights and networks), and the people and organizational structures needed to support research efforts and collaboration in the large.; we can use existing operation on new datasets. That would develop an enriched dataset of occurrence points.

EB: Proposes intermediate step with enrichment and use of clustering instead of a full model. Proposed a discussion between OBIS / CRIA / CNR on Quality Control.

LP: Agrees. We can think of the following steps; some already there (testing and certification phase), others will be discussed in Greece. We have prototyped

EB: Me and CRIA will not be at TCOM, how do we communicate.

LP: But we have 2.5 days for the clusters. If you will not come, let me know asap.

Next steps: EB:

• CRIA CNR discussion
• Plan TCom for remote participation
• Discuss with GP Coro on Environmental Envelope modelling, start provide documentation

GC:

• Test GIS viewer and other components are not yet released. 2.9 will contain the services.

LP:

• Needs input on proper citations from OBIS (EB will follow-up, but is a WIP)
• Will focus on reconciliation and enrichment, take time to discuss the modelling.

CV:

• Will provide a note on CRIA’s position, which will be discussed with CNR.

Next biodiversity cluster meeting:

• Will be planned after discussion between CNR and CRIA