|
 |
 |
|
"The Atlas benefits from the fact that shared development programmes are already under way for the South African Environmental Observation Network (SAEON), for the South African Earth Observation Strategy platform (SAEOS), and other smaller developments such as the Nairobi Clearinghouse Mechanism and the World Data Centre for Biodiversity and Human Health." - Wim Hugo
|
|
Wim Hugo, SAEON
The project team of the South African Risk and Vulnerability Atlas (SARVA) recently decided to approach the South African Environmental Observation Network (SAEON) for assistance in establishing an information technology platform for the Atlas.
The main reasons for this are:
- the shared benefits of collaborative development (most infrastructure of the kind required by the Atlas already exists, or is also required by parallel ventures, and are often funded by the same sponsors), and
- the reduced risk of sporadic development, the fact that support resources are often difficult to come by, and other sustainability issues that arise with a less collaborative approach.
The Atlas benefits from the fact that shared development programmes are already under way for SAEON itself, for the South African Earth Observation Strategy platform (SAEOS), and other smaller developments (the Nairobi Clearinghouse Mechanism, the World Data Centre for Biodiversity and Human Health, amongst others).
It is already possible to respond very rapidly to new infrastructure requirements, and the process to be able to accommodate new requirements will probably be streamlined even more in future.
At the root of the infrastructure being built at present are high-level requirements placed on a shared platform for the provision of meta-data driven, interoperable systems for data management. The platform needs to make provision for:
- support for a number of meta-data standards,
- support of a variety of data formats and data sources,
- a wide variety of stakeholder requirements and domains, and
- different levels of data use: from basic data provision and preservation to value addition and decision support.
Often overlooked is the requirement for minimum diligence in the creation of the infrastructure, because by definition, the shared infrastructure and all documentation pertaining to it are open source or non-restricted public goods. This imposes criteria in terms of the quality of design documentation and specifications, and the quality of acceptable coding/ development work that is produced.
Each of the supported initiatives has unique requirements, but in broad terms, the initiatives all share a basic requirement for meta-data and data management that is addressed in this document. It also shares requirements for data processing, presentation, and visualisation that can be shared.
Furthermore, many of the meta-data repositories that these initiatives need access to (whether these are dynamically searched on demand or whether the meta-data repositories are replicated centrally) are the same. For example, repositories on biodiversity are required by SAEOS, SAEON, SARVA, WDC-BHH, and several other organisations. There is no need to duplicate the functionality and effort required to expose and integrate these repositories into portal environments where they can be better utilised.
Finally, several of the typical platform tools that are required to establish a domain or community-specific view on the meta-data and data repositories can be shared. These include the establishment and management of user communities and control to access and visibility of portal resources, collaboration environments, facilities for monitoring of portal resource usage and value, collaboration support, and many more.
Read the complete article including the technical discussion
|
|
