SDI Convergence - Global Spatial Data Infrastructure Association

the tool is deployed more widely users will need individual registration and login before
they can add model instances; in this case the instance will then inherit their personal
details automatically. This is not currently the case. Figure 4 shows more detail of a
model instance.
The administrative elements contained within the system are shown in Figure 6. Several
role based tiers of security are currently supported and this controls access to specific
functions. Additionally the system supports some elements of model governance
(although this requires further development) allowing model developers to record and
communicate endorsement levels and/or development stages for registered models.
5.
EVALUATION
Following
the initial discussions to develop the MIKE system the prototype was built. To
date the evaluation of the product has been limited to one workshop and a number of
one-to-one interviews. This process has revealed a range of areas for further development
and also highlighted a number of issues. For instance one significant requirement
is to link the model metadata to a data register to identify gaps in existing data so that
this can inform model choice and understanding of the resources required for application
of the model. However, not all models have fixed data inputs and consequently this
some-what confounds and complicates design of the interface. Another issue is that
some models contain component models (models within models). At this point although
MIKE allows storage of parent child relations between models this is currently a simple
implementation and needs improvement.
A simple analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the prototype based on feedback
received to date indicates the following. In terms of ease of use and intuitiveness, parts
of the system are easy to use especially the component supporting registration of
model instances. In particular the implementation allowing the rapid spatial registration
and query of an instance is somewhat unique. The system supports storage of metadata
for a model, its versions and the instances of application. In concept this is similar
to the three level hierarchy described in Gangsheng et al. (2008). By volume, the bulk
of the model metadata currently in the system describes the base models. Unlike
model instance information this is currently cumbersome and time consuming to enter
in the prototype. This is a key weakness and further research and improvement to the
design of this component of the interface is required. Additionally, refinements to the
design of the underlying data structures to support this will also be required. Systems
like NASA GCMD (2009) provide good insight and guidance for this work. At the back
end the metadata model currently appears (based on user feedback) to store the bulk
of the requisite information to support model discovery and use, but provides little support
for the storage of metadata to support on-line model services and automation. This
intentional gap and weakness will be addressed in the future and will benefit from rapid
advances occurring in metadata design for interoperability. Another major weakness
and threat to the prototype is that current spatial data Metadata repositories and services
contain deficiencies in the design, implementation and level of content in respect
to storage and delivery of metadata about data quality. This generally confounds the
ability to meaningfully link model metadata to existing data registration services and
understand data gaps and deficiencies in support of the use of models.
Although
aspects to support model governance have been included in the design of the
prototype we have found that the present interest in these features has not been widespread.
We suspect this is due to cultural factors more than system design and implementation.
Further evaluation is required.
147