Minutes

1. Participants

1. Thohahente, Shannon Christoffersen, Astrid Eriksen, Peter Pulsifer, Øystein Godøy, Pier Luigi Buttigieg, Siri Jodha Singh Khalsa, Chantelle Verhey, Mark Schildhauer, Bill Manley, Susanna Ragnhild Siri, Allison Gaylord, Rebekah Ingram

2. Adoption of the agenda

1. Adopted

3. Review of the minutes of the previous meeting

1. 2020-11-17

1. Approved

4.  Review of open action items

1. Postponed as primary focus of this meeting was item 5.

5. Following discussions on the 2020-08-18 meeting, discuss definitions of data and datasets that could be used in the Arctic Community - Rebekah/Pier Luigi

1. The purpose is to achieve definitions that are useful in communication with data providers (e.g. scientists and agencies), including indigenous communities
2. Background material

1. The UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development Implementation Plan v2.0. (See glossary for definitions of data, information, knowledge, and digital knowledge ; note we had to tone down the technical aspects as this document goes to the GA) : https://www.oceandecade.org/assets/uploads/documents/Ocean-Decade-Implementation-Plan-Version-2-0-min_1596634145.pdf 
2. IWG-SODIS https://iode.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=598:inter-sessional-working-group-to-propose-a-strategy-on-ocean-data-and-information-stewardship-for-the-un-ocean-decade-iwg-sodis&catid=65&Itemid=89 
3. A dedicated channel in the Slack space has been set up to capture discussions between meetings.

3. Discussion of the concepts data, information and knowledge and whether existing definitions we are working with applies in a broad sense, including local and traditional/indigenous knowledge. - Rebekah

1. People with indigenous background are particularly invited to give:

1. their perspectives and reactions,
2. suggestions for modifications,
3. use cases to test out

2. Rebekah introduced and presented aspects of the knowledge model based on a joint presentation by Rebekah and Pier Luigi.

1. The purpose is not to make decisions, but to test the approach and discuss challenges.
2. Astrid, Susanna and Tohahente joined the discussion to give indigenous perspectives.
3. Discussion on the definition of data and if various indigenious information can fit here.

1. A set of values, symbols, or signs (recorded on any type of medium) that represent one or more properties of an entity. For example, the numbers generated by a sensor, values derived from a model or analysis, text entered into a survey, or the raw text of a document

1. Shannon asked whether recorded in is more appropriate than on.
2. Pier Luigi suggested rephrasing to "recorded on or transmitted through any kind of medium".
3. Susanna gave an introduction to joik and how that captures personal information, feelings, etc. E.g. a joik can be made to a mountain in order to appreciate the time spent there. Interpretation of a joik would often require a certain knowledge, at least knowledge of the context.
4. Mark  questioned why some recording of an oral history or image of a wampum belt according to DIKW as it can reflect how it is used, but doesn’t have to be the basis.  
5. Peter asked for the objective here. Is it to establish a single definition of these concepts for broad adoption or use across the polar community?
6. Pier Luigi commented that there's an Arctic group for the Ocean Decade, Peter Pulsifer and Pier Luigi will be cross-linking there and we have to link both these systems for interoperability.

4. Discussion on information. 

1. Products derived from data that lead to a greater understanding of an entity. For example, (i) the interpretation of a range of data from an array of conductivity sensors across the Arctic Ocean that informs us about that ocean’s salinity range or (ii) the narrative text of a report on harmful algal blooms that informs the reader on the timing of these blooms.
2. Susanna gave an introduction to information about snow in Sami language which has many words to describe conditions for reindeer herding. These words are a concrete description of varying climate conditions.

5. Discussion of knowledge

1. An abstract representation (i.e. a mental model) of an entity which: (i) is constructed from a substantial collection of information, (ii) grants its bearer reliable familiarity with that entity, and (iii) can be used to reason and take action about that entity. For example, an expert with knowledge about the salinity range of the Arctic Ocean (constructed from large amounts of information on the topic) would be able to reason that a salinity value of 43% is a likely error, rather than a real measurement.
2. Pier Luigi mentioned that some of the wording is dictated by the UN process and not necessarily the wording preferred by the team developing the material.

6. Peter suggested that this group, POLDER and others draft a statement outlining our activities, goals, objectives, requests etc. Arctic Data Committee is part of the SAON process, which, in turn, is linked to the Arctic Council. The document could be put forward as a formal request for engagement. Peter has started this conversation. The response may be the same (lack of capacity), however such a paper could help move the process forward.
7. Thohahente gave an introduction to the process around fishing in his community. This includes creation of fishing nets (modern and traditional) and the integration of stories and songs into the creation process. The knowledge surrounding this process also includes information on knots and materials used for construction of fishing nets, locations of these materials, locations of fishing, specific for fishing techniques, etc. A use case may be created around this. He will check if some Gwich’in community members could also contribute. He questioned the triangle approach that is sometimes used in the DIKW approach.
8. It was agreed that a living process that can be adapted as we continue engagement is required.
9. Discussions will continue in coming meetings and in Slack between meetings.

6. EOSC Semantic Framework project - Øystein

1. There was no time to cover this and it was postponed until the January meeting.
2. According to Pier Luigi this overlaps with many of the CODATA/FAIRsFAIR/RDA communities.
3. Background from Peter Wittenburg

1. …
   The EOSC process decided to support the work on alternative approaches to bring semantic processing to the researchers desk. A framework enabling pragmatic and flexible Semantic Mapping could be an important addition to the set of tools which are already available. Therefore, the small SEMAF project which is under the leadership of Daan Broeder (CLARIN) was started. A small group of experts wrote two starting papers (see Background documents below) to describe the idea. The goal of this small project is to specify such framework and to indicate feasibility
   Now, we would like to do interviews with experts in various domains who have a good insight in the current practices of (1) how semantic mapping at data and metadata level is being done and (2) whether a SEMAF framework would help practitioners in data-intensive science.
   …
2. Background documents.

4. Discussion on whether

1. this approach or elements thereof would be useful in a wider context,
2. in particular who it would be useful for,
3. how it could affect the scientific community,
4. and whether there are other tools etc that would be required to increase awareness and uptake in the scientific communities

7. Awareness updates (roundtable)

1. No time for this.

8. On hold, to be addressed if time

1. A paper/report on the Polar Vocabularies Questionnaire - Pier Luigi

1. Pier Luigi is exploring this with support from Ruth, Mark and Øystein.

1. Link to responses: Polar Vocabularies (Responses)
2. See previous minutes for details.
3. Update on status

2. Polar Semantics Planning Matrix updates - Peter and Ruth

1. The matrix is available at Matrix of metadata harvesting relationships
2. The matrix and other materials from this family of meetings are being documented in two papers:

1. PDPS White Paper Draft - Harvesting Portion

1. Update on status

2. PDPS White Paper Draft - Recommendations Portion

1. Update on status

3. Regular interoperability workshops debriefs and plans - Rebekah/Øystein

1. Lessons learned in the September 2nd workshop that should be further discussed

1. https://github.com/POLDER-Crew 
2. Polar practices recommendations for implementing schema.org is the short term goal

9. Next meeting

1. Agreed to do the third Tuesday of the month, at 20:00 UTC (21:00 CET, 15:00 EST, 13:00 MST).

1. Next meeting will be Tuesday 19th January.
2. Øystein will create a calendar invite.

2. Since not everyone is using Slack, emails should be circulated for each meeting.