Vermelding onderdeel organisatie October 15, ”There’s more to see than can even be seen, …” Jaap Zevenbergen, WG 2 coordinator OTB, Delft University of Technology,The Netherlands COST Workshop and MC 7 Riga, Latvia, October 2004

October 15, Agenda 1.MoU revisited 2.Models 3.Transparency 4.Costing 5.Ontology 6.Progress 7.Final Remarks

October 15, MoU of our Action Even neighboring pair of countries Has remarkable differences Making it a challenge to elicit a common set of concepts and models (p. 4)

October 15, MoU of our Action 1.Improve transparency of real property markets 2.Provide a stronger basis for reduction of costs of real property transactions by 3.Preparing a set of models of real property transactions (correct, formalized and complete) 4.Assessing economic efficiency of these transactions models also for education and (re-)engineering

October 15, MoU on WG’s 1.Ontology (now: Law and Models) 2.Real Property and Cadastral Law (now: Cadastral Science) 3.Transaction Costs (now: Economy) Early years all work Action-wide WG 1 and 2 very intertwined

October 15, Models (transaction) Verbal (semi formalized) descriptions Activity Diagrams in (quasi) UML Discussed with expert(s) from at least one other country (mainly during STSM’s) Comparisons between sets of countries (esp. SLO, SE, DK) Level of detail vs. abstraction in comparison ? Functional analysis ?

October 15, Transparency ? Describing the process in an understandable way ? Assigning authority and responsibility for certain activities to certain actors Going behind the ‘cadastral system’: what objective(s) are meant to be met (and which side effects has it) ? differences in (stated and implied) objectives How to deal with less prescriptive countries (describe a ‘normal’ case), esp. UK (NL,..) ?

October 15, Costing ? Do the descriptions allow for ‘costing’ ? Can we than do meaningful cost comparison ? [issue is getting more attention: German research firm was doing some comparison study for German Gov.] What if certain ‘objective’ is met in another way (and paid through other channel) rest for WG 3

October 15, (3. Models) Ontology Ontology focus of Bremen Workshop provide common base for modeling strong start at Bremen Workshop 2 nd, parallel track of modeling with Class Diagram (core (data ?) model) Towards a Cadastral Domain Model/Ontology not as the base, but after a learning curve ? “UseCases to Classes and back” (Erik at WG 2)

October 15, Progress Modeling (3.) completed to a large extent: Further formalization in some cases (eg. UML) Erik’s “and back” from emerging ontology Andrew at WG 2: modeling is not the goal, don’t keep refining, but use the richness of the data gathered to answer research questions From the Action MoU (1. and 2.) New ones (e.g. risk attribution)

October 15, Progress UML (or other) only a tool for modeling Are methods used already clearly described ?  methodology (domain specific ?) Participants had very different pre-knowledge of modeling; influenced progress, esp. in comparing and underlying terminology  domain ontology

October 15, ‘Decisions from WG 2’ Every country will complete the national report (use template from Hungary and Denmark) by … Use example cases for comparison (see WG 3) Re-iterate the ‘UseCases to Classes and back’ for more countries Make comparison within comparable groups Aim at final book of the action results

October 15, Next WG event: Workshop ‘Standardization in the cadastral domain’ (together with FIG, commission 7) in Bamberg (Germany), 9-10 December Register and book in time !

Vermelding onderdeel organisatie October 15, There’s more to see than can even be seen More to do than can ever be done There’s far too much to take in here Zevenbergen 2002 (phd), p. 0; taken from Lion King Soundtrack (lyrics by Tim Rice) OTB, Delft University of Technology,The Netherlands … More to find than can ever by found