PGIST CyberGIS Integration Strategy Timothy Nyerges, Mary Roderick University of Washington November 10, 2011

11/10/111 About PGIST Enables large-scale, asynchronous participation of a diverse group of actors in a decision making process. Delphi and Technology of Participation heavily influence both processes. Structured deliberation, consensus-building & decision-making Open, transparent decision repository Participation metrics for reporting Collection of participatory deliberation tools: BCT/CCT/CST Brainstorm Concerns / Categorize Concerns / Concerns Synthesis Typical Workflow:

11/10/112 PGIST Architecture Web-based application, user-interface needed for deliberation BCT/CCT/CST are composed of DWR agents, Struts action classes, Hibernate persistence objects

11/10/113 CyberGIS & PGIST Integration Two-fold Purpose: Enable structured discussion about Gateway integration Discuss Not Bug Tracking! Deliberative framework to advance GIScience.

9/28/11 CyberGIS All-Hands Meeting 4 CyberGIS & PGIST Integration Two-fold Purpose: Support collaborative domain science research and problem-solving

11/10/115 CyberGIS & PGIST Architecture Single sign-on via Token Service Custom web interface for CyberGIS PGIST Server IFrame

11/10/116 1 st Deliberation Topic Evaluation and development of metrics for: CyberGIS Gateway Integrated Software Elements Background: VCC (the specific PGIST application being integrated into the Gateway) is useful for synthesizing open dialog into a definitive set of topics/indicators/metrics through a mix of automated text mining, user interaction, and group decision making. Why Participatory Metrics Development? We want to know about people’s experience with CyberGIS and need a systematic way of structuring that information. Through participatory metrics development we achieve both. From CyberGIS Proposal, pg. C-6: “Evaluation of the CyberGIS framework will be based on rigorous metrics and driven by the same participatory approach developed to capture evolving community requirements.”

11/10/117 CyberGIS Metrics Overview

11/10/118 Example CyberGIS Collaboratory

11/10/119 Example Brainstorm = free form input from each user, for which key words are generated that will later be used to develop metric categories and assign measurement units Assess = provide comments on others’ feedback and vote to move forward to metric category development Proposed Agenda: One week per step Agenda is generic. Instructions for each step will provide specific details about metric development.

11/10/1110 Example CyberGIS Collaboratory Write about your experience using CyberGIS in the box on the right and select or write your own keywords and keyphrases. Be specific. Try to use keywords and keyphrases that describe your experience in terms of how you used CyberGIS and any issues or difficulties you encountered. Of course, praise is welcome too! We will use these keywords and key phrases to develop evaluation metrics in the next step.

11/10/1111 Example CyberGIS Collaboratory

11/10/1112 Example

11/10/1113 Example CyberGIS Collaboratory

11/10/1114 Example

11/10/1115 Example

11/10/1116 Example CyberGIS Collaboratory Explore other participants’ metric categories for keywords and keyphrases. Make comments and discuss how well they capture your experience with using CyberGIS. Vote on moving forward to Step 3 when satisfied.

11/10/1117 Example

Requirements Analysis Review & Update

Requirements Overview 4 Broad Areas of Participatory Requirements Business The character of geospatial problem solving. System Capabilities to address geospatial problem solving. Component Software design for implementing capabilities. Application Packaging the components into solutions to address scientific problem solving requirements. Web Survey Use Cases

Applications Generic CyberInfrastructure Service Providers Service Consumers End Users Portals Model Standards Tech Standards Tech Standards Service Registry Devices Spatial Middleware System, Component, Application Requirements Business Requirements Integration Requirements

Use Case Overview

Requirements Synthesis Example EM.BUC.1 Wildfire Evacuation Triggers Yan’s Comment: This table is a good starting point, but it only lists what current system use cases claim to have. To enrich this section: Find more details of each existing software to make the list more complete. Ask each software provider to check what they have, will have, would like to have in CyberGIS project. I believe we have most of capabilities, but the challenge is on integration.

What have we learned? Range of use cases represents the diversity of research CyberGIS can support and need for on-going contributions. Business use cases should be supported by one or more system use cases. Due to the distributed and voluntary nature of the participatory requirements process and SE contributions, this 1:1 or 1:M relationship is not given at this time. Identification of missing functionality important to drive future requirements and prioritize software element integration. Gaps between the emergency management and software element use cases also indicate the need for both a top-down, domain science driven and a bottom-up, interoperability- focused integration strategy.

Next Steps Bottom Up Strategy: Pairwise integration with Gateway Documentation of best practices: SEs and Gateway in action. Integration across SEs Top Down Strategy: Selection of one domain science UC (UW suggests flooding vulnerability) Creation of baseline UC Mapping between baseline and CyberGIS

Flooding is the most severe hazard – causing both the largest loss of life and most physical damage. It is both an acute emergency management and climate change issue.

Social Media

How can social media enhance CyberGIS? “for broad-based communication functionalities and are used to develop affinity groups among colleagues, fostering social topic awareness and allowing for rapid communication” CyberGIS Proposal, pg. C-7 How can CyberGIS support social media-oriented research? See Wilson Center webcast: Social Media in Emergency Management: Transforming the Response Enterprise How does Social Media differ from PGIST & CyberGIS WIKI? What are the synergies? What is the integration potential?

Example: Add social media derived content to maps, ie. live info feeds from disaster sites.

Example: Create maps and share via a range of social media outlets

Example: Create special interest groups and integrate popular social media tools

Example: Add twitter feed to Gateway (can already follow GISolve on twitter)