1 / 14

”There’s more to see than can even be seen, …”

”There’s more to see than can even be seen, …”. COST Workshop and MC 7 Riga, Latvia, 14-16 October 2004. Jaap Zevenbergen, WG 2 coordinator. OTB, Delft University of Technology,The Netherlands. Agenda. MoU revisited Models Transparency Costing Ontology Progress Final Remarks.

reina
Télécharger la présentation

”There’s more to see than can even be seen, …”

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. ”There’s more to see than can even be seen, …” COST Workshop and MC 7 Riga, Latvia, 14-16 October 2004 Jaap Zevenbergen, WG 2 coordinator OTB, Delft University of Technology,The Netherlands

  2. Agenda • MoU revisited • Models • Transparency • Costing • Ontology • Progress • Final Remarks

  3. 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)

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

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

  6. 3. 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 ?

  7. 1. 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, ..) ?

  8. 2. 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

  9. (3. Models) Ontology • Ontology focus of Bremen Workshop • provide common base for modeling • strong start at Bremen Workshop • 2nd, 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)

  10. 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)

  11. 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

  12. ‘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

  13. Next WG 1 + 2 event: • Workshop ‘Standardization in the cadastral domain’ (together with FIG, commission 7) • in Bamberg (Germany), 9-10 December 2004 • http://www.kinf.wiai.uni-bamberg.de/SICD/ • Register and book in time !

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

More Related