Project

General

Profile

GRSF ยป

17-09-26 GRSF validation

September 26, 2017 - status of work and way forward.

Meeting Notes
Topics: UUID review, standards for areas and management entities, GRSF definitions and updated requirements, new GRSF interface in progress

Participants:
RAM (Michael Melnychuk)
FishSource (Susana Segurado, Merul Patel)
FAO (Giulia Gorelli, Aureliano Gentile)

Notes

New interface for the GRSF Admin
The new GRSF interface was introduced to the participants. CNR set up a temporary environment https://ckan-grsf-admin2.d4science.org/ to test a new logic for arranging records by organizations, groups, types, and status. Participants are invited to review it and provide feedback.

GRSF Definitions
The compiled list of definitions was introduced and participants were requested to review it and provide feedback.

UUID review
FishSource reported that the GRSF was presented at the SFP annual meeting and it was well received. Not much has been done so far regardoing a true testing. Mr Braddock Spear is going to present the GRSF in the coming weeks to WWF, Future of Fish, Fish Wise and other NGOs concerned with traceability, and to representatives of the industry sector.
FishSource was invited to proceed with urgency on the testing aspects since the development need to be concluded in the next few months.

  • Multipsecies fisheries

FishSource suggested the need to be able to describe multispecies fisheries, for scoring purposes. The group agreed that a multispecies fishery can be identified by a group of UUIDs. In particular, RAM suggested that multispecies fisheries could be identified as a group of all UUIDs having the same codes except as for the field "species".

  • "Supra IDs" to connect multiple IDs (i.e. from a dissection process, from a multispecies fisheries). Under which standard, for what purpose?
  • FishSource needs to be able to evaluate the relationship between fisheries and stocks for traceability purposes (the relationship "one fishery to many stocks" cannot be accepted. Therefore, in order to link the information between stocks and fisheries at UUID level, the following options were proposed:

1-(Fishery ID components + Stock UUID) e.g. asfis:COD + fao:21.3.M + grsf-org:INT:NAFO + rfb_comp:NAFO + isscfg:OTB + iso3:LTU + 5b3cea81-f396-37ef-91b2-0619eecf2e8a
2-(Fishery ID + Assessment area) e.g. asfis:COD + assessarea:xxxx + fao:21.3.M + grsf-org:INT:NAFO + rfb_comp:NAFO + isscfg:OTB + iso3:LTU
3-(Stock UUID + fishery ID components) 5b3cea81-f396-37ef-91b2-0619eecf2e8 + 27.3 + nafo + nafo_comp + OTW + RUS

The group concluded that there are definitely advantages into linking the stock information with the fishery information. FishSource added that for those fishing activities that will be flagged for traceability (one element allowed in the fields: species, fishing gear and flag state) it will be particularly important to link a specific fishing activity to a specific stock. Among the options presented, the second and the third ones were considered good to fit this purpose, with a preference on the second option (better in terms of readability). In particular, RAM suggested that the UUID in option three could be seen as made of two components: the stock and the fishing fleet. In this logic, any particular combination of stock and fishing fleet would constitute a different fishing activity. The first option seems to be the easiest to implement from a technical view point.
The above would be considered as an extension of the GRSF semantic identifiers in those cases when a fishery can be uniquely associated to a single stock. The proposal is going to be submitted to the technical team for their evaluation.

  • How to concatenate additional information to the GRSF UUID to identify specific fishery segments within a GRSF fishery? (e.g. vesseltypes, fishers communities, company names, etc.) This information is optional and might be added with customization on specific needs.

The participants recognized the value of this potential need and should be submitted to the technical team for their evaluation.

Standards for area and management entities

  • Area: the available standards are not fitting all cases (e.g. in case of fine granularity) and data from sources are not always compatible with the agreed GRSF standard. What additional effort could be envisaged?

FishSource expressed concern on the area field and the standards adopted which still present gaps and weaknesses. FishSource is currently trying to gather funding from a parallel project to compile the areas used in FishSource in a standardized way, to help comparisons and the identification of overlaps. The group expressed support for this initiative.
Considering the GRSF TWG2 recommendations "Bounding box coordinates are expected in absence of standard codes and mappings", the technical team is requested to follow up and provide practical examples of how the coordinates should be embedded in the semantic identifier.

  • Management entities: we are building a GRSF proprietary list of entities https://goo.gl/ZEWv74 with ad hoc identifiers (acronyms), any concern, any suggestions?

The RAM database contains a compiled list of Management Entities with acronyms which can be used to complement the current list. FishSource will provide feedback on the currently compiled list of management entities.

Problem statements for the technical team

1) "Supra IDs" to connect multiple IDs. How families of UUIDs can be grouped?

2) Linking a fishery to a stock. Which is the technical solution? See above proposal and options considering also that must be available in the "Manage item" panel.

3) Depict a scenario on how to concatenate additional information from other sources to a GRSF UUID (e.g. vesseltypes, fishers communities, company names, etc.).  
(e.g. Blockchain technologies)

4) Geographic coordinates in the semantic identifiers. Provide practical examples of how the coordinates should be embedded.

Follow-up actions

  • FishSource, RAM to provide feedback on the compilation of GRSF Definitions
  • FishSource, RAM to provide feedback on the new catalogue interface
  • FishSource to gather feedback from industry and NGOs regarding the UUIDs logic and use
  • Fishsource to provide data and feedback on the compiled list of management entities
  • FAO to further compile the list of management entities
  • Developers to evaluate the problem statements and provide solutions

Resources

Add picture from clipboard (Maximum size: 8.91 MB)