[OHM] followup re: Orbis part 1

[Karl Grossner]

some responses to Jerry, inline -- 

----- Original Message -----

> Although OHM uses the OSM technology stack and most of us are OSMers, it is
> functionally & organisationally (not that it has much of a formal
> organisation) independent from OSM, and the OSMF.

Got it; I do see in other threads some on the list feel that close direct ties of OSM and OHM databases are desirable, e.g. OHM inclusive of OSM or a recipient of 'outdated' OSM data 

> So far in discussions over the past year I think our approach is slightly
> different from OSM: at least in part because Susanna's initiatives have been
> funded by Wikimedia. One aspect of this is (I think) a general view that OHM
> should be federated with other types of data (specifically wikimedia commons
> and wikidata), but Susanna's recent focus on storytelling shows that,
> particularly for local history, it is desirable to link to other kinds of
> non-map data. Specific examples of the sort of data which would probably
> make OHM too complicated are town name changes, and population figures.

Completely agree that linking to non-map data is highly desirable, and all cool applications I can imagine would, but OHM will have its hands full with the spatial data. That said, place names are an integral part of historical mapping; I think OHM must incorporate or link to a historical gazetteer. At least two in-progress projects seem relevant - the Library of Congress pilot and the Wikidata as gazetteer scheme in development by Old Maps Online/PastPlace. This is one reason the OHM mission is radically more complex than OSM. There are a few other tough modeling problems/choices, imho. 

> We have also discussed the possibility that a focus on specific projects
> (perhaps local history based) which can stand-alone and are suitable for
> support by funding bodies could be a good way to develop more generic OHM
> technologies. I'm firmly of the belief that having a useful set of examples
> will both a) help showcase our ideas & objectives; and b) help focus on
> resolving specific technology issues. In this model funding would be for a
> given project, but technology developed would become part of the generic OHM
> stack. Therefore funding would be likely to fit the relevant model of
> whichever funding body which was approached (in my case I've been thinking
> about the UK Heritage Lottery Fund).

Agree completely and very nicely phrased 

> Your mention of ORBIS is I think highly relevant. Having looked at Orbis I
> added some of the Roman roads in Britain to OHM. Using the OSM format means
> that this data can immediately be exported into routing engines such as
> Graphopper and OSRM (a set of suitable LUA transforms may be needed). The
> big thing I notice about projects such as ORBIS is they nearly always use
> CC-BY-NC licences, and, speaking for myself only here, I think OHM would
> want to continue with the much less restrictive licensing used by OSM.
> (CC-BY-NC licences effectively allow only private use under recent German
> case law). If we could either continue adding Roman roads to OHM (I want to
> avoid stepping too heavily on people's toes) or perhaps choose another
> historical period to (try and) demonstrate the type of broad applicability
> for historical routing you talk about.

The intent of Orbis use of CC-BY-NC is exactly as stated: attribute it, say if you changed it, and don't make $$. I'm not a lawyer, but I am confident that allows adding Orbis:Rome data to OHM if attributed somewhere. In the academic environment the Orbis Initiative is geared towards, attribution will be absolutely essential--few will contribute without it and few will use datafrom it that isn't really well sourced. 

> One thing I'd like to do is have a go at replicating the time of travel
> diagrams from Braudel .

Fantastic!! -- dynamic isochronal mapping is one of the things Orbis:Rome does ( check out v2 if you haven't seen it in a while), and the Orbis Initiative is being undertaken to enable that kind of modeling for other place/period combinations. It will focus on ringleading efforts to digitize features from old maps, with some tools for creation, ingest, and modest analysis. I'm also imagining cookbooks for conflating datasets and building models externally. At this stage it's mostly about building a database of 'real' historical intermodal networks for people to do cool stuff with. 

> I do think that OHM will need some kind of 'go to' body at some point because
> of funding, but also interaction with the academic and GLAM communities. At
> the Nottingham seminar it was apparent how important the potential life-time
> of any given technology might be for funding bodies. No one wants to pay for
> a project which is not accessible shortly after (this was a big
> consideration for the Edinburgh MESH project, and it was OSMs size &
> longevity, as well as its openness which swung them to OSM).

I'm guessing there has to be an OHMF or equivalent ultimately, as big funders want to know about permanence, governance, etc. as you say. Not necessary to get the exemplar/pilot project going though. Personally, I think big libraries need to get into this--they do collections, these data are collections. 

> Whether OSMF ever seeks funding is a moot issue: I suspect the current board
> is divided, and it certainly needs a step change in administrative
> procedures before it does so. My current view is that perhaps some kind of
> umbrella NFP body, say "OSM Research", might be a more appropriate vehicle:
> particularly because many people who can contribute are individuals or SMEs.
> I used to run large scale EU funded research projects, and I know that many
> OSM technologies are a good fit for the technology programmes; OHM type
> projects would be applicable to work funded by other Directorates-General
> under the Framework Programme.

That's encouraging to hear, and your experience at such projects (far more than mine btw) will be invaluable to OHM no doubt! 

> Regards,

> Jerry

> On 13 December 2014 at 18:48, Karl Grossner < karlg at stanford.edu > wrote:
> > Hello OHMers,
> 

> > I'm planning to join the upcoming hangout and have a few questions I
> > thought
> > I'd put out in advance...
> 

> > The discussion of going for an NEH grant has me confused. I'm wondering how
> > a
> > large(ish) federal grant and the various norms for that sort of thing
> > squares with OSM/OHM approached to development so far. For example, grants
> > have submitting institutions, and PIs who formulate phasing and technical
> > plans for deliverable work products and are then responsible to taxpayers
> > for results; key staff are named, etc. etc.
> 

> > My impression of OSM development (no expert, though) is that it has come
> > together ad hoc, dev decisions arrived at collectively and so on. Is that
> > the case? Has OSM Foundation received government or foundation support in
> > the past? If not, is OHM charting a different course? Is anyone "lead" or
> > co-lead" from a grant perspective? As OSM Foundation is a UK corporation,
> > is
> > it even eligible for NEH funding? Also, it strikes me that "mapping what's
> > on the ground" is different from mapping what's on old maps in some
> > important ways, with some key research-y questions ahead.
> 

> > Separately, my own interest is in putting together an "Orbis Initiative" to
> > build a global historical transport network data repository and some tools
> > for ingest, creation, search/browse and analysis. So that limits it to
> > settlements and inter-city data for the most part (plus maritime) and
> > includes some network analytic tools. I plan to seek big(ish) funding and
> > it
> > would happen in a university research/library setting. I fully support the
> > idea of OHM and hope for strong connections if not integration in the
> > future. As I put this idea together I want to keep you all informed and
> > welcome feedback/reaction.
> 

> > cheers, Karl
> 

> > -------------
> 
> > Karl Grossner
> 
> > Stanford,CA US
> 
> > www.kgeographer.org
> 

> > > Hi all -
> > 
> 

> > > How about we hold OHM Hangout on the 18th? (Or, the 19th as a backup?) at
> > > 8am
> > > PT ( local times here )?
> > 
> 

> > > Topics would include, but not be limited to:
> > 
> 
> > > - NEH ODH grant discussion
> > 
> 
> > > - Tools update (e.g. feature query tool)
> > 
> 
> > > - OHM 2015 goals?
> > 
> 
> > > - Updates of any known OHM projects
> > 
> 
> > > - Any other topics of interest
> > 
> 

> > > Let me know what you think!
> > 
> 

> > > Thanks,
> > 
> 
> > > Jeff
> > 
> 

> > > --
> > 
> 
> > > Jeff Meyer
> > 
> 
> > > Global World History Atlas
> > 
> 
> > > www.gwhat.org
> > 
> 
> > > jeff at gwhat.org
> > 
> 
> > > 206-676-2347
> > 
> 

> > > OpenStreetMap: Mapping with a Human Touch
> > 
> 
> > > osm: Open Historical Map (OHM) / my OSM user page
> > 
> 
> > > t: @GWHAThistory
> > 
> 

> > > f: GWHAThistory
> > 
> 

> > > _______________________________________________
> > 
> 
> > > Historic mailing list
> > 
> 
> > > Historic at openstreetmap.org
> > 
> 
> > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/historic
> > 
> 

> > _______________________________________________
> 
> > Historic mailing list
> 
> > Historic at openstreetmap.org
> 
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/historic
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/historic/attachments/20141219/cf651a30/attachment-0001.html>