1
Theres 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

1. MoU revisited
2. Models
3. Transparency
4. Costing
5. Ontology
6. Progress
7. 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 WGs

• 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 STSMs)
• 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)
• Eriks and back from emerging ontology
• Andrew at WG 2 modeling is not the goal, dont
  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
Theres more to see than can even be seenMore to
do than can ever be doneTheres 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