More than 15.000 participants with great presentations in 666 sessions (posters, PICOs, and orals) made the EGU General Assembly 2018 at the Austrian Convention Centre in Vienna a great success.
In the geodesy-led programme, we had 428 submissions, which were distributed to 19 oral blocks, 3 PICO sessions, and a series of poster sessions. We listened to exciting talks, starting with geodetic theory on Monday morning and ending with presentations on VLBI and SLR observations to artificial objects in space on Friday afternoon. The PICO sessions with 2-minute (“madness”) introductions are attracting increasing interest, and the poster sessions in the evening made EGU 2018 a good place for discussions and networking. (Hopefully, there will be faster access to coffee and beer next year.)
As a central element of its General Assembly, EGU offered a series of Union Sessions, Interdisciplinary Events, Great Debates, and Short Courses. I always appreciate this possibility of seeing a bigger picture of geosciences. At the Division level, a Geodesy Reception was organised for the first time at TU Wien Tuesday evening with a nice view over the city. This event was well received, although some fine-tuning in the organisation is required to be able to repeat it in 2019. Highlights in geodesy were certainly the presentations of the Vening Meinesz Medal to Markus Rothacher and the Outstanding Early Career Scientist Award to Sara Bruni. Congratulations!
I really would like to thank everybody (participants, authors, conveners, Division Officers, …) for their contributions and fellowship with EGU. You make the EGU General Assemblies an extremely valuable event for geodesy! I hope you enjoyed EGU 2018 – recommendations and feedback (positive and negative) is highly appreciated (email to firstname.lastname@example.org).
Looking forward to seeing you in Vienna in April 2019,
We all know that easy access to data speeds up doing research. In this post, we will discuss how open GIS data can stimulate innovative ways of doing research in the field of geodesy and geosciences, considering first the benefits and challenges of open data.
Geodesy can benefit greatly from the open data movement and from open Geographic Information System (GIS) data. The reasons for this are two. First, open data, namely data freely usable, re-usable and re-distributable, promotes transparency, verifiability, encourages interdisciplinary studies, knowledge-exchange, etc. See also “13 Reasons for Open Publication of Geoscience Data”. Second, GIS allows the storage, manipulation, managing and analysis of topographic data. Hence, open GIS data is a powerful tool for geoscientists and geodesists who can conduct data-driven analyses like never before.
Yet, utilising open data in the geodesy field is often easier said than done. A recent Open Knowledge International’s report identified the main problems hindering the open data movement. These are: the very low discoverability of open data sources, which were rightfully defined as “hard or impossible to find”; the lack of interoperability of open data sources, often very difficult to be utilised; and the lack of a standardized open license, representing a legal obstacle to data sharing. These problems thus prevent open GIS data sources from being fully exploited for scientific advancements in geodesy.
Some initiatives have tried to address the problems above. OpenStreetMap, for instance, is a collaborative and voluntary project which utilises satellite data to create maps of the world. The EU launched Copernicus, a programme aimed at developing European information services based on satellite and in-situ data. These initiatives contribute to improve the findability of data, but do not address a crucial problem: how to reutilise GIS data to create applications, spurring innovative ways of conducting scientific research in geodesy. If apps based on GIS data were created and made available to geodesists, they could utilise these tools to conduct data-driven research, visualise topographic sources, collect more data, etc.
Open data aggregators could help address this issue. Aggregators have two main functions: data aggregation and integration. Aggregation consists of creating hubs where multiple data sources can be accessed for various purposes. Integration refers to linked data, namely data to which a semantic label (a name describing a variable) is attached to allow for the integration and amalgamation of different data sources (Mazzetti et al 2015, Hosen and Alfina 2016, Qanbari et al 2015, Knap et al 2012). The integration function is precisely what renders data re-usable.
Below we present an aggregator particularly suited to the resolve the re-utilisation problems hindering GIS data: The European Network for Redistributing Geospatial Information to user Communities- Open Data (ENERGIC-OD). The ENERGIC-OD consortium, funded by the European Commission, launched a pan-European Virtual Hub (pEVH). This is a super-broker that automatically searches for open GIS data available online (i.e. GEOSS, INSPIRE, COPERNICUS data and new/existing, local/national Spatial Data Infrastructures or SDIs ), process it and renders it ready to use for app developers, facilitating open GIS data usage across Europe. The image below shows the pEVH’s brokering framework, including some examples of the datasets processed. The readers can access the pEVH today here.
To demonstrate the viability of the pEVH, ENERGIC-OD consortium developed 10 applications based on VH-brokered data. One of these apps, the Coastline Monitoring Application, constitutes an interesting and innovative development in the geoscience research world and provides an idea of what can be achieved with applications based on GIS data.
This app allows registered users to contribute directly to the study of coastlines, providing scientists and researchers with valuable information and observations. The application utilises the pEVH’s crowdsourcing functionality that allows people to produce data, in the form of images for example, which will be then checked and validated before being shared with the wider public. This app has thus a three-fold function of data generator, validator and sharer.
The Coastline Monitoring Application is just one example of what can be achieved with ENERGIC-OD and what this data broker can do for geosciences and geodesy. The pEVH has the potential to resolve issues of low discoverability, lack of interoperability and low re-usage burdening the open GIS data world. Additionally, thanks to its brokering features, any scientist with basic computer programming skills can extract and manipulate GIS data for app-development. These apps have the potential to be of great usefulness to geodesists. ENERGIC-OD can thus be a great facilitator of geoscience research. It is up to the wider scientific community to exploit its functionalities in innovative and meaningful ways.
Hosen, A. and Alfina, I. (2016). Aggregation of Open Data Information using Linked Data: Case Study Education and Job Vacancy Data in Jakarta. IEEE, pp.579-584.
Knap, T., Michelfeit, J. and Necasky, M. (2012). Linked Open Data Aggregation: Conflict Resolution and Aggregate Quality. IEEE 36th International Conference on Computer Software and Applications Workshops, pp.106-111.
Mazzetti, P., Latre, M., Bauer, M., Brumana, R., Brauman, S. and Nativi, S. (2015). ENERGIC-OD Virtual Hubs: a brokered architecture for facilitating Open Data sharing and use. IEEE eChallenges e-2015 Conference Proceedings, pp.1-11.
Qanbari, S., Rekabsaz, N. and Dustdar, S. (2017). Open Government Data as a Service (GoDaaS): Big Data Platform for Mobile App Developers. IEEE 3rd International Conference on Future Internet of Things and Cloud, pp.398-403.
Will you be the next early career scientist representative for the Geodesy division?
In the run-up to the general assembly in 2017, The geodesy division is looking for a fresh early career scientist (ECS) to take over the role of the ECS-representative. But what comprises being an ECS-representative? And where can you sign up?
Early career scientists represent a significant share of the EGU general assembly attendees. It is therefore desirable to involve this group not only as participants, but also on the division and EGU level. To enable this, every division has assigned an early career scientist representative (ECS-rep), who have contact with the representatives from the other divisions. This allows to gather ideas, issues and thoughts relevant to the early career scientist group and communicate these at an EGU-wide level.
We’re looking for a new geodesy division representative
Since April 2014, I’ve been the early career scientist representative of the geodesy division. However, from April 2017, I will lay down this task and take over the role as the union-wide ECS-rep. It is therefore time to find a enthusiastic candidate for the next 2 years, who can bring her/his own ideas to the geodesy division. A prerequisite is that you fulfill the conditions of being an early career scientist, i.e. the date of obtaining your highest degree (BSc, MSc, or PhD) lies within the past 7 years.
Early career scientist representatives met at the EGU general assembly in 2016
What am I supposed to do?
There are several playgrounds where the ECS-rep is active:
Participate with the EGU-wide ECS-rep discussions. We all meet in person during the EGU but several times over the course of the year we set up skype meetings to discuss new ideas, recommendations, questionnaire results, short-course organization and much more. These meetings are essential for the workings of the ECS representation at EGU level.
Engage in person and over social media with other scientists and motivate them to contribute to the geodesy program and/or social events
I’m obviously biased now, but initially I was a bit skeptical about being involved. I’m now looking back at some valuable years adding to my skillset. I got to know people from other divisions, learned about the workings of the EGU, and got more involved in organizing short courses. Furthermore, contact with the Geodesy division program committee has been very fruitful and I appreciate their openness.
Outside the ECS-lounge. During the general assembly, you can see ample mentions of early career scientists related events and facilities.
Where and when can I sign up?
Please send a brief motivation letter and a CV to the current geodesy division president, Michael Schmidt, at email@example.com. Deadline is the 31st of March 2017. If you have any further questions or if you want a first hand report, you can also contact me under firstname.lastname@example.org or on twitter.
You can feel it coming, sometimes it kicks in days before your talk, at other times just moments before you climb the podium. When it is at its peak, speech anxiety or, in scientific terms, glossophobia, may even have physical ramifications. Your heart rate raises, your breathing is irregular and your armpits are spraying sweat, or at least you think they are. In this state, your body is in an excellent shape to the one thing it considers sane: flee.
The problem is you can’t. You are a scientific speaker at a conference and there is an audience eagerly waiting to hear about your research. Some of us may be tempted to opt for something in between fleeing and presenting, but this usually results in someone hiding and whispering behind a lectern. Alternatively, you have the option to look your speech anxiety in the face and tell yourself that it is an unavoidable part of your job as a scientist.
The good news is however, that this doesn’t need to affect the quality of your talk at all. On the contrary, your anxious state also enables you to be very alert and focused, which may actually help you delivering an excellent talk.
Besides your mental state, there are plenty of other issues, which influence the effectiveness of information-flow to your audience. Some of those are behavioral, such as making eye contact with your audience, stress parts of your talk by using your voice dynamically, or simply avoiding some ineffective habits like non-stop lightsabering your slides with a laser pointer.
On the more material side, you may consider structuring your presentation using narratives, making use of effective graphics and trying to eliminate those parts from your presentation which do not contribute to it. Just that someone at Microsoft thought it was a cool idea to offer transition effects like slides disintegrating in blocks and stars, doesn’t mean it was a good idea. Most people, including me, are not entertained by it but respond allergically to such slide transitions, resulting in an instant distraction from what you’re telling. You may also consider avoiding some fonts, which have the potential to cause political uproar. For some, seeing comicsans in your scientific presentation is like saying you like Obamacare in a GOPdebate.
In a nutshell, the single piece of advice for making a good presentation is the old boyscout credo: “Be prepared”. Once you prepared your presentation, you may want to check if it is effective and can be finished within the allocated time slot. Weathered speakers may know this from their experience, but even better is to rehearse your talk in front of group of friendly but critical peers. For a conference talk, the group would ideally consists of scientists from varying research fields, such that the audience better resembles reality. By rehearsing you (1) know whether your talk fits in the 12 minute limit, (2) can check if your main points came accross, and (3) see if your presentation material looks the way it is supposed to do.
The EGU 2016 short course 54 “Presentation feedback round”, builds on the observation that doing a rehearsal is a very effective way of improving the quality of your talk, whilst building your confidence on the podium. Last year, we organized the short course for the first time, and the feedback encouraged us to organize this again. Bernd Uebbing, early career scientist and participant of last year’s round commented: “Very helpful general information on how to present scientific results in an interesting way combined with constructive individual feedback after my trial presentation; would recommend!”
The short course is set up as follows. After kicking off with an entertaining talk on presenting, registered participants will give their presentation after which there is time to receive feedback from the organizers and audience. In contrast to your actual conference talk, more time is scheduled for feedback and topics related to presentation skills will be given plenty of attention. Everybody is welcome to attend the short course, but we specifically invite scientists, notably early career scientists, to sign up for a try-out of their EGU talk (PICO or oral).
But even after attending our shortcourse, and being very well prepared, you’re climbing that podium and are still nervous. But now, you got what it takes to deliver a conference highlight.