CAPARDUS Deliverable 1.2 Report on Arctic standards, protocols and framework model, Version 1.0 (Revised).

Abstract

Standards can act as common language and practices among actors when aiming to share and use observing systems, data, ensure safety, and many other activities in the Arctic. Equipment manufacturers, observing programs, data producers, citizens, and governments all benefit from the creation of open standards. It is vital that the standards development process ensures that all interested parties work together in the context of openness and transparency. In particular, as data becomes the world’s most valuable resource, it becomes ever more important that the digital ecosystem for data be designed and managed in a way that ensures sufficient user access, transparency, accountability, and quality assurance. This report presents a review of a subset of Arctic domains that could benefit from some level of standardization. Standards are typically technical documents, while standardization is a human process that takes place in an ecosystem of interrelated and interdependent human actors, institutions, norms, and practices (including standards), technologies, information objects, and relationships. To enhance standards adoption, it is equally important to understand the ecosystem and its subsystems (general kinds of things, linkages and flows in the system) and the details of its interacting parts (e.g. the specific organizations, technologies, people and their needs). To manage this complex task, the report introduces a relatively simple framework, supported by emerging advanced information structures (linked open data represented using the Resource Description Framework, ontologies) that help to document and understand the ecosystem to support standards development, maintenance, and implementation. Section 2 establishes that standardization is a challenging and complex process. The term standard can be vague: some may see a standard as a formal set of documents and compliance process, while others see a set of rules or agreements established by a “community” that are based on norms and ethical behaviors. In this broad gradation, there is overlap between more formal top-down standards and bottom-up community developed “conventions” or “best practices”. To add to the complexity in the Arctic context, standards do not exist in a single research or social domain. Research includes many disciplines, the peoples of the Arctic and focusing on many economic, social, and research opportunities. Governments have a mandate to cover all aspects of the Arctic at the same time as the world experiences dramatic environmental, social and geopolitical change. Section 3 documents the methods used to start the process of developing an arctic standards framework. The initial scope (modified due to COVID-19) included extensive in-person community engagement. The primary method used was a systematic literature review focused on four key domains relevant to standardization: cross-cutting themes, observing, safety and data. Literature reviewed was stored in an online bibliographic database and will be made available for community use through the CAPARDUS website. CAPARDUS Deliverable D1.2 Version 1.1 22 November 2023 page 3 Section 4 presents the results of the work package analysis. Cross-cutting themes such as governance and Indigenous knowledge comprise many entities relevant to enhancing standardization. In the case of governance, the lack of a centralized arctic governance regime makes standardization challenging. Similarly, increasing recognition of Indigenous Knowledge and related topics such as Indigenous data sovereignty and ethical use of representation of Indigenous Knowledge, highlights the critical importance of including Indigenous peoples and their representative organizations in the standardization dialogue. Analysis of the observing system revealed similar patterns. Observing networks and other programs and projects that are relevant to and could act as hubs and provide a foundation for standardization already exist and need to be harnessed. The situation is similar in the domain of arctic data. Relevant organizations within and outside of the arctic community already exist, however, areas such as governance need to be enhanced to move to the next stage of meaningful standardization. Standardization in the areas of operations, hazard response, shipping, and tourism would greatly enhance safety. There are many challenges in achieving safety-related standardization including adequate education and training, funding and recognition of the significant risks posed by failure to establish standards (e.g. sub-optimal to totally inadequate hazard response). Section 4 identifies many concepts important to standardization, and many individual projects, programs and initiatives that are relevant to standardization. These concepts (e.g. governance) and individuals (e.g. the Arctic Data Committee) have existing relationships, or require that relationships be established. These concepts, individuals and relationships are documented and discussed, including references to related resources. A key result of this section is the revelation of the breadth and complexity of the human and technical systems implicated in standards and standardization. Section 5 proposes a method for documenting and understanding an arctic standards framework that represents the various relevant systems of organizations, individuals, technologies etc. Due to the breadth, depth and complexity of the systems involved, a simple report documentation method is not adequate nor able to capture the dynamic nature of standardization through updates. A graph database model that uses the established and standard Resource Description Framework is presented. This prototype-database captures the key concepts (classes), individuals and relationships in the systems as documented in Section 4. This knowledge graph (database) can be a dynamic framework to enhance standardization. Section 6 presents several key results that are critically important in establishing a framework for arctics standardization, among others: • Implementing standards requires a deep understanding of the domain of interest (e.g. observing, safety, a research discipline) to select the appropriate type of standard and standardization process required. What works for one community of practice may not work for another. • The Arctic is comprises many domains including communities with Indigenous and non-Indigenous residents, multiple governance models, operational environments, research with many individual disciplines and sub-disciplines, civil society actors, and many social, economic, and environmental dimensions. This complexity prevents development of a simple standards framework for the Arctic. • A standards framework requires a practical model that can document and analyse this complex system to identify the nodes or entities (standards, people, organizations) that can play a role in enhancing standardization. This must be a “living” model that engages the community in its construction and is regularly updated to reflect the situation at any given time. • There are many existing frameworks, programs, projects, and activities that can be leveraged to enhance standardization. In the domains surveyed, there would be little need to establish new organizations or standards bodies to move forward. • A graph database using the RDF Model is a practical method for documenting and analysing the arctic standards ecosystem. The prototype-database created in CAPARDUS will be made public through the project website, with supporting tools in GitHub. A working group will be proposed under the Arctic Data Committee to continue the development of the CAPARDUS framework in line with recommendations of the Third Arctic Science Ministerial.