Search

Documento conclusivo e programmatico del Primo convegno nazionale del gruppo di lavoro Openscience della Consulta dei presidenti degli enti pubblici di ricerca. https://agenda.infn.it/e/ConvegnoOpenscienceCoPER2022

Programma di lavoro del gruppo Openscience della CoPER (già ConPER)

The Open Data model requires that scientific publications results, produced by research organizations or institutes must be freely accessible and usable by anyone, with the only constraint of citing the source. This approach has driven research institutions to publish their scientific products through an operation called “deposit”, on self-managed and self-maintained web portals that represent institutional databases according to the Open Access directives. Among the key operations carried out by the INGV Osservatorio Etneo (OE), there is the gathering and collection of data from the data- acquisition instruments scattered throughout its competence area; these data cataloged in sets, called datasets, on the basis of discrete values such as: examined phenomenon, its time interval and its geolocation. Following the Open Access directives for the publication of these datasets, the OE adopts an implementation of the aforementioned databases, also known as data repositories or digital archives. The implementation described in this document, called DataRep, is based on the Zenodo portal: an open-source software for the implementation of a multidisciplinary repository maintained by CERN. This document describes the result of the collaboration between the OE and the INGV Ufficio Gestione Dati, specifically the interaction between the DataRep software - implemented by the OE by customizing and adapting the Zenodo software - and the Metadata Editor, the official tool for publishing scientific products adopted by INGV. DataRep allows to automatically obtain a landing page associated to each dataset, resolvable through the public DOI published through the Metadata Editor., Il modello Open Data prevede che le pubblicazioni di risultati scientifici da parte di enti o istituti di ricerca siano liberamente accessibili e fruibili da chiunque, con l’unico vincolo di citarne la fonte. Questo approccio ha spinto gli enti di ricerca a pubblicare i propri prodotti scientifici tramite un’operazione definita “deposito”, su portali web auto­gestiti e auto­ mantenuti che rappresentano delle banche dati istituzionali secondo le direttive del paradigma Open Access. Tra le operazioni chiave che l’Osservatorio Etneo (OE) svolge, vi è la raccolta di dati provenienti sia dalle strumentazioni di acquisizione dati disseminate sul territorio di competenza, sia da misure ed elaborazioni dei dati raccolti; tali dati vengono catalogati in insiemi, definiti datasets, in base a valori discreti quali ad esempio: il tipo di fenomeno esaminato, il suo intervallo di tempo e la sua geolocalizzazione. Seguendo le direttive Open Access per la pubblicazione di tali dataset, l’Osservatorio Etneo adotta una implementazione delle suddette banche dati, altresì dette repository di dati o archivi digitali. Tale implementazione, chiamata DataRep e descritta in questo documento, è basata sul portale Zenodo, un software open-source per l’implementazione di un repository multidisciplinare mantenuto dal CERN. Il lavoro descritto in questo documento è frutto della collaborazione dell’Osservatorio Etneo e dell’Ufficio Gestione Dati, ed in particolare dell’interazione tra i software DataRep ­ implementato dall’OE personalizzando ed adattando il software Zenodo ­ e del Metadata Editor, strumento ufficiale per la pubblicazione scientifica da parte dell’ente. DataRep permette di ottenere una landing-page automaticamente associata e risolvibile tramite DOI pubblico per ogni dataset pubblicato tramite il Metadata Editor.

This paper proposes a new study of the important seismic sequence that struck central Italy starting from January 1703. The sequence is currently quoted in the seismic catalogs with three main shocks that occurred between January 14th and February 2nd of that year, with magnitudes ranging between 6.0 and 6.9. Despite the already vast corpus of documentation and the extensive bibliography, due to the studies carried out between the 80s and 90s of the last century, the knowledge of this seismic sequence can be still improved. For this reason, an in‐depth study was undertaken with a twofold objective: first to re‐examine what was already known, starting from known sources, secondly to enrich the documentary resources to increase the number of intensity points, with new data. Information from approximately 390 locations was then analyzed, including more than 150 locations not included in the reference study of the sequence. The results of this new assessment are based on a chronological reconstruction hypothesis of the shocks of the sequence that, when assigning macroseismic intensity, considers the impact of damage progression due to multiple shocks. Through this approach, the shocks already quoted in the catalogs are reassessed as faithfully as possible, with a richer framework of knowledge than in the past. The intensity assessment (EMS‐98) has allowed building a new and richer macroseismic dataset and proposing a new interpretation of the sequence, at the same time highlighting the problems that affect the uncertainty in the intensity., Questo lavoro propone un nuovo studio sulla importante sequenza sismica che colpì l’Italia centrale a partire dal gennaio 1703. La sequenza è attualmente attestata nei cataloghi sismici con tre scosse principali avvenute tra il 14 gennaio e il 2 febbraio di quell’anno, con magnitudo comprese tra 6.0 e 6.9. Nonostante il già vasto corpus documentale e l’ampia bibliografia a riguardo, dovuta agli studi svolti fra gli anni 80 e 90 del secolo scorso, la conoscenza di questa sequenza sismica riservava ancora buoni margini di miglioramento. Per questo motivo è stato intrapreso uno studio di lungo periodo con un duplice obiettivo: da una parte riesaminare quanto già noto, a partire dalle fonti conosciute, dall’altra arricchire il patrimonio documentale, e incrementare il numero di osservazioni macrosismiche, con nuove ricerche di base. Sono state quindi analizzate le informazioni relative a circa 390 località, di cui oltre 150 non presenti nello studio di riferimento della sequenza. I risultati di questa nuova valutazione si basano su un’ipotesi di ricostruzione cronologica delle scosse della sequenza che, al momento dell’assegnazione dell’intensità macrosismica, tiene conto dell’impatto del cumulo dei danni dovuto a scosse multiple. Tramite questo approccio sono state ricostruite, il più fedelmente possibile, le scosse già quotate nei cataloghi, appoggiandosi ad un quadro delle conoscenze più ricco che in passato. L’assegnazione dell’intensità (EMS-98) ha permesso di costruire un nuovo e più ricco dataset macrosismico e di proporre una nuova interpretazione della sequenza mettendo in luce le problematiche inerenti l’assegnazione delle intensità.

A cycle of four webinars on Open Science and Open Access for earth and environmental sciences, with discipline-specifictools and practical resources. Course outline: Module 1: - Introduction and motivations -Open Science in Solid Earth Science Module 2: - Research Data Management -OS in solid Earth sciences: the EPOS research infrastructure experience Module 3: -FAIR principles and Open Data -Implementing FAIR. Considerations from the solid Earth domain Module 4: - The Data Management Plan -The adoption of Open Science Paradigm at INGV - Practical Tips Scientific committee: Maria Silvia Giamberini, IGG/CNR Gina Pavone, ISTI/CNR

The report summarises the views expressed by the Italian Computing and Data Initiative (ICDI) in response to the open consultation for the EOSC Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda (SRIA), closed on the 31st of August. It provides insightful input and suggestions about the current draft of the SRIA document shared with the wider EOSC community, with the aim of helping to shape the future vision of the European Open Science Cloud.

The final summary report is addressed to professional stakeholders and presents the background, mission and main achievements of the SERA (Seismology and Earthquake Engineering Research Alliance for Europe) project. SERA’s networking activities were shaped to pool know-how, data, and tools to facilitate exchange between professionals and researchers from different fields. For this purpose, SERA organized several workshops for teachers, engineers and the interested public. SERA offered access to the largest collection of high-class experimental facilities for earthquake engineering in Europe to talented researchers from both academia and industry. The research facilities comprise reaction walls, shaking tables, facilities for integrated studies on geotechnical site effects and engineering seismology as well as an infrastructure for array seismology. SERA facilitated access to data and products of seismology, engineering seismology and anthropogenic seismicity to help seismologists understand the nature of earthquakes. SERA contributed to answering the question of how earthquakes start and evolve with multi-disciplinary science and joint research activities targeted on pooling data and expertise. SERA also delivered hazard and risk related products, which were based on the integration of competences from different domains. This summary report is part of SERA project that has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 730900., JRC.E.4-Safety and Security of Buildings

This paper illustrates the results of a research conducted during a Master’s degree entitled “Master in Management of Research, Innovation and Technology”, organised by the Graduate School of Business, run by the Politecnico di Milano, between February 2016 and July 2017. The research goal was to map the complex system supporting the “Open Science” paradigm and the so-called “Big Data”, with a particular focus on the Italian research environment, where INGV (Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia) operates. In addition to transferring the necessary expertise on the management of the innovation and the technology transfer, the Master’s degree offered the unique chance to encounter and exchange experiences with people operating at different levels, fields and environments, such as universities, research centres, ministries, and private companies. The three authors of this paper reflect the heterogeneous audience of the Master’s courses, with a lawyer working at the Italian Ministry of Education, Universities and Research active in the field of European Research Infrastructures, and two technologist working at INGV, one managing seismological data, and the other working as a chief engineer of the data centre in Bologna. The -very- different backgrounds of the three authors, allowed the exploration of the Open Science paradigm and the use of the Big Data in modern Science, mastering regulatory, scientific and technological aspects. To achieve a complete mapping, the authors underwent an extensive bibliographical search, and took advantage of their respective experience matured in their professional activities. The result is a comprehensive, interdisciplinary analysis, meant to give food for thought and clear suggestions to decision makers, supporting them in a more proactive, efficient, planning., Questo lavoro presenta i risultati di una ricerca condotta dagli autori nell’ambito delle attività della quarta edizione del “Master in Management of Research, Innovation and Technology” tenutosi presso la Fondazione MIP del Politecnico di Milano da febbraio 2016 a luglio 2017. Oggetto dell’indagine è la mappatura del sistema complesso che ruota attorno al nuovo paradigma dell’Open Science e al mondo dei Big Data, con particolare riferimento alla realtà italiana e alle attività in cui è coinvolto l’Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia. Il master, oltre a nozioni teoriche e pratiche per la gestione dell’innovazione e del trasferimento tecnologico, ha offerto l’opportunità di confrontarsi con persone che si occupano di questi argomenti all’interno di realtà istituzionali nazionali ed europee come università, istituti di ricerca e aziende private. Gli autori del presente testo sono uno specchio di questa eterogeneità, con una persona che si occupa di infrastrutture di ricerca a livello ministeriale, un tecnologo INGV che si occupa della gestione e valorizzazione di banche dati sismologiche e un altro tecnologo INGV che si occupa della gestione di un Centro Elaborazione Dati (CED) per il supporto e lo sviluppo di servizi informatici per la vulcanologia, la geofisica e l’oceanografia. Le diverse competenze hanno permesso di indagare aspetti complementari dell’Open Science e dei Big Data sotto punti di vista diversi, toccando aspetti normativi, scientifici, gestionali, informatici e infrastrutturali. Ciascun aspetto è stato analizzato tramite un’approfondita ricerca bibliografica, l’esperienza personale degli autori maturata nelle loro attività professionali e grazie al supporto di esperti del settore, cercando di volta in volta di individuare opportunità e criticità, e tentando una mediazione continua tra linguaggi e punti di vista a volte molto diversi. Il risultato è un’analisi interdisciplinare che potrà offrire spunti di riflessione e, si auspica, possa aiutare a permettere una più efficiente pianificazione delle attività.

GEM Technical Report 2013-01, Geological, Earthquake and Geophysical Data, In one sense, all seismology is the study of historical earthquakes. Earthquakes are short-lived phenomena; over within a couple of minutes at most, well before the seismologist can arrive on the scene. Every earthquake is history, albeit recent history, by the time it can be studied. This inability to observe an earthquake in real time has coloured the development of seismology as a science. In lieu of direct observation, scientists have been obliged to rely on secondary phenomena, or to put it another way, on traces left by the earthquake. These can be grouped into three: permanent marks left on the landscape, written descriptions of the effects of an earthquake, and the recordings made by instruments specifically designed to register the movement of the ground during an earthquake. These three different types of data are the three pillars on which seismological knowledge rests. The relative importance of these three data types in reconstructing the patterns of global seismicity varies over time. For the 20th century, instrumental data is the richest source of information on which a catalogue of earthquakes can be built. Before the 20th century, written descriptions take over as the primary data source, back as far as written history goes, after which geological data is the source of information for earthquakes in prehistoric time. It should be no surprise then, to someone introduced to the work of the Global Earthquake Model (GEM), to find three major subprojects on geological data (Faulted Earth), on historical information (Global Earthquake History), and instrumental data (Instrumental Earthquake Catalogue). This report is the output of two years of activity in the second of these, the Global Earthquake History (GEH). The study of earthquakes from historical sources, or historical seismology, was for many decades of the 20th century a neglected subject. It seemed to many seismologists of the period that all necessary information could be obtained from seismometers. The impulse to treat historical seismology more seriously came from the development of seismic hazard studies, beginning in the 1970s, when it was realised that understanding of earthquake recurrence required a longer time history than instrumental data could provide. The difficulty has been (and this is true of the period before 1970 as well) that the impulse to study historical earthquakes has come from seismologists, who naturally are trained in the physical sciences, whereas the study of historical records requires expertise from the social sciences. Many blunders have been committed in the past by physics-trained seismologists misinterpreting documents through a lack of the skills of the historian. The solution has been to recruit some seismologists with a social sciences background, and to interact directly with the community of professional historians. This has been facilitated in Europe by a series of international projects funded by the EU, which, by bringing together the specialists from different European countries, have strengthened links, and allowed the development of a mutually-supporting community of experts across the continent. In these projects, INGV has played a leading role, unsurprisingly given that Italy is the most seismically active country with the richest history in Europe. GEH exploits in a large degree the expertise gained in European projects over the last 25 years. Elsewhere in the world, the situation varies greatly, both in terms of the amount and types of material available for study, and the effort, past and present, put into retrieving and exploiting it. A global synthesis of the pre-20th century earthquake history of the world is therefore a huge challenge. In compiling an instrumental earthquake catalogue, one can take advantage of the fact that the basic materials, seismograms and bulletins, are international in nature, easily accessed and interpreted. A historical catalogue faces the problem that basic source materials are scattered and obscure, and in a plethora of different languages and scripts, while existing secondary studies vary hugely in quality and organisation. In some parts of the world it is easy to identify local experts with whom one can collaborate, in other places these do not even exist. With these constraints, a circumspect approach to GEH was necessary. The project has therefore been conceived in such a way as to provide both a snapshot of the status quo of historical seismology as it exists today across the globe, and also a framework for future initiatives, that will support further work to improve understanding of historical seismicity (much needed in some regions). The project is thus structured around three complementary deliverables: archive, catalogue and infrastructure. The Global Historical Earthquake Archive (GHEA) is the most important of the three, in providing a complete (so far as is possible) account of the global situation in historical seismology, with all existing studies of historical earthquakes collected together in a syncretised way, retrievable either by earthquake or region. It is truly a global survey of historical seismology as it exists at present. The Global Historical Earthquake Catalogue (GHEC) is a world catalogue of earthquakes for the period 1000-1903, with magnitude 7 Mw and over (less in some regions), derived from GHEA by a process of comparing the sets of parameters available for each earthquake and selecting the best-attested. This delivers to GEM the best global historical catalogue of large earthquakes presently available, with the best parameters selected, duplications and fakes removed, and in some cases, new earthquakes discovered. Finally, the infrastructure consists of web software that allows the archive and catalogue to be stored, maintained, displayed and interrogated in an intuitive way, by means of easy-to-use web GIS tools., ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................... i ABSTRACT ...................................................................... ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................. iv LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................. vii LIST OF TABLES ................................................................. x 1 Global Historical Earthquake Archive (1000-1903) ............................. 1 1.1 Structure and contents of the Archive ...................................... 1 1.2 Macroseismic Data Points ................................................... 3 1.3 Fakes ...................................................................... 5 2 Analysis of the Archive Contents by Geographical Area........................ 26 2.1 A global perspective ...................................................... 26 2.2 The Americas .............................................................. 28 2.2.1 Canada and United States of America ..................................... 28 2.2.2 Mexico (excluding Chiapas) .............................................. 29 2.2.3 Central America and Chiapas ............................................. 30 2.2.4 Antilles ................................................................ 32 2.2.5 South America ........................................................... 33 2.3 Europe .................................................................... 36 2.4 North Africa .............................................................. 39 2.4.1 The Maghreb ............................................................. 39 2.4.2 Tunisia, Libya and western Egypt ........................................ 42 2.5 Sub-Saharan Africa ........................................................ 42 2.5.1 East Africa Rift ........................................................ 43 2.5.2 West African Craton ..................................................... 45 2.5.3 Earthquakes in south and south-western Africa and the Atlantic .......... 46 2.5.4 The wandering earthquake of 4 June 1903 ................................. 46 2.6 Turkey, the Middle East and Iran .......................................... 49 2.6.1 Central and Eastern Turkey .............................................. 49 2.6.2 The 17 August 1668 North Anatolia earthquake ............................ 51 2.6.3 The Dead Sea system, the Red Sea, Egypt, and Arabia ..................... 52 2.6.4 Iran and Iraq ........................................................... 54 2.7 Russia, Caucasus and Central Asia ......................................... 56 2.7.1 Russia .................................................................. 56 2.7.2 Caucasus ................................................................ 59 2.7.3 Central Asia ............................................................ 60 2.8 South Asia and the Himalayas .............................................. 61 2.8.1 Afghanistan and Pakistan ................................................ 61 2.8.2 Peninsular India and Bangladesh (excluding Himalayas) ................... 62 2.8.3 Northern India and the Himalaya ......................................... 64 2.9 China ..................................................................... 66 2.10 Japan and Korean peninsula ............................................... 70 2.10.1 Japan .................................................................. 70 2.10.2 Korean peninsula ....................................................... 73 2.11 South-East Asia and the Philippines ...................................... 75 2.11.1 South-East Asia excluding Burma ........................................ 75 2.11.2 Burma .................................................................. 78 2.11.3 Philippines ............................................................ 80 2.12 Indonesia ................................................................ 83 2.12.1 Data Sources ........................................................... 83 2.12.2 Parameters ............................................................. 84 2.12.3 Notes on New Earthquakes ............................................... 86 2.12.4 Discussion ............................................................. 88 2.13 Australia, New Zealand and the South Pacific ............................. 89 2.13.1 Australia .............................................................. 90 2.13.2 New Zealand ............................................................ 92 2.13.3 South Pacific .......................................................... 96 2.13.4 The earthquake of 19 September 1902 .................................... 98 3 Global Historical Earthquake Catalogue (M≥7.0, 1000-1903) ................... 99 3.1 Strategy in Catalogue compilation ......................................... 99 3.2 The Catalogue ............................................................ 101 3.2.1 Earthquake parameters .................................................. 101 3.2.2 Format ................................................................. 106 3.3 Results .................................................................. 106 3.4 Improvements on previous catalogues ...................................... 109 4 Completeness of GHEC ....................................................... 118 4.1 Approach ................................................................. 118 4.2 Analysis ................................................................. 118 4.2.1 Alaska and the Pacific Northwest ....................................... 119 4.2.2 California ............................................................. 120 4.2.3 Mexico ................................................................. 120 4.2.4 Central America ........................................................ 121 4.2.5 Caribbean .............................................................. 121 4.2.6 South America .......................................................... 122 4.2.7 Europe ................................................................. 122 4.2.8 Middle East ............................................................ 123 4.2.9 Iran ................................................................... 124 4.2.10 Central Asia .......................................................... 124 4.2.11 India ................................................................. 125 4.2.12 China ................................................................. 125 4.2.13 Japan ................................................................. 126 4.2.14 Philippines ........................................................... 126 4.2.15 The Sunda Arc ......................................................... 127 4.2.16 The Moluccas .......................................................... 128 5 IT Infrastructure .......................................................... 129 5.1 Accessing the Archive .................................................... 129 5.1.1 General view ........................................................... 129 5.1.2 Detailed view .......................................................... 131 5.2 Technical solutions and standards ........................................ 134 5.2.1 Managing the Global Historical Earthquake Archive content .............. 135 5.2.2 Further notes on the macroseismic intensity data format ................ 137 5.2.3 The GEH website ........................................................ 139 6 Future Prospects for GEH ................................................... 140 REFERENCES ................................................................... 143 APPENDIX A Online Resources on Historical Earthquake Data ...................... I APPENDIX B Glossary.......................................................... XVII