Establishing a data model that facilitates the sharing of information from ICGLR member states to a central data repository, and could be used as support for the sharing of information within the ICGLR member states and systems, is a strategic endeavor with long-term implications, as well as direct short-term impact on the implementation of the data sharing solution system.
Based on direct discussions with representatives of the ICGLR member states, it can be concluded that there is no standardization in place related to the mining data models used at the level of the countries, between countries, or between countries and ICGLR.
While the Regional Minerals Database was aimed as the collector of information, in practice this cannot be attained in the current status of data management, lack of uniform digitalization and lack of data standardization. Manual data input record-by-record and import of Excel are inefficient methods that are not sustainable and are not proven to be viable in practice.
In addition, in many mine-site and field contexts, real-time reporting cannot be assumed due to low bandwidth or intermittent connectivity. Therefore, the data exchange approach should support offline data capture with secure local storage, followed by batch synchronization once connectivity is available, including automated validation, de-duplication, and error handling during sync to preserve data quality and auditability.
The member states have voiced their need to benefit from a standardized data model that can be applied not only to the data exchange required for the reporting and data consolidation of specific data as required by the RCM, but also to have a standard that can also be used internally in-country, to facilitate the interoperability between the systems run by the state (such as the mining cadastre, the national minerals database, the systems of the private actors active in the CoC).
However, it should be avoided to have a proliferation of national data models which would not be compatible with each other and that would diverge from an accepted data model at the level of ICGLR.
Therefore, the standardization should cover the following dimensions:
- Data storage at the level of ICGLR, for consistency, audit, and control of data sharing
- Data acquisition from the systems of the member states, in an automated way
- Systems interoperability at the level of each country
It was also revealed that the current data structures used by the systems and processes for data collection at the level of each country are not in strict adherence with the data fields of the RCM. While most information required by RCM can be reconstructed for reporting purposes, the national systems capture and store additional data related to the main data entities described in the RCM.
Having two different data models — one for internal (national) use, and one for external reporting to ICGLR — is feasible, as long as all information required by the latter is included in the former. Such an approach requires a data mapping process when the data is prepared to be reported to ICGLR. However, a more effective approach would be to strive for compatibility between the models.
This can be achieved by establishing rules for data model derivation and extension, from a common model to a country model, such localization of standards being a common practice in technical standardization.
The member states mentioned that they would gladly adhere to a common data model that they can implement directly into their national minerals database following the model of the regional minerals database and add, if required, additional fields that have meaning only in the national context, or restrict by specification the way certain data fields are used in order to comply with the national regulations and practices.
It could also be envisioned that the ICGLR data model can directly extend the specific requirements of the RCM by including data attributes that are commonly used in practice, that are useful for all or most countries and that could be harmonized, to allow a direct semantic interoperability between the national and the regional systems.
Such data entities and attributes that are useful for all or most countries can be further identified. Some illustrative examples are:
- For the Mine Site, countries would like to retain in the same data format other minerals that might not be included in the short list of designated minerals.
- For the License, countries would like to include data attributes that are not required specifically by RCM but need to be collected and made available, including publicly through the mining cadastre applications, such as: Date Applied, Date Granted, Date expiring, Covered Commodities, and Surface.
The technical specifications for the Regional Minerals Database also illustrate the need or opportunity to add additional attributes to the fields defined by RCM. For example, the RMD technical specification mentions that a Mine Site Location can be given as “Polygon”, an array of geographic coordinates that encompass the mine site — a variant not included in the RCM.
The proposed approach is focused on a pure semantic method, that can be used as a full ontology, independent of the technical means of representation and allowing different technologies to be used for data storage, transmission, visualization and processing.
