Difference between revisions of "External Relations"
From Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP)
Carolbmeyer (talk | contribs) |
Carolbmeyer (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
*ESIP is uniquely positioned at intersection of science and technology | *ESIP is uniquely positioned at intersection of science and technology | ||
| + | <br> | ||
| + | <br> | ||
| + | *Should Data Management be its own academic discipline? | ||
| + | |||
==='''Recommendations:'''=== | ==='''Recommendations:'''=== | ||
Revision as of 14:52, October 15, 2008
Subgroup Members:
- Chris Lenhardt
- Stefan Falke
Issues to Be Addressed:
- Interfacing with other organizations – national & international (AGU, EGY, GEO, CEOS, ISRSE, others?) – how do we support our efforts in this? ESIP ambassadors; distinctions between wearing multiple hats; collaborations
- Map relationships across organizations; what’s the landscape (concept map development tool)
- Training for and Engagement of Next Generation of Data Managers – academic discipline; stewardship
Discussion:
- Should we interface? Yes! The listed group represents a good start. But, these should not be the universe - where are the smaller, lesser known organizations (e.g. less formally structured groups like the EPA Data Summit; domain experts)
- How to handle overlap among different groups? Connections are important to make & are being loosely made. CEOS wanted to make connections to Sensor Web and GEO. CEOS formed an Atmospheric Science Interest Group to make connections among/between groups.
- GEOSS Air Quality Community of Practice - is the ESIP Federation limited as a domestic organization? or can we/should we play internationally?
- ESSI focus groups at AGU, EGU
- ESIP is uniquely positioned at intersection of science and technology
- Should Data Management be its own academic discipline?
