Telecon 04.08.14 materials

From Federation of Earth Science Information Partners
Revision as of 11:55, 10 April 2014 by Wclenhardt (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

Below is a strawman set of slides/talking points based on our conversation today.

(Our manifesto that was presented to the BRDI is here: http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/File:BRDI_draft_03.11.14.docx.)


SLIDE: Our recommendation

In our manifesto presented to the BRDI we wrote:

"These challenges are potential opportunities to achieve progress in science, innovation, the economy, and broader society. To actually capture the value of our data, the Federation of Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP Federation or ESIP) calls upon the National Research Council (NRC) to conduct a study to determine strategic priorities for the scientific data enterprise. NRC surveys are considered the gold standard for advice on research programming [DSSS 2007] and offer an authoritative and unbiased assessment for strategic scientific investments. This study would inform and guide decision makers in the government, academia, and industry in helping to improve their practices and priorities for managing scientific data, giving the U.S. a boost in all impacted arenas.

This study should:

  • Synthesize and analyze prior work in data management/infrastructure, such as, what was successful, what was not successful, and why has this not been sufficient?
  • Take a broad perspective of the value of the scientific data enterprise and the infrastructure that supports it from the perspectives of societal benefit, economic competitiveness, and other important values
  • Provide a vision of what might be, then prioritize with conclusions and recommendations."

[What should we actually put here? I'm uncomfortable with this section. If we keep this entire quotation I'm afraid we'll get down in the weeds with this. -Anne]


SLIDE: We heard these issues from the BRDI

1) How would this study be different from past reports? Why would it be any more successful?

2) The linkage between scientific data and national interests is weak

3) The audience - who wants it? who would lisiten? who would pay?

4) With respect to the draft, the title was not descriptive of the content


SLIDE: How would this study be different from past reports? Why would it be any more successful?

  • Will build on previous studies; synthesize existing, but go beyond
  • Focuses on cross domain and agency interoperability needed to address problems of societal interest
  • Argue we need a big[ger] leap, as incremental changes are not sufficiently meeting our needs


SLIDE: The linkage between scientific data and national interests is weak

  • Scientific data are used in: science, economics, disaster response, climate change planning,
    • These are cross cutting problems that span domains and agencies
    • Need to facilitate longitudinal, cross disciplinary studies
  • Scientific data provide: jobs, ROI, good economic sense
  • We need a national, robust scientific data infrastructure, but lack the capabilities to support that


SLIDE: The audience - who wants it? who would listen? who would pay?

  • Researchers need help
    • The 80/20 rule - 80% of the resources spent in data management, 20% on science
    • Many scientists report not using a data set because it was too hard to access or understand
  • Agencies need help
    • Agencies are continually being asked to manage more data with less funding
    • Funding is not sustained or reliable
  • "OSTP is already working on open data"
    • Validates one point of our argument
    • Our scope also includes: discovery, understandability, citation, transparency,
    • Changing of administrations means possibility exists that that effort would tabled


SLIDE: With respect to the draft, the title was not descriptive of the content

We struggle with a brief but meaningful description.


SLIDE: Next steps?

??

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox