Difference between revisions of "Sustainable Data Management/20160720 ESIP summer mtg"
From Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP)
Cynthia.parr (talk | contribs) |
Cynthia.parr (talk | contribs) |
||
| (29 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
===Recommendations for registries=== | ===Recommendations for registries=== | ||
| + | * send out reminder to update the registry record regularly | ||
| + | * promote the business card standard | ||
| + | * work to standardize the APIs that journals use to communicate with repositories | ||
| + | * consider opening up correction process to anybody with confirmation by recordholder | ||
| + | * note that some metadata about a repository may live in different registries (e.g. COPDESS doesn't have info about technical services but Council for Data Federation might and so does DataONE -- so registries should ensure linkage across the relevant records | ||
| + | * work with Shelley to improve the currency of the data in re3data | ||
| + | * make sure that the fields we would need for the services | ||
| + | |||
===Recommendations for repositories=== | ===Recommendations for repositories=== | ||
* take an active role in bringing COPDESS messages to your institution | * take an active role in bringing COPDESS messages to your institution | ||
| + | * create a standards compliant business card | ||
| + | * use re3data as the authoritative source | ||
| + | * validate your record in COPDESS (where you can own your record) | ||
| + | * adopt an existing API rather than developing one of your own | ||
| + | * use loose coupling so submission or authentication systems or other subsystems could be used across groups | ||
| + | * start with small steps to participate in an aggregated network, incrementally improve | ||
| + | * leverage added value from aggregators for things like data citation | ||
===Recommendations for liaisons=== | ===Recommendations for liaisons=== | ||
| + | * develop a set of questions to help narrow the list of options based on Margaret's questions | ||
| + | * hope for consolidation to streamline the options in the longer term | ||
| + | * help registries to track the right kind of info | ||
| + | |||
===Next steps for landscape analysis=== | ===Next steps for landscape analysis=== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * will need to get metadata from re3data & COPDESS and CDF (sounds like they are just starting to develop their registry which may have technical info) | ||
| + | * List the predominant standards eg APIs, ORCID, etc. | ||
| + | * help to comment on Erin's and Shelley's flower diagram to make it better for understanding roles and their touchpoints | ||
| + | * look for opportunities to streamline the landscape and fulfill the needs of different perspectives | ||
| + | * summarize surveys about measuring these outcomes and the gaps (work with the ROI group | ||
| + | * Shelley's graphic: could use libraries and business venn bubbles. | ||
| + | * consider the collective approach -- sustain the network of landscape of repositories | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Common technical vision=== | ||
| + | * concern that lots of funding goes to developing bells and whistles (map viewers, authentication systems) and not to new added value | ||
| + | * try to minimize overlaps | ||
| + | * ensure that investment really increases the amount of data available and the ability to access it no matter what repository | ||
| + | * streamline the following for economy of scale: | ||
| + | ** data quality | ||
| + | ** authentication | ||
| + | ** standards for metadata exchange & web services | ||
| + | ** author identifiers | ||
| + | ** helpdesk support (see ScienceGateways.org set up to help set up computational gateways and web-based resource <--nancy wilkins-deer) | ||
| + | ** data preservation (connect with the data stewardship group) | ||
| + | ** citation | ||
| + | ** compliance mechanisms | ||
| + | ** search interfaces | ||
| + | ** ROI framework | ||
| + | ** business models | ||
| + | ** A common place to communicate (this cluster) including stories of how people are using data | ||
Latest revision as of 09:28, July 22, 2016
- ESIP summer meeting
- landscape: http://commons.esipfed.org/node/9139
Agenda
Abstract and uploaded talks: http://commons.esipfed.org/node/9139
Speakers, from 3 points of view (<10 min each):
- Kerstin Lehnert - Repository Registries (COPDESS-Re3Data)
- Matt Jones - Repositories aggregators (Data ONE)
- Margaret O'Brien - Contributors (liaison, perspective from Researchers)
- Also to discuss, Shelley Stall's visualization at ...link...
For each talk and following, we are discussing the following questions.
- How open are each of these repositories to new or outside data?
- What will it take so can we get more data in repositories?
- How to guide people to the right repository?
- Additional fields to add to the registry to help? E.g. Certifications. (http://gfzpublic.gfz-potsdam.de/pubman/item/escidoc:1397899:6/component/escidoc:1398549/re3data_schema_documentation_v3_0.pdf)
- Any obvious gaps in services that we know of?
Attending
Notes
Outcomes of today's discussions
Recommendations for registries
- send out reminder to update the registry record regularly
- promote the business card standard
- work to standardize the APIs that journals use to communicate with repositories
- consider opening up correction process to anybody with confirmation by recordholder
- note that some metadata about a repository may live in different registries (e.g. COPDESS doesn't have info about technical services but Council for Data Federation might and so does DataONE -- so registries should ensure linkage across the relevant records
- work with Shelley to improve the currency of the data in re3data
- make sure that the fields we would need for the services
Recommendations for repositories
- take an active role in bringing COPDESS messages to your institution
- create a standards compliant business card
- use re3data as the authoritative source
- validate your record in COPDESS (where you can own your record)
- adopt an existing API rather than developing one of your own
- use loose coupling so submission or authentication systems or other subsystems could be used across groups
- start with small steps to participate in an aggregated network, incrementally improve
- leverage added value from aggregators for things like data citation
Recommendations for liaisons
- develop a set of questions to help narrow the list of options based on Margaret's questions
- hope for consolidation to streamline the options in the longer term
- help registries to track the right kind of info
Next steps for landscape analysis
- will need to get metadata from re3data & COPDESS and CDF (sounds like they are just starting to develop their registry which may have technical info)
- List the predominant standards eg APIs, ORCID, etc.
- help to comment on Erin's and Shelley's flower diagram to make it better for understanding roles and their touchpoints
- look for opportunities to streamline the landscape and fulfill the needs of different perspectives
- summarize surveys about measuring these outcomes and the gaps (work with the ROI group
- Shelley's graphic: could use libraries and business venn bubbles.
- consider the collective approach -- sustain the network of landscape of repositories
Common technical vision
- concern that lots of funding goes to developing bells and whistles (map viewers, authentication systems) and not to new added value
- try to minimize overlaps
- ensure that investment really increases the amount of data available and the ability to access it no matter what repository
- streamline the following for economy of scale:
- data quality
- authentication
- standards for metadata exchange & web services
- author identifiers
- helpdesk support (see ScienceGateways.org set up to help set up computational gateways and web-based resource <--nancy wilkins-deer)
- data preservation (connect with the data stewardship group)
- citation
- compliance mechanisms
- search interfaces
- ROI framework
- business models
- A common place to communicate (this cluster) including stories of how people are using data
