Interagency Data Stewardship/LifeCycle/Preservation Forum/TeleconNotes/20100811
- 1 Data Preservation and Stewardship Telecon – August 11, 2010
- 1.1 Present
- 1.2 Summary of summer ESIP meeting
- 1.3 Identifiers paper status
- 1.4 Identifiers testbed status
- 1.5 Statement of data stewardship principles and recommended practices status
- 1.6 Provenance paper status
- 1.7 Status of paper from last year’s AGU town hall
- 1.8 Draft GEOSS data sharing action plan
- 1.9 Planning for winter ESIP meeting
Data Preservation and Stewardship Telecon – August 11, 2010
Ruth Duerr, Brian Rogan, Curt Tilmes, Carol Meyer, Bruce Barkstrom, Bruce Volmer, Mark Parsons, Nancy Hobleheinrich, Rob Raskin, H. K. Ramapyrian
The meeting began at 3:05 PM
Summary of summer ESIP meeting
Ruth mentioned that there had been full Data and Preservation tracks at previous meetings. This past meeting was an exception with only half a track. Bruce mentioned that the identifiers session was full but other session only had about ten attendees on Friday. He also mentioned that there were a number of relevant topics cropping up in the upcoming AGU meeting.
Ruth asked the group to think about what the we should do to the next meeting
Identifiers paper status
The identifiers session was well attended in Knoxville. The notes from the session are on the wiki. Ruth is in the process of adding the discussion section of the paper based on the materials from the presentation. Major findings include:
- Different identifiers serve different purposes
- There are several common use cases in the Earth Sciences
- Data managers need to plan for or allow multiple identifiers
The paper at this point is not out the door but will be submitted to the Journal of Earth science informatics
Identifiers testbed status
Nancy gave an update. There has not been much progress since the meeting, but she has been working with Bruce Wilson and Eugene to use ORNL capability. Once the procedures are down then she will work on the others identifiers that are being looked at.
Ruth mentioned that there were two successful DOIs through ORNL which came through this morning.
Nancy said that Bruce mentioned that there were several of them, but that there were two that were needed for the test bed. Carol was asked if Is there some way that ORNL could be reimbursed for the DOI charges they are incurring. This was answered in the affirmative. Once the coordination is complete, the DOI testing can be finished and work can proceed on the next identifier scheme.
Curt mentioned that Chris Lynnes wanted to add the DOIs at the GCMD. Adding a DOI field per data set should not be too hard and GCMD has the structure to support this kind of operation. GCMD would act as a broker; they have the funding for this to occur. There is no commitment at this point. Chris Lynnes approached them and they are willing to look at it.
Currently, Nancy does not have a schedule of work but will let Ruth know her status at a later time.
Statement of data stewardship principles and recommended practices status
There was a session on a Statement of data stewardship principles and recommended practices status at the meeting. Updates to the statement have been made on the wiki. Ruth asked people to take a look at it and wants to be sure that she has captured all of the discussion.
Bruce offered his thanks to Ruth for having this conversation. Ruth asked for any additional comments to be added to the document.
Ruth will post an email with the document to disperse it to the wider community.
Provenance paper status
Curt gave a summary of the Provenance paper. While he accumulated a lot of notes at the meeting, he wasn’t able to do any more writing up to this point. He will plan on scheduling more time.
Ruth mentioned that Rahul Ramachadran is planning on setting up a group dedicated to provenance. There was a question that this group satisfies the purpose and is there a need for a new group? Curt mentioned that Rahul is interested in workflow and it seems that while it is related, it’s different. Bruce asked what he expects from the working group but Curt was not sure what Rahul's idea was for the group.
The preservation group is more of the “industrial side” while Rahul’s idea is more of an “experimental testbed side”.
It seems as if the work that Rahul is trying to do is more in line with this group. Ruth will talk with Rahul to get clarification of his thoughts and try to get him to join with this group and will report back to the group.
Status of paper from last year’s AGU town hall
Last year’s AGU paper was accepted for publication. They are hoping to get it in the August 24 issue of EOS. IT will be a feature article but it needs a figure, preferably black and white. There was a discussion of what would be an appropriate image to send with it since it is a cover story.
Draft GEOSS data sharing action plan
Carol sent out the draft GEOSS data plan. Ruth felt it was much better than the original document. She asked if ESIP should become involved. Rama felt that if it is considered to be good than reply to the document.
Ruth will draft a quick response to GEOSS
Planning for winter ESIP meeting
Ruth mentioned that her term as chair will be up at the meeting and that people should think about any interest they might have in running the group.
There was a discussion on whether provenance should be a topic for the meeting. Curt felt this might be a good topic since there are a lot of issues around the topic.
Ruth felt that if a lot of the issues could be captured and written down then it would be a good starting point. Curt felt it was a large topic and that it would be good to start with smaller issues. While there are a lot of them, there three options for proceeding: 1. Pick off low hanging fruit 2. Start collecting the issues on citation 3. Systematically start working on the issues It was suggested to start compiling now and then pick the ones that need to be discussed in person at the meeting. Curt volunteered to do a first cut on the issues and post them on the wiki.
There were no other issues and the meeting ended at 4:10 PM