Sustainable Data Management/20160311 telecon notes

From Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP)

ESIP Sustainable Data Management cluster 11 March 2016, 4 pm EST

Participants present: 13

Margaret O’Brien
Corinna Gries
Philip Tarrant
Anne Wilson
Abigail Benson
Dave Rugg
Cynthia Parr
Dave Vieglais
Erin Robinson
Ruth Duerr
Sherry Lake
Matthew Jones
Ann Chiu


Tempe workshop (Nov 2015) highlights (Focus groups)
ESIP summer meeting planning
Future workshop planning

Overview from Tempe

Landscape and Gap Analysis

Goal: an analysis of existing repos
Outcomes: Survey of current capabilities, Analysis of re3data, COPDESS, –users understand which repositories match their needs

Common Technical Vision

Goal: Interoperable data, better adherence to standards
Outcomes: Defined common service endpoints, Best practices for data packaging, Best practices for developers applying standards (e.g., PROV)

Return on Investment

Goal: Show value of data center relative to its cost, [JIST report link here]
Outcomes: Common vocabulary and metrics, Reports to stakeholders, Assist users with repository choices

Discussion topics

ESIP Summer meeting, July 2016, session abstracts due Apr 1
Workshop #2, Madison, WI ? summer 2016

Discussion notes:

Generally, this group represented the ROI and the Common Technical Vision group. There was not much mentioned about the landscape-gap analysis specifically, just its overlap with CTV. Landscape analysis is likely to be required before CTV can be done, in any case.


Separate sessions for specific topics are the most valuable. Other clusters overlap with ours (e.g., discovery, web services, data stewardship?), and so effort should be made to not duplicate. Sessions to be proposed in action items, see end.

Other upcoming meetings:

International data week, (combined events: SciDataCon 2016, RDA plenary). Denver. Sept 11-17.


We have been encouraged to pursue an NSF Research Coordination Network.
  • Challenges: potential duplication with repos-of-repos that exist already. CDF (Kerstin, not present today).
  • How is putting new money toward an RCN better than putting it toward existing collab venues like ESIP?

Risk of using existing meetings is that we will not accomplish enough of our own work. Risk of additional workshops is meeting-fatigue. Risk of using telecons, etc is that people have little time for work beyond the call. RCNs provide the coordination, which can include fte for a coordinator, travel, and some inter-lab visits (possibly extended?). Coordinator is responsible for pulling info together in a way that rarely happens after telecons.

More notes:

Action items

Checkbox.png Anne Wilson: session proposal for ROI
Checkbox.png Cynthia Parr: session proposal for CTV
Checkmark.png Philip Tarrant: session proposal for roundup
Checkbox.png Margaret O’Brien: Room request to Erin (not a session request)
Checkbox.png Corinna Gries?: Intl data week, possibility of a room request there too.