Sustainable Data Management/20200410 telcon notes

To connect

• Join from computer, tablet or smartphone at: https://www.gotomeeting.com/join/618011013

• Dial in using your phone: :United States: +1 (571) 317-3122
  • Access Code: 618-011-013

Agenda

1. Review notes and ideas from February
2. 3 Slides for ESIP Collaboration Area Highlights

Goal: summarize our activities to the rest of the Federation, solicit ideas or members.

Background

Our original raison d'etre

This group formed in late 2015 to investigate pathways for sustainable, increased collaboration and coordination among repositories engaged in environmental data management that would benefit both research networks and individual investigators. Although the participants are all associated with repositories, the goal is sustainability of the data holdings, not necessarily the repository. The group has three major activities:

• Develop a framework for describing Return on Investment (ROI) in data repositories;
• Describe the landscape of data services offered by repositories, to identify gaps; and
• Define a Common Technical Vision which best sustains data.

Link to notes from the Tempe meeting: http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/Notes_from_Collaborative_Strategies_for_Sustained_Environmental_Data_Management_workshop_(Tempe,_AZ_Nov_2015)

Accomplishments

In the major areas above:

Framework for describing Return on Investment (ROI) in data repositories;

• • Held a workshop in Tempe: Return on Investment for Environmental Data Repositories
    • Notes: http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/Return_on_Investment_Workshop_Jan_25-26_2017_Tempe_AZ
  • Paper: Parr, C., C. Gries, M. O'Brien, R. R. Downs, R. Duerr, R. Koskela, P. Tarrant, K. E. Maull, N. Hoebelheinrich, S. Stall. 2019. A Discussion of Value Metrics for Data Repositories in Earth and Environmental Sciences. Data Science Journal. https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2019-058

Describing the landscape of data services offered by repositories, to identify gaps;

This topic is being covered by RE3data (https://www.re3data.org/). Our involvement with them has been intended to further this objective

Define a Common Technical Vision to sustain data.

• • Held a followup workshop in Santa Barbara: Developing a Common Technical Vision for Repository Interoperability
    • Notes:
  • Paper: Gries C, A. Budden, C. Laney, M. O'Brien, M. Servilla, W. Sheldon, K. Vanderbilt, D. Vieglas. 2018. Facilitating and Improving Environmental Research Data Repository Interoperability. Data Science Journal. https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2018-022

Attending

• Megan Carter
• Gary Morz (Indiana State Geological and Water Survey)
• Ruth Duerr
• John Porter
• Corinna Gries
• Shelley Stall
• Rebecca Koskela
• Margaret O'Brien (scribe)

Regrets

• Cyndy Parr
• Bob Downs

Notes

Notes from last meeting (Feb)

• http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/Sustainable_Data_Management/20200214_telcon_notes

• ESIP cluster highlights webinar: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1n8n1XUoINwgS2TjdpxT0Py1c_8R38U4XwCBHOaakFPY/edit?usp=sharing

Ideas for this group

• Rebecca: we should look at what Nancy and Karl are doing. what are their new cluster's activities?
• Corinna: This group was formed mainly so we could work on these 3 topics. perhaps we should rejoin the data stewardship (DS) group.
• Ruth: DS group has about 6 activities going
• Shelley - Guidance for repositories, start-up or otherwise

• background: early 2020, in the context of FAIR - starting a repo is formidable. however, they are occasionally started. Shelley has started a set of guidelines, asked for CDF to comment

• Enabling FAIR Data - Repository Tenets - Implementation Guidance - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TIV8Q5-4uBhFhdsA3cPvndKrE2P9ZIKyGJ8XBo22ufk/edit?usp=sharing
• Ruth: should ref OAS reference model (base of this doc)
• comparison to libraries: libraries have history with their Univ., associations, etc. repositories do not.

* Gary Motz: a doc like this would be highly valuable.

• I am required, by state statute and law, to maintain the earth science data repository for the State of Indiana....so am therefore constantly seeking guidance from CDF, COPDESS, AGU, ESIP, etc.

Promoted Idea: position statement: here is what it means to be "A Repository"

• not necessarily limited by FAIR (does not cover all aspects of a repo)
• point to external resources
• metadata required to understand data without intimate knowledge (Fitness for use, RDA)

• Link to their paper here: _____

• uses for such a doc

• guidelines for judging a repository

• funder
• users/contributors

• guidelines for planning improvements

• Considerations

• do not duplicate core trust seal
• a repo's organizational strategy might be phased-in capability, e.g.,

• steps 1.2.3 = min
• Core Trust seal = a goal

• margaret and ruth are particularly interested in outlining when CTS is the end point and when it is not.

• eg. CTS does not guarantee an ability to determine 'fitness for use'.
• also, are there different considerations for a research data repository (vs, e.g., a general purpose repository).

• steps 10, 11, 12 ... > ?

• Potential reference:

• https://www.coar-repositories.org/news-updates/coar-sparc-response-to-the-ostp-draft-desirable-characteristics-of-repositories-managing-data/

Proposed activities

• consider additional outside funding, e.g., this link from Gary: https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2019/nsf19609/nsf19609.htm
• Pitch to Data Stewardship group (Mondays)

Action items

• contact Enabling Fair Data WG (CDF) - are they interested in a guidelines doc: Shelley
• outline a doc based on "Repository Tenants - Implementation Guidance" : Shelley, Ruth, Gary, Margaret