Sustainable Data Management/20200710 telcon notes

From Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP)

To connect

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


  1. summary/discussion of the TRUST mini-symposium.
  2. Hoping some of you have read the TRUST paper:
  3. Reminder: put this on your sched:
    1. Aligning data publishing workflows among repositories, publishers, funders, and researches


  • Margaret O'Brien (scribe)
  • Shelley Stall
  • Megan Carter
  • Sophie Hou
  • Helen Glaves
  • Philip Tarrant
  • Ruth Duerr
  • Erin Antognoii
  • Rebecca Koskela (post CDF)


  • Corinna
  • Rebecca


TRUST mini-symp concentric circles. diagram.

  • repositories focus on implementation, an inner Circle, within Aspirations (TRUST, FAIR, CARE) and certification (CTS, WDS, ISO)
  • within that, the HOW (rather than the WHAT)
  • Aspiration (in the TRUST outer circle) are open to interpretation. Our guidelines describe implementation.

  • Suggestion: a Matrix:

FAIR, CARE, TRUST x repo how-items

  • Audience for eventual doc:
    • groups aspiring to be repository
      • promote use of an existing repo instead of web page-posting)
      • even individual researchers do this.
      • Root cause of the web-page-problem: researchers cannot find repositories that meet their needs
    • existing repos aspiring to certification
      • in order to fulfills what your communities ask for (fair, trust, core), here is what repo comm has determined are the base capabilities
  • researchers?
    • repo-search tools can use these to find repos that meet your needs.
  • Issues a repository-how matrix does not meet:
    • What about the rest of the data life cycle? some aspects happen outside of the repo.
  • To do: vocabularies (for us)

Define "repository": ? Other vocabulary needed (responsibility, authority,

  • expressed at CDF: repos get different sets of requirements from funders, publishers, community. are we adding to that? or unifying?
    • Neither: we are the repository community, we address it like this. ie, repo community is at the top, defining requirements, not just the receiver.
  • Post link to new CDF leadership: _____
    • we overlap, Corinna, Bob (others?)


  1. Context for justifying funding for repository improvements, alleviate repos angst (who cannot yet meet these guidelines)
  2. Roadmap: prioritize some parts (eg, the T of trust, then items within that)
  3. research community become discerning consumers.

Action Items