Talk:Data Management Workshop

From Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP)

So what is the goal of this workshop? -- Rduerr 22:32, 16 August 2010 (MDT)[edit source | reply | new]

The title and the text are not consistent with each other. I thought the workshop was to be focused on things to think about for developing a data management plan (a'la the NSF 2 pager); while the text isn't directly aimed at that. Has the focus changed?

Re: So what is the goal of this workshop? -- Kennethcasey 07:30, 17 August 2010 (MDT)[edit source | reply | new]

I think we do need to focus on one thing or the other... the discussion I have heard seems to revolve around two things so far. One is a broader issue of general data management training. The other is a targeted workshop on "How to write your NSF Data Management Plan". For Fall AGU, I like the idea of doing the targeted NSF DM plan "training". I think that will generate a lot of interest... I was at the Society of American Archivists meeting last week and the NSF DM Plan requirement was even discussed there. I think a lot of AGUers would jump at this opportunity. Two other bits: I think if we go this route then the abstract needs to be refined a bit... focus it on the concrete steps part. Maybe mention the idea of a "template". The second thing is not to scare them away with the use of the phrase "half day workshop". Instead call it a "two hour" or "three hour" workshop--- whatever it is. A half day sounds like so much more of a commitment.

Re: Re: So what is the goal of this workshop? -- Carolbmeyer 15:34, 17 August 2010 (MDT)[edit source | reply | new]

The idea that Dave Anderson and I have been batting around is to initially kick off the training to see what kind of interest is generated. Based on the interest and the needs of the community (NOAA, et al), it would then be something that would evolve into a training that offers the substance of the essential elements of doing data management. This first out opportunity is in direct response to the new NSF requirement for its funded research.

Re: a template...this was discussed in Knoxville and since NSF is not prescribing one, we might choose another word - roadmap, perhaps. I agree that the half day workshop notion could drive people off - let's play with the text. Feel free to hack away at the draft text so we can refine it for submission back to AGU.

Re: Re: Re: So what is the goal of this workshop? -- Rduerr 23:21, 17 August 2010 (MDT)[edit source | reply | new]

Ok, so I think the workshop text should focus on the data management plan. I don't seem to be very creative this evening; but, somewhere in the text questions like the following needs to be asked. In my mind, these are the draws for the workshop:

What should be mandatory elements in any data management plan? What are the broader set of issues that should be considered when preparing a data management plan?

I definitely do not think a template is appropriate given the breadth of the potential audience...

Suggested structure for workshop -- Rweaver 07:51, 18 August 2010 (MDT)[edit source | reply | new]

So we have two goals it seems to me. 1) interest the science community in good data management practices and introduce what we think are those good practices and 2) 'provide some practical guidance' on how to respond to the NSF data management directive.

I suggest we divide the workshop into two parts. A first part where we talk about our definitions of science researcher contributions to data management, this should be rather short 30-45 minutes, so that we don't loose people. A second part where we lay out our roadmap for what we believe is needed to meet the NSF guidelines. The latter can be interspersed with the reasons why data centers want to see certain parts of the NSF roadmap completed... i.e. how we use the information provided, how it makes our lives easier and promotes higher visibility of the scientist contributed inputs. I see the second part as another hour's time.

Re: Suggested structure for workshop -- Danderson 11:07, 18 August 2010 (MDT)[edit source | reply | new]

Ron is right on. There are two goals, 1) articulate that everyone needs a plan- its part of how you do science, and 2) we (NOAA and NASA and NSF and USGS) are here to provide some practical suggestions (without being overly prescriptive).

Ron's total time, 1.5 hrs, opens the possibility of running this as a noon (lunch) workshop. This might increase our audience from around 25 to around 100-200. This short duration, full of tight, well developed content, might also lend itself to being put on the web for even broader distribution.