Difference between revisions of "Sustainable Data Management/20160311 telecon notes"
| Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
:[[Image:checkbox.png|20px]] Margaret O’Brien: Room request to Erin (not a session request) | :[[Image:checkbox.png|20px]] Margaret O’Brien: Room request to Erin (not a session request) | ||
:[[Image:checkbox.png|20px]] Corinna Gries?: Intl data week, possibility of a room request there too. | :[[Image:checkbox.png|20px]] Corinna Gries?: Intl data week, possibility of a room request there too. | ||
| + | :[[Image:checkbox.png|20px]] M | ||
| + | |||
<!-- | <!-- | ||
Revision as of 13:59, March 28, 2016
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
Agenda
- 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.
Re ESIP:
- 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. http://www.internationaldataweek.org/ Sept 11-17.
Re RCN:
- 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).
- George Alter, leads an interest group in RDA. (broader than earth sciences.), https://rd-alliance.org/groups/domain-repositories-interest-group.html
- 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: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gb3FDAd2ZwPt4V1NrAha6XjDRLBpeM-CsxU2U22OLsc/edit?usp=sharing
Action items
Anne Wilson: session proposal for ROI- Cynthia Parr: session proposal for CTV
- Philip Tarrant: session proposal for roundup
- Margaret O’Brien: Room request to Erin (not a session request)
- Corinna Gries?: Intl data week, possibility of a room request there too.
- M
