Interagency Data Stewardship/LifeCycle/Preservation Forum/TeleconNotes/20100609

From Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP)
< Interagency Data Stewardship/LifeCycle/Preservation Forum‎ | TeleconNotes
Revision as of 15:43, June 9, 2010 by Rduerr (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Data Stewardship and Preservation Telecon Notes - June 9, 2010

Participants: Curt Tilmes, Al Fleig, Chris Lynnes, Ruth Duerr, Brian Rogan, Carol Meyer, Bruce Barkstrom, Rama Ramapriyan, Bob Downs, John Moses, Rob Raskin

  1. Identifiers Paper Status
    1. Middle section of paper (assessments made more consistent & uniform) sent out to co-authors – no comments received to date
    2. Other sections of paper in development by Ruth Duerr
      1. Levels of data for which identifiers are needed
      2. Uses for identifiers (strengths/weaknesses)
    3. Identifiers paper draft expected in a couple weeks
    4. Action: Co-authors need to provide feedback to Ruth
  2. Identifiers Testbed
    1. Nancy Hoebelheinrich (California Digital Library) will tackle this as part of an independent study toward her degree. Nancy is involved with a Library of Congress committee on geospatial data and metadata
    2. The Cluster subgroup working on the testbed will come up with guidance for Nancy on how to approach the testbed activity
    3. Action: Nancy Hoebelheinrich to work on the testbed and have an initial report during the summer meeting
    4. Action : Testbed subgroup to complete Doodle poll
  3. Provenance Paper Status
    1. Curt Tilmes reported on the paper’s progress, including a case study approach within it. (history, why it’s important, what should be tracked) – a white paper/technical report is envisioned for this output
    2. A follow on paper is expected that is more generic, an executive summary of the first paper. The second paper would be appropriatefor the Journal of Earth Science Informatics
    3. A book could result from this process – Earth Science Provenance (history, rationale, current practices, models of provenance capture, recommendations)
    4. A discussion ensued from the proposed types of outputs and potential audiences, especially the interdisciplinary audiences (Earth Science and beyond) and it was agreed that the while paper needs to be published in the peer reviewed literature also and that the Journal of Earth Science Informatics may very well be the appropriate venue
    5. Other opportunities: special issue on Provenance in IGARSS - generally agreed that this should not be proposed until after the first paper is published
    6. Suggestions to add more information on economics and provenance (e.g., impact on climate science of climategate, etc.); also to perhaps consider an assessment of OPM and other provenance standards and technologies (rejected for this go around, perhaps to be considered as follow on work)
  4. Statement of Data Stewardship Principles and Documented Practices (Rama Ramapriyan)
    1. Contents
      1. Data Providers/Data Creators
      2. Data Intermediaries
      3. Data Users
    2. Document is posted on wiki for all to review
    3. Action: Everyone review & comment on draft paper
  5. Summer ESIP Federation Meeting
    1. Proposed Sessions at Summer Meeting
      1. July 21 1:15-2:45 – Certainty & its Impact on Climate and Energy (Sam Altman (sp?) , ESRL; Greg Leptoukh (data quality & impacts on climate) – Ruth to confirm; Norm Loop (sp?) – Bruce Barkstrom to try again
      2. July 21 3:15 – 4:45 – Continuation on International/National Perspectives – Warren Luscam – Bruce Barkstrom/Ruth Duerr; David Gianetti (confirmed); Tom Karl
      3. July 22
        1. NOAA Data Management (9-10:30)
        2. Identifiers - presentations on data hierarchies that need identifiers and usage requirements/cases; followed by presentation on individual technologies and how they rate against the assessment criteria and usage requirements/hierarchies; followed by draft recommendations and discussion (at least 2 sessions, perhaps bleeding into the last session)
    2. Noted that many regular telecon attendees will not be at the ESIP meeting as they will be going to IGARSS instead
    3. Action Ruth to draft email to ESIP-all with description of proposed session and requesting expressions of interest