Difference between revisions of "Sustainable Data Management/20200710 telcon notes"

From Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP)
 
(16 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 18: Line 18:
 
* Megan Carter
 
* Megan Carter
 
* Sophie Hou
 
* Sophie Hou
 +
* Helen Glaves
 
* Philip Tarrant
 
* Philip Tarrant
 
* Ruth Duerr
 
* Ruth Duerr
* Okia Daniels
+
* Erin Antognoii
 +
* Rebecca Koskela (post CDF)
  
 
==Regrets==
 
==Regrets==
Line 28: Line 30:
  
 
==Notes==
 
==Notes==
 +
TRUST mini-symp concentric circles. diagram.
 +
* Recording here: https://www.rdc-drc.ca/activities/webinars/archived-webinars/
 +
 +
* repositories focus on implementation, an inner Circle, within Aspirations (TRUST, FAIR, CARE) and certification (CTS, WDS, ISO)
 +
** CORE https://gida-global.org/care
 +
** Recommendations for Services in a FAIR Data Ecosystem: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2020.100058
 +
* 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?)
 +
 +
 +
Goals:
 +
# Context for justifying funding for repository improvements, alleviate repos angst (who cannot yet meet these guidelines)
 +
# Roadmap: prioritize some parts (eg, the T of trust, then items within that)
 +
# research community become discerning consumers.
  
 
==Action Items==
 
==Action Items==
add new folks to list serve
+
* add new folks to list serve - mob
 +
* get TRUST mini symp link - mob
 +
* start a spreadsheet to brainstorm on a matrix - Ruth
 +
* look at the Sustainable DM google drive?
 +
* https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1JtilFsKtmB4k3_k-dbVS-EsbM8HFQur1

Latest revision as of 16:46, July 10, 2020

To connect

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

Agenda

  1. summary/discussion of the TRUST mini-symposium.
  2. Hoping some of you have read the TRUST paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0486-7
  3. Reminder: put this on your sched:
    1. Aligning data publishing workflows among repositories, publishers, funders, and researches
      1. https://2020esipsummermeeting.sched.com/event/cIwG


Attending

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

Regrets

  • Corinna
  • Rebecca


Notes

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?)


Goals:

  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