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

From Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP)
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 22: Line 22:
 
* Ruth Duerr
 
* Ruth Duerr
 
* Erin Antognoii
 
* Erin Antognoii
 +
* Rebecca Koskela (post CDF)
  
 
==Regrets==
 
==Regrets==
Line 30: Line 31:
 
==Notes==
 
==Notes==
 
TRUST mini-symp concentric circles. diagram.  
 
TRUST mini-symp concentric circles. diagram.  
- Recording here: _____
+
* 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)
+
* 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)
+
** 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.
  
https://gida-global.org/care
 
  
 +
* Suggestion: a Matrix:
 +
FAIR, CARE, TRUST x repo how-items
  
1:32 PMShelley Stall to Everyone
 
The link to the recording of the TRUST mini symposium: https://www.rdc-drc.ca/activities/webinars/archived-webinars/
 
  
1:34 PMShelley Stall to Everyone
 
CARE princples: https://www.gida-global.org/care
 
  
1:42 PMShelley Stall to Everyone
+
* Audience for eventual doc:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2020.100058
+
** groups aspiring to be repository
Recommendations for Services in a FAIR Data Ecosystem
+
*** 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.
  
Matrix:  
+
* To do: vocabularies (for us)
FAIR, CARE, TRUST x
+
Define "repository": ?
repo how-items
+
Other vocabulary needed (responsibility, authority,
 
 
Audience for eventual doc:
 
* groups aspiring to be repository (or use an existing reps instead of web page-posting) - even individual researchers do this.
 
* existing repos aspiring to certification
 
 
 
Aspiration (in the TRUST outer circle) are open to interpretation. Our guidelines describe implementation.
 
  
Root cause of the web-page-problem: researchers cannot find repositories that meet their needs
+
* 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.
  
in order to fulfills what your communities ask for (fair, trust, core)
+
* Post link to new CDF leadership: _____
here is what repo comm has determined are the base capability to
+
** we overlap, Corinna, Bob (others?)
take these, and find repos that meet them.
 
  
What about the rest of the data life cycle?
 
 
Define "repository": ?
 
  
 
Goals:
 
Goals:
we want to promote funding to address repos angst (who cannot yet meet these guidelines)
+
# Context for justifying funding for repository improvements, alleviate repos angst (who cannot yet meet these guidelines)
prioritize some parts (eg, the T of trust, then items within that)
+
# Roadmap: prioritize some parts (eg, the T of trust, then items within that)
 
+
# research community become discerning consumers.
 
 
research community become discerning consumers.
 
  
 
==Action Items==
 
==Action Items==

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