-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
Meeting Agendas
Attendees:
- Alicia Urquidi Diaz (AD)
- Robert Downs (RD)
- Qi Xu (QX)
- Lui Chuang (LC)
- Karen Payne (KP)
- Aude Chambodut (AC)
- First draft of Introduction, Methodology and Use Cases sections. Please add edits/send feedback to section 1 by October 22.
Housekeeping: Reviews/Feedback due Oct 22
Verify: What is being said about your repository? Is it accurate?
Look through other use cases: share similarities, differences, and relevant harvestable metadata services
RD: Lots of similarities, but not consistent descriptions (E.g. ISO 19115…)
Narrative vs. bullet point descriptions: Move narrative parts to text
- Discuss: What challenges/lessons should the paper cover?
- What we have: Set of challenges mentioned by individual repositories, with recommendations on how to approach them
- Nice to have: Lessons learned from a global look over all use cases. Example (what emerges from part 1): Regional development/shared networks appear to foster similar technical solutions, ergo: cross-network engagement spaces seem to promote harmonizing approaches, away from niches, towards wider interoperability. Fazit: Engagement with orgs like WDS, CODATA, as well as regional networks does pay off (needs testing ofc, but it's a thesis that emerges from these use cases).
Discussion: What challenges/lessons should the paper cover? Evolving Technology
RD: Might be good to have a lesson about the evolving technology. We’re all heading for “moving targets.” Repository managers have to balance between adapting too soon and too late to new technologies Be aware of new technologies, practices that are becoming standards Affects how you apply the resources you have How to represent this topic graphically?
AD to include this in diagram
KP: Is that covered under "continuing to serve original users while reaching new ones" or “Standards Coordination?”
AU: Yes, this covers grey, brown, yellow challenges below: AU: maybe evolving technology can take the position of a large, overarching challenge in this paper
RD: How does the community affect the adoption of technology/standards? Community is on a trajectory.
KP: In agreement, this could be a narrative that defines the challenges facing harvestable metadata services
AC: Evolving technology is spreading everywhere, role of repositories is to provide data to users efficiently; very susceptible to new technologies Impact of evolving technology is everywhere Examples of this abound, the cost of being “first” and having to retroactively adapt to the standards that prevailed in the larger communities arena ISGI ‘s goal is to share data and serve users more effectively, be more efficient; focus on some particular consumers. ISGI’s data products are extremely specific.
KP/AC: Lots of bridging between these three themes (“Demonstrating success”, “Policy”, “Evolving Tech”
Skill Development and Data Center Challenges
LC: We have two influences: internal and external Outside Publishing journals Work with research communities to obtain published data Is the repository/dataset publicly available? Students: have the data, communicate with them their data is available to be published in national data centers Many people need data encyclopedias (e.g. Wiki) Inside Policy: how to balance openness and data protection/IP? Quality Control is critical, dealing different formats/resolution/dealing with heterogeneity in general Very few skilled individuals in practice in science, technology, engineering -> need to develop skill sets
RD: Skill development, repositories have to continually improve, develop skills over time to meet challenges
Other Notes RD: Separate goals/Challenges in diagram
AC: Aim for [repo] is to efficiently serve the current user base; better metadata formats, etc.
- Decision: Where/how to publish the full repository profiles as supplementary material. Options:
- Supplementary file/appendix with the Data Science Journal (if accepted)
- Zenodo
- WDS-ITO's website
- Other?
Decision: Where/how to publish the full repository profiles as supplementary material. Nov 26: Holiday in the U.S. Change meeting date to Dec 2nd
AC: Zenodo is not a longstanding data repository; many limits; would prefer not to use
RD: Fixture is better, may use institution repo, etc. However: Will people even read the supplementary information? If we publish it separately, we should have a summary, provide context for document. Keep all profiles together; don’t publish them separately
KP: I like the idea of a supplementary file. Wouldn't the 'supplementary file' be published alongside the journal article? It would be published alongside the journal paper.
AC: We need to look into the appendix/supplementary document, what does the journal expect?
AU/LC: Could we publish profiles as their own paper? LC: I think my website would be appropriate.
KP: Under normal circumstances I would be open to a second journal article but my sense is that it wouldn't get done before the end of our current funding cycle. I think it would bog things down and create an unnecessary complication. I would prefer to use the case studies as an appendix to the core journal submission
AU to look into what a supplementary document entails, but hold off on sending pdf. The group will make a decision based on what’s most feasible.
- Housekeeping (recap)
- Collaboration spaces
- Platform support: email Alicia (ito-ra ät oceannetworks.ca) or book a 1-on-1 appointment here.
- Meetings
- Today's goals and outputs
- Definitive list of challenges
- Definitive list of (HMetS-relevant) repository characteristics
- Discussion
- Group’s feedback (general)
- Challenges
- (HMetS-relevant) repository characteristics
R - Robert
S- Sarah Reay
J - Juanle Wang
K - Karen Payne
A - Alicia Urquidi
Q - Qi Xu
Lessons learned vs Challenges and Opportunities
- R: didn’t see them as lessons learned as written. TBD what exactly “opportunities” entails. Feeling was, wait and see what people do in terms of additional revisions, changes will give insight into where we’re going with this paper as a team. At the moment, not entirely sure where we’re going as a team.
Platform
- R: Been able to use collab platform, found it time-consuming, dealing with platform, but it’s doable
- J: Couldn’t access at the moment (doesn’t have account number), will follow up
- R: One approach that helps: generate pdf and navigate that way is easier.
- Next steps: try overleaf (using rich text), give feedback, may need to find alternative (i.e. sharepoint)
- R: Clean the document of tracked changes
- Overleaf link supplied onto GitHub
Challenges List of Challenges we WANT to talk about, give recs for
- Combine: Original users, reach new ones; Making data assets more visible to more diverse uses
- Enable proper reuse, attribution, citation
- Coordinating standards adoption - too complex?
R: Frame as contributing to standards, adopting separate. Keep these two ideas together, label it as something more general, describe in the text. “Standards Coordination”: coordinating externally or internally, discuss phases of adoption.
- Project funding and resources - Too vague?
- Keeping track of who is using products
- Balancing openness and data protection
- Limitations of a harvesting strategy for discovery
Moving forward:
- Alter headers and work within these ideas
- List of features of repository characteristics that impact community
- Intro: Our outputs so far.
- Overview: Collaboration Framework Fees may be increasing for the DS journal; Juanle to reach out to board Bob: having track changes on in the document, removing silos, may need more flexibility at the expense of formality Check-ins in a structured way Bob: depends on progress of paper. Karen: we can always remove meetings later
- Paper: Proposal and contents
- Sections
- Methodology Alicia: Close reading, narrative, empirical, qualitative
Karen: synthesis approach with the landscape
Bob: Social and physical science background, interdisciplinary collaborations, interested in new methodologies
Juanle: Repository, FAIR principle, harvestable metadata. Compile different use cases and find a good solution
Simon: uptake and usage of data in GS data, retiring soon, may be replaced with a new contact: Sarah Grey
Qi Xu: No concerns about the organization
Aude: to go back to historical papers, to reproduce derivation workflow, to compare with historical values (hopefully identical) and to add as much pieces of information as possible in metadata
Task definition and assignment
- Tools: Using Overleaf with the HMetS Writing Group 3-minute explanation
Other options to add your content to draft
Bob: concerned about losing changes, may want to verify change tracking mechanisms, Alicia to follow up with how changes are stored in overleaf
Action items: Alicia sends paper draft and overleaf access instructions to group