| Info | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Info | ||
| ||
| Expand | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
DDI Active Data Management Plans Working Group Meeting - 13 December 2016 Attendees: Irena Vipavc Brvar, Churck Humphrey, Leahey, Jared Lyle, Sarah Jones, Anja Perry, Christina Guldfeldt, Maude Jones and Steve McEachern The call focused on next steps for the group. Decided on two levels of activities: 1) Flow of information from DMP tools to archives. Components include: Next steps: Selected archives can work with DMP Online/Tool on pilot project. Jared to e-mail the group to see who is interested. 2) Better understanding of what we mean by active -- multiple phases across project, or machine actionable activities? Requires standards developers and tools supporters to have discussions. Next steps: 1) Take advantage of IDCC workshop to identify appropriate use cases. It was agreed that Jared will organize a few of the social science data archives to implement an exchange of DMP content from DMPOnline with an automated mapping of themes to DDI-Lifecycle elements (Sebastian's work). They will look at the upcoming API implementation for DMPOnline to see how themes might be packaged for exchange (e.g., using JSON-LD to transport DMP text) and then processed into DDI. They will also consider how PIDs might be integrated into this process, including the possibility of DOIs. 2) Better understanding of what we mean by active -- multiple phases across project, or machine actionable activities? Requires standards developers and tools supporters to have discussions. Next steps: 1) Take advantage of IDCC workshop to identify appropriate use cases. These use cases should address the meaning of "active DMPs". Two examples were given: (i) active in the sense of maintaining a record of RDM activity across the project (e.g., the use of Phases in the current implementation of DMPOnline); (ii) active in the sense of metadata driven RDM activities (e.g., notifying IT the need for storage). Check if we can get 1-2 model specification DDI developers to IDCC workshop. 2) Try to be more of a leader in setting the direction of RDA ADMP interest group. Use cases developed at IDCC workshop can provide concrete working activity for the RDA working group. Internal to DDI, we can propose ADMP be tackled during the May 2017 sprint. Follow-up call to be scheduled for March 2017. |
...
| Expand | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
DDI Active Data Management Plans Working Group Meeting Present: Chuck Humphrey, Amber Leahey, Steve McEachern, Leanne Trimble, Mary Vardigan Invited: Amber, Arofan, Chuck, Leanne, Mary, Michelle, Steve, Stuart, Tito
Should we contact the DMP Online developer groups? We have some overlap with DMP Online through the Canadian contingent, Portage, and the DCC. The DMP Online is developing an API and we should try to learn more about that. There is no existing metadata model behind the DMP Online so they are looking at querying the content using the API. They understand that having a metadata model would help exchange of information and interoperability. If we make our interests known to them, we might be able to work with them. Steve will also help us reach out to ANDS about involvement in the group. Action: Reach out to the two organizations. ii. RDA activities We have not yet heard from the ADMP group about getting a slot in the session, so we are awaiting a response. There have been some negative responses from researchers about the fact that the current DMPs are not active but static and not reusable. There is a burden on the researcher, but many other stakeholders can use this information.
Amber has started on a white paper about approaches in DDI to develop metadata support for Active Data Management Plans. The paper still needs work. Action: Chuck and Amber will talk offline about the goals of the paper and how to coordinate the writing. This is a great use case for interoperability across metadata standards -- especially between CASRAI and DDI. How can we bring standards together in an interoperable way? This will be of interest to people at Dagstuhl attending the Metadata Workshop.
Arofan and Tito’s paper says that the current DDI standard isn’t sufficient to describe DMPs. If we went with i, we could incorporate it as a DDI profile. Codebook probably wouldn’t be appropriate as it is describing information after the fact. Lifecycle is most appropriate. How would DMPs fit into the DDI model approach? Yes, we could then work backward into Lifecycle. Having a model helps other communities and domains understand what we are doing. The paper recommended that there be conceptual mappings between DMPs and the current Lifecyle. The Methodology section of DDI is messy and is out of date and needs refreshing. That is the one caveat about starting from existing fields.
We don’t want the technology driving the content, but it is hard to envision how the content will be expressed without tools. How might an application make use of it? DMPs are structured around templates and questions and that makes it difficult to have a governing underlying structure. It’s administrative information. One strategy is that it is built around the exchange of information so it’s an exchange protocol. Bringing Arofan in about the modeling approach would be helpful. This would allow our standard to be easily used by different information technologies. Next meeting: Early October |
...
| Expand | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
Present: Michelle Edwards, Chuck Humphrey, Amber Leahey, Mary Vardigan
The group hopes to expand in size in order to accomplish all of its objectives. We hope to achieve our outcomes in a year to 18 months.
The discussion at the Members Meeting that prompted formation of this group did not identify a purpose per se. We recognize the need for standards in data management planning. There has been some research into this early on with Tito Castillo in the UK. Tito’s group didn’t see a role for DDI in this, but this working group thinks DDI is very appropriate for DMPs. There is an important metadata aspect to this and DMPs are part of the lifecycle. The information in DMPs evolves and can be reused and repurposed. The “active” aspect of this is also very important and changes the nature of the conversation. We need to identify a role we can play in this space in terms of standards. We should be looking at reframing the earlier research to show DDI’s relevance. The Alliance can be a collaborator in this space. The bridging of administration information and the actual research is important. The standards should be interoperable. Crosswalks are key to showing commonalities. The DMP Tools do not use standards as the back end. Generally software developers have not used underlying metadata models, but DDI has turned this on its head. Different DMP tools should be able to share standardized information. The information in DMPs should also be in the metadata record for preservation. This should be machine-harvestable. We could invite someone from DART at Oregon to join us; they have done research on DMPs. CISER is working in this area as well to determine data availability. The WG agrees on positioning the Alliance as a collaborator in this space. Providing guidance internally to our own specification development as well as guidance to the wider community are important goals.
Can we contribute a mapping between DDI and DMPs? Our description of files in DDI-C maps to the files section of a data management plan. The identification of metadata is asked about in the DMP and this relates to Section 1 of DDI-C. Such a mapping would support the reframing of the research. We could showcase something tangible and write a white paper on this to address DDI’s role in this area. Ethics and licensing are other overlaps. Mary has a paper that she and Libbie wrote on this topic that she will share with the group as a possible starting point. Another deliverable might be exchange strategies for interoperability. We may need to push this discussion along by serving as a use case for that kind of development work. The Alliance looked at the XACML -- Extensible Access Conditions Modeling Language -- in this regard, and the issue that came up was whether the XACML was being actively maintained and updated. JSON and JSON-LD are becoming a common exchange format and APIs are using that to package information being exchanged through Web services. APIs using only JSON are limited, though, and there may be a need to explore this. We should promote the use of existing standards like OAI for harvesting information.
Right now we have only North America in our group and we should try to get someone from the UKDA as the DMP Online development team looks to the UKDA for advice. There is a lot happening in Australia around metadata and they have a big investment in RDA. We can approach Steve to see if he can suggest someone. Germany is doing a lot also. The mix of stakeholders from our community is another issue for the group. Funders are a key community we may want to approach. We will clean up our ToR and have a second call for members of the WG. We will start our work by looking at the paper that Arofan and Tito put together. We can also target people going to Dagstuhl to represent other metadata standards around this use case of DMPs and interoperability as we should get their feedback. The mechanism of exchange is another item to focus on.
We will set ourselves a year to get the initial work done and review at the end of the year as to whether we have a new set of terms we should address or whether we are satisfied with what we have done. IASSIST in Bergen will be our review point.
We should let the chair of the ADMP RDA Group know that we exist with our revised purpose. Chuck or Mary can submit this to the chair by next Friday, September 21. The JISC concepts around ethics are now in the CASRAI dictionary. Chuck and Amber are the the Portage Expert Group on DMPs, so there is an opportunity to share with them. They are receptive to building from a metadata model. Our work may influence the DCC DMP Online Tool to implement an underlying metadata model. There was an effort to reuse the administrative information in grant applications by RESHARE at the UKDA.
If we could articulate a use case for Dagstuhl, we should initially meet bi-weekly rather than monthly. We should try to meet in the middle of September, late September, and a few days before the Dagstuhl meeting. This time every other Friday will work. Mary will post everything into the Google docs folder and Amber will do a gap analysis to reveal the direction we should take.
|
...