Updated session proposal for P10

Dear Paul, All,
I'm afraid I'm a bit late, sorry about that. I have some suggestions for
the session description, I'm trying to make it clearer especially for
newcomers we'd like to attract.
My main concern is about the overlap with “machine actionable DMP” group,
as originally stated, I'm sure Rainer would point it out. I don't know how
to handle this.
I was deliberately a bit redundant and included a note on target audience
in the main text.
Best regards,
D.A.
--
RNDr. David Antoš, Ph.D.
Head of Data Storage Department, CESNET, a. l. e.
Zikova 4, 160 00 Prague 6, Czech Rep. ** http://www.ces.net
office Brno, Šumavská 15, bldg. B, G322
phone +420 549 49 4532 ** GSM +420 602 953 079 ** sip:***@***.***

Hi David,
Hi David,
On 30/06/17 11:16, antos wrote:
> I'm afraid I'm a bit late, sorry about that. I have some suggestions for
> the session description, I'm trying to make it clearer especially for
> newcomers we'd like to attract.
Thanks for the suggestions and comments. They are all very helpful.
I've tried to incorporate them directly in the text, with only some
minor changes here and there.
Could you check I've not skewed or missed anything?
BTW, I like the point you mentioned about different definitions
resulting in litigation. I think it helps people see our work as
something that does have real-world consequences.
Ville, would it be OK to make an oblique reference to this?
I'm imagining a throw-away phrase, like:
there have been cases where the lack of a
standard resulting in litigation during a
procurement process.
Hi David,
On 30/06/17 11:16, antos wrote:
> I'm afraid I'm a bit late, sorry about that. I have some suggestions for
> the session description, I'm trying to make it clearer especially for
> newcomers we'd like to attract.
Thanks for the suggestions and comments. They are all very helpful.
I've tried to incorporate them directly in the text, with only some
minor changes here and there.
Could you check I've not skewed or missed anything?
BTW, I like the point you mentioned about different definitions
resulting in litigation. I think it helps people see our work as
something that does have real-world consequences.
Ville, would it be OK to make an oblique reference to this?
I'm imagining a throw-away phrase, like:
there have been cases where the lack of a
standard resulting in litigation during a
procurement process.
> My main concern is about the overlap with “machine actionable DMP” group,
> as originally stated, I'm sure Rainer would point it out. I don't know how
> to handle this.
Thanks -- I think this is a good point; actually the RDA people (inc.
Rainer) didn't mention this explicitly, but perhaps it was one of the
causes of the oblique "what isn't this work already done" comment.
In this case, I don't see the DMP part as particularly problematic.
The "Active Data Management Plans" is an interest group, so broader and
operating at a higher level.
There's naturally some overlap in what we want to do and their IG -- we
explicitly mention DMP in our description! But I imagine our work would
also be useful outside of DMPs.
So, what I propose is that we join the IG and introduce ourselves and
talk with them on where we overlap on our approaches and where we
differ, with the parts where we overlap being a natural place to
collaborate.
This may also bolster our membership and get more people involved in our
work.
OK; I've copied that into the text. We can always massage it later on.
Thanks again for your help.
Cheers,
Paul.

Hi David, Paul and all,
Hi David, Paul and all,
paul kirjoitti 03.07.2017 klo 12:28:
...
>
> BTW, I like the point you mentioned about different definitions
> resulting in litigation. I think it helps people see our work as
> something that does have real-world consequences.
>
> Ville, would it be OK to make an oblique reference to this?
I think, it would be ok. We had a case where we were sued partly because
of different opinions of the megabyte definition (exactly it was 50 MB).
Yes, I agree this. Better standards and definitions helps us to avoid
litigations during the procurement process. Additionally common
standards makes discussions with tenderers easier and possibly makes
court decisions little bit simplier.
BR,
Ville
PS: I have started contacting my industry contacts. Perhaps some of the
are on vacation. I'll inform you when I have something.
--
Ville Tenhunen, @vtenhunen, https://blogs.helsinki.fi/mildred
puh./tel. +358 294 140 102, +358 50 576 2862

Hi Paul,
Hi Paul,
On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 11:28:09AM +0200, paul wrote:
> Could you check I've not skewed or missed anything?
Excellent, I like it.
Hi Paul,
On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 11:28:09AM +0200, paul wrote:
> Could you check I've not skewed or missed anything?
Excellent, I like it.
> BTW, I like the point you mentioned about different definitions
> resulting in litigation. I think it helps people see our work as
> something that does have real-world consequences.
Yes, exactly. I'd love to get rid of my five pages of term definitions in
my procurement documents.
Hi Paul,
On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 11:28:09AM +0200, paul wrote:
> Could you check I've not skewed or missed anything?
Excellent, I like it.
> BTW, I like the point you mentioned about different definitions
> resulting in litigation. I think it helps people see our work as
> something that does have real-world consequences.
Yes, exactly. I'd love to get rid of my five pages of term definitions in
my procurement documents.
> > My main concern is about the overlap with “machine actionable DMP” group,
> > as originally stated, I'm sure Rainer would point it out. I don't know how
> > to handle this.
>
> Thanks -- I think this is a good point; actually the RDA people (inc.
> Rainer) didn't mention this explicitly, but perhaps it was one of the
> causes of the oblique "what isn't this work already done" comment.
>
> In this case, I don't see the DMP part as particularly problematic.
>
> The "Active Data Management Plans" is an interest group, so broader and
> operating at a higher level.
Sure, but that's part of my concern that the Active DMP is defined so
broadly that it would be very easy to state that they cover this topic,
too.
Yes, that's the best way to proceed.
Thanks and sorry for my latencies.
Best regards,
D.A.
--
RNDr. David Antoš, Ph.D.
Head of Data Storage Department, CESNET, a. l. e.
Zikova 4, 160 00 Prague 6, Czech Rep. ** http://www.ces.net
office Brno, Šumavská 15, bldg. B, G322
phone +420 549 49 4532 ** GSM +420 602 953 079 ** sip:***@***.***