Call details for today's meeting

Dear all,
following the discussions at this call (thanks to all who attended), I
am attaching two documents:
1.) Future Trends for the Data Fabric. This is the main document we are
using to structure our P11 session contributions; this can be a flyer we
can distribute at the session and also put up as a high-level document
on our web pages. A draft agenda for P11 is included at the end of the
document. The flyer is still a draft, so if you have topics that you see
as future trends, please feel free to include them! We should decide on
a final agenda next week.
2.) Summary of the Virtual Layer Recommendations (thanks again to Alex
for fleshing this out!). We talked about this in length at our call and
some questions are still open: whether we are satisfied with the name
for the whole concept (I put in GDON for now as a placeholder, but also
see the comment) which should be rememberable, and whether we feel that
this is understandable by an outside audience, particularly regarding
the notion of a DO.
As part of these discussions, we also indicated that we may do some
housekeeping on the DFIG websites so not to confuse newcomers with older
discussions. I currently think that both documents can serve as new
anchor points.
Next meeting is at P11!
Best, Tobias
--
Dr. Tobias Weigel
Abteilung Datenmanagement
Deutsches Klimarechenzentrum GmbH (DKRZ)
Bundesstraße 45 a • 20146 Hamburg • Germany
Phone: +49 40 460094-431
Email: ***@***.***
URL: http://www.dkrz.de
ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4040-0215
Geschäftsführer: Prof. Dr. Thomas Ludwig
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg
Amtsgericht Hamburg HRB 39784

Thanks Tobias,
I made a few minor typo-level changes to the Future Trends document, which I sent just to you, and have no changes to the Virtual Layer document, which I see is a short summary of the longer Virtual Layer document that you and Peter edited last year. The main issue left over from the call, from my POV, is naming what it is, exactly, that we are pursuing now in the Data Fabric group, as you show below in the GDON comment.
Trying a little logic chopping on the topic I came up with:
The IG is still Data Fabric and that is a perfectly good name for summarizing our interests, although I note that if you search for Data Fabric you’ll find it in wide use, and not because RDA is suddenly famous in the commercial world. See this Forbes article
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwebster/2018/01/12/big-data-meets-data-...
for quotes like
Thanks Tobias,
I made a few minor typo-level changes to the Future Trends document, which I sent just to you, and have no changes to the Virtual Layer document, which I see is a short summary of the longer Virtual Layer document that you and Peter edited last year. The main issue left over from the call, from my POV, is naming what it is, exactly, that we are pursuing now in the Data Fabric group, as you show below in the GDON comment.
Trying a little logic chopping on the topic I came up with:
The IG is still Data Fabric and that is a perfectly good name for summarizing our interests, although I note that if you search for Data Fabric you’ll find it in wide use, and not because RDA is suddenly famous in the commercial world. See this Forbes article
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwebster/2018/01/12/big-data-meets-data-...
for quotes like
> Data Fabrics—essentially information networks implemented on a grand scale across physical and virtual boundaries—focus on the data aspect of cloud computing as the unifying factor. To conceive of distributed, multi-cloud computing only in terms of infrastructure would miss a fundamental aspect of all computing technology – data. Data is integral and must be woven into multi-cloud computing architectures. The concept that integrates data with distributed and cloud-based computing is the Data Fabric.
Did we steal the term or vice-versa? Anyway, not a bad description of what we are doing, although I would say that the author of that quote thinks of ‘infrastructure’ much too narrowly.
And now we are focused on a digital object model. PIDs are a given and certain other elements seem to be close to givens - among others we are looking at types, PID kernel information, and some level of uniformity across operations on objects, including collections, which we want to consider as objects. The PID piece seems to be pretty well established, both conceptually and operationally. The others are established conceptually, but not operationally. Can Data Fabric IG help with this? I think that’s a good question for our breakout session.
As to names - there are now a lot of names floating around. CNRI for years has been talking about Digital Object Architecture (with the unfortunate acronym DOA, which in English usually stands for Dead on Arrival), and we have used DOIP for Digital Object Interface Protocol (also known in the ITU x.1255 spec as DEIP, for digital entity interface protocol). We have C2CAMP for a project that is also looking to flesh out this DO virtual layer, we have GDOC or Global Digital Object Cloud, which came from a slide that I created a few years ago, and now perhaps GDON or even ViLaNDO (which I love saying - thanks Maggie). One question I have is why we need a new name. Aren’t we just talking about the Data Fabric IG talking about ways to implement the digital object model? Not at all sure, but I worry about too many names causing confusion.
Looking forward to Berlin,
Larry

Hi, 

Following the recommendations from the last call we have revised and updated the section that tries to map the components of the GDOC to support the modelling of an ENVRI community research infrastructure.