Development of Data Publishing Vocabulary

A key decision to be taken is whether to "characterise" the term data or not and then use this decision accordingly. 

If the aim is to "deal" with any "data", then it seems OK to try to define "data publishing". If this is the case the definition of "data publishing" should contain the term "data" referring to its definition (rather than "... making research data and other research objects ...").

However, since the project name suggests (RDA stands for "Research Data"), I would like to use this as "main concept". Thus the term you are aiming to define should be "Research Data Publishing" rather than "Data Publishing".

In a paper my colleagues and I are working on we are using something like:

• Research Data: entities used as evidence of phenomena for the purpose of research or scholarship;
  • This definition is borrowed from Borgman, C. L., 2015. Big Data, Little Data, No Data: Scholarship in the Networked World. The MIT Press.
• Research Data Publishing: the release of research data for (re)use by others. 
  • The key aspects are
    • "release", i.e. "making available to the public";
    • "(re)use", i.e. the motivation of publishing is to make it possible for others to use the "product";
  • The how publishing is expected to be implement should not be part of the definition. Publishing can happen by a "data paper", by the deposition in a repository, etc.

It is also useful to use the concept of dataset here to introduce the concept of "unit of information". Thus, a "dataset" is a unit of "research data" (no matter how many files and entities) subject of a "research data publishing" act.

Leonardo,
Thanks for the prompt response. I have a few (2 cents worth of) thoughts
on what you said and I expect that some of the main folks involved in the
WG will too, such as on the idea that how publishing is implemented (say to
the Web) is now part of the definition. I wonder of types of
publishing/release such as to the web or a journal are distinguished as
publishing sub-types. They appear in workflows for examples and may be
distinguished there. So perhaps as work terms for the workflow are
discussed there will be suitable definitions to make things clear.
>A key decision to be taken is whether to "characterise" the term data or
not and then use this decision accordingly.
>If the aim is to "deal" with any "data", then it seems OK to try to define
"data publishing". If this is the case the definition of "data publishing"
should contain the term "data" referring to its definition (rather >than
"... making research data and other research objects ...").
>However, since the project name suggests (RDA stands for "Research Data"),
I would like to use >this as "main concept". Thus the term you are aiming
to define should be "Research Data >Publishing" rather than "Data
Publishing".
Leonardo,
Thanks for the prompt response. I have a few (2 cents worth of) thoughts
on what you said and I expect that some of the main folks involved in the
WG will too, such as on the idea that how publishing is implemented (say to
the Web) is now part of the definition. I wonder of types of
publishing/release such as to the web or a journal are distinguished as
publishing sub-types. They appear in workflows for examples and may be
distinguished there. So perhaps as work terms for the workflow are
discussed there will be suitable definitions to make things clear.
>A key decision to be taken is whether to "characterise" the term data or
not and then use this decision accordingly.
>If the aim is to "deal" with any "data", then it seems OK to try to define
"data publishing". If this is the case the definition of "data publishing"
should contain the term "data" referring to its definition (rather >than
"... making research data and other research objects ...").
>However, since the project name suggests (RDA stands for "Research Data"),
I would like to use >this as "main concept". Thus the term you are aiming
to define should be "Research Data >Publishing" rather than "Data
Publishing".
This is a point that would potentially apply across all the RDA groups. I
agree that research data is the main type of data that RDA might focus on,
but wonder if this distinction is relevant. Much data is generated by
research activities while other "data" may come from non-research sources
and then applied to a research question. It then becomes research data in
Leonardo,
Thanks for the prompt response. I have a few (2 cents worth of) thoughts
on what you said and I expect that some of the main folks involved in the
WG will too, such as on the idea that how publishing is implemented (say to
the Web) is now part of the definition. I wonder of types of
publishing/release such as to the web or a journal are distinguished as
publishing sub-types. They appear in workflows for examples and may be
distinguished there. So perhaps as work terms for the workflow are
discussed there will be suitable definitions to make things clear.
>A key decision to be taken is whether to "characterise" the term data or
not and then use this decision accordingly.
>If the aim is to "deal" with any "data", then it seems OK to try to define
"data publishing". If this is the case the definition of "data publishing"
should contain the term "data" referring to its definition (rather >than
"... making research data and other research objects ...").
>However, since the project name suggests (RDA stands for "Research Data"),
I would like to use >this as "main concept". Thus the term you are aiming
to define should be "Research Data >Publishing" rather than "Data
Publishing".
This is a point that would potentially apply across all the RDA groups. I
agree that research data is the main type of data that RDA might focus on,
but wonder if this distinction is relevant. Much data is generated by
research activities while other "data" may come from non-research sources
and then applied to a research question. It then becomes research data in
a similar way that something might become metadata although not consciously
generated for that role. This does fit your definition below since it
becomes evidence for a research activity etc.
>In a paper my colleagues and I are working on we are using something like:
- *Research Data*: entities used as evidence of phenomena for the
purpose of research or scholarship;
- This definition is borrowed from Borgman, C. L., 2015. Big Data,
Little Data, No Data: Scholarship in the Networked World. The MIT Press.
Leonardo,
Thanks for the prompt response. I have a few (2 cents worth of) thoughts
on what you said and I expect that some of the main folks involved in the
WG will too, such as on the idea that how publishing is implemented (say to
the Web) is now part of the definition. I wonder of types of
publishing/release such as to the web or a journal are distinguished as
publishing sub-types. They appear in workflows for examples and may be
distinguished there. So perhaps as work terms for the workflow are
discussed there will be suitable definitions to make things clear.
>A key decision to be taken is whether to "characterise" the term data or
not and then use this decision accordingly.
>If the aim is to "deal" with any "data", then it seems OK to try to define
"data publishing". If this is the case the definition of "data publishing"
should contain the term "data" referring to its definition (rather >than
"... making research data and other research objects ...").
>However, since the project name suggests (RDA stands for "Research Data"),
I would like to use >this as "main concept". Thus the term you are aiming
to define should be "Research Data >Publishing" rather than "Data
Publishing".
This is a point that would potentially apply across all the RDA groups. I
agree that research data is the main type of data that RDA might focus on,
but wonder if this distinction is relevant. Much data is generated by
research activities while other "data" may come from non-research sources
and then applied to a research question. It then becomes research data in
a similar way that something might become metadata although not consciously
generated for that role. This does fit your definition below since it
becomes evidence for a research activity etc.
Leonardo,
Thanks for the prompt response. I have a few (2 cents worth of) thoughts
on what you said and I expect that some of the main folks involved in the
WG will too, such as on the idea that how publishing is implemented (say to
the Web) is now part of the definition. I wonder of types of
publishing/release such as to the web or a journal are distinguished as
publishing sub-types. They appear in workflows for examples and may be
distinguished there. So perhaps as work terms for the workflow are
discussed there will be suitable definitions to make things clear.
>A key decision to be taken is whether to "characterise" the term data or
not and then use this decision accordingly.
>If the aim is to "deal" with any "data", then it seems OK to try to define
"data publishing". If this is the case the definition of "data publishing"
should contain the term "data" referring to its definition (rather >than
"... making research data and other research objects ...").
>However, since the project name suggests (RDA stands for "Research Data"),
I would like to use >this as "main concept". Thus the term you are aiming
to define should be "Research Data >Publishing" rather than "Data
Publishing".
This is a point that would potentially apply across all the RDA groups. I
agree that research data is the main type of data that RDA might focus on,
but wonder if this distinction is relevant. Much data is generated by
research activities while other "data" may come from non-research sources
and then applied to a research question. It then becomes research data in
a similar way that something might become metadata although not consciously
generated for that role. This does fit your definition below since it
becomes evidence for a research activity etc.
>In a paper my colleagues and I are working on we are using something like:
- *Research Data*: entities used as evidence of phenomena for the
purpose of research or scholarship;
- This definition is borrowed from Borgman, C. L., 2015. Big Data,
Little Data, No Data: Scholarship in the Networked World. The MIT Press.
- *Research Data Publishing*: the release of *research data* for (re)use
by others.
- The key aspects are
- "release", i.e. "making available to the public";
- "(re)use", i.e. the motivation of publishing is to make it
possible for others to use the "product";
- The how publishing is expected to be implement should not be part
of the definition. Publishing can happen by a "*data paper*", by
the *deposition
in a repository*, etc.
>It is also useful to use the concept of *dataset* here to introduce the
concept of "unit of information". >Thus, a "dataset" is a unit of "research
data" (no matter how many files and entities) subject of a >"research data
publishing" act.
The Data Foundations and Terminology WG (and now the IG) touched on this
issue of Collections and Aggregations but we didn't have enough converging
input from members to arrive as agreed upon and useful definitions. Some
members talk in terms of Digital Objects as the Unit of Info (or as the
carrier of Info, which I prefer). But distinctions between datasets and
data collections is not settled although I lean towards a dataset being a
unit from which data collections are assembled for particular collection
purposes.
Gary Berg-Cross, Ph.D.
***@***.***
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?GaryBergCross
SOCoP Executive Secretary
Independent Consultant
Potomac, MD
240-426-0770
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 1:04 PM, leonardo.candela <
***@***.***> wrote:
> A key decision to be taken is whether to "characterise" the term data or
> not and then use this decision accordingly.
>
> If the aim is to "deal" with any "data", then it seems OK to try to define
> "data publishing". If this is the case the definition of "data publishing"
> should contain the term "data" referring to its definition (rather than
> "... making research data and other research objects ...").
>
> However, since the project name suggests (RDA stands for "Research Data"),
> I would like to use this as "main concept". Thus the term you are aiming to
> define should be "Research Data Publishing" rather than "Data Publishing".
>
> In a paper my colleagues and I are working on we are using something like:
>
> - *Research Data*: entities used as evidence of phenomena for the
> purpose of research or scholarship;
> - This definition is borrowed from Borgman, C. L., 2015. Big Data,
> Little Data, No Data: Scholarship in the Networked World. The MIT Press.
> - *Research Data Publishing*: the release of *research data* for
> (re)use by others.
> - The key aspects are
> - "release", i.e. "making available to the public";
> - "(re)use", i.e. the motivation of publishing is to make it
> possible for others to use the "product";
> - The how publishing is expected to be implement should not be part
> of the definition. Publishing can happen by a "*data paper*", by
Leonardo,
Thanks for the prompt response. I have a few (2 cents worth of) thoughts
on what you said and I expect that some of the main folks involved in the
WG will too, such as on the idea that how publishing is implemented (say to
the Web) is now part of the definition. I wonder of types of
publishing/release such as to the web or a journal are distinguished as
publishing sub-types. They appear in workflows for examples and may be
distinguished there. So perhaps as work terms for the workflow are
discussed there will be suitable definitions to make things clear.
>A key decision to be taken is whether to "characterise" the term data or
not and then use this decision accordingly.
>If the aim is to "deal" with any "data", then it seems OK to try to define
"data publishing". If this is the case the definition of "data publishing"
should contain the term "data" referring to its definition (rather >than
"... making research data and other research objects ...").
>However, since the project name suggests (RDA stands for "Research Data"),
I would like to use >this as "main concept". Thus the term you are aiming
to define should be "Research Data >Publishing" rather than "Data
Publishing".
This is a point that would potentially apply across all the RDA groups. I
agree that research data is the main type of data that RDA might focus on,
but wonder if this distinction is relevant. Much data is generated by
research activities while other "data" may come from non-research sources
and then applied to a research question. It then becomes research data in
a similar way that something might become metadata although not consciously
generated for that role. This does fit your definition below since it
becomes evidence for a research activity etc.
>In a paper my colleagues and I are working on we are using something like:
- *Research Data*: entities used as evidence of phenomena for the
purpose of research or scholarship;
- This definition is borrowed from Borgman, C. L., 2015. Big Data,
Little Data, No Data: Scholarship in the Networked World. The MIT Press.
- *Research Data Publishing*: the release of *research data* for (re)use
by others.
- The key aspects are
- "release", i.e. "making available to the public";
- "(re)use", i.e. the motivation of publishing is to make it
possible for others to use the "product";
- The how publishing is expected to be implement should not be part
of the definition. Publishing can happen by a "*data paper*", by
the *deposition
in a repository*, etc.
>It is also useful to use the concept of *dataset* here to introduce the
concept of "unit of information". >Thus, a "dataset" is a unit of "research
data" (no matter how many files and entities) subject of a >"research data
publishing" act.
The Data Foundations and Terminology WG (and now the IG) touched on this
issue of Collections and Aggregations but we didn't have enough converging
input from members to arrive as agreed upon and useful definitions. Some
members talk in terms of Digital Objects as the Unit of Info (or as the
carrier of Info, which I prefer). But distinctions between datasets and
data collections is not settled although I lean towards a dataset being a
unit from which data collections are assembled for particular collection
purposes.
Gary Berg-Cross, Ph.D.
***@***.***
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?GaryBergCross
SOCoP Executive Secretary
Independent Consultant
Potomac, MD
240-426-0770
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 1:04 PM, leonardo.candela <
***@***.***> wrote: