Working Group Title: Exposing Data Management Plans WG
Group Page: https://www.rd-alliance.org/groups/exposing-data-management-plans-wg
Case Statement: https://www.rd-alliance.org/sites/default/files/case_statement/Exposing%20Plans%20casestatement%20SUBMITTED_24072017.pdf
REVISED Case Statement: https://www.rd-alliance.org/sites/default/files/case_statement/Exposing%...
Proposers: Angus Whyte, Fiona Murphy, Natalie Meyers, Kathryn Unsworth
Date Received by TAB: 24 July 2017
Completeness of Case Statement:
(Does it include the six requisite components: (1) WG Charter; (2) Value Proposition: (3) Engagement with Existing Work in the Area; (4) Work Plan; (5) Adoption Plan; (6) Initial Membership?): Yes (x); No __; Comments:
Yes
Focus and Fit:
(Are the Working Group objectives and deliverables aligned with the RDA mission ? Is the scope too large for effective progress, too small for an RDA effort, or not appropriate for the RDA? Overall, is this a worthwhile effort for the RDA to take on? Is this an effort that adds value over and above what is currently being done within the community?)
The WG Group objectives are aligned with the RDA mission and are worth being tackled by the RDA. It would be useful to have the Group positioned in the RDA DMP landscape. This should appear already in the introduction so that the relationship with other Groups described in 'Engagement with existing Groups' is clearer. The charter identifies a number of benefits for different stakeholders in the research data ecosystem, and the objectives and deliverables will serve to reduce barriers to data interoperability and access. The work should aim to complement existing work within the RDA.
Work Plan, Deliverables, and Outcomes:
(Are there measurable, practical deliverables and outcomes? Can the proposed work, outcomes/deliverables, and Work Plan described in the Case Statement be accomplished in 12-18 months?)
The scope appears right for an 18 month effort, and the group is building on lots of existing work which reduces the risk of non-completion. However, we have some comments:
- There should be a more precise discussion of the Group foreseen schedule with respect to the DMP Common standards WG. For the moment the case statement says that they will use the outputs of the other Group 'as far as possible' 'as they become available' but the outputs of the two Groups should be coherent.
- What is the status of the QoS-Data LC WG, which is referred to as Storage Service Definition WG? Again the scheduling of the respective Group activities should be discussed if relevant.
- The Group plans to use other media than the RDA ones to engage a broader community, which is good. It will be useful to keep track on the RDA Group page.
- Minor comment: it would help that RDA is indicated in front of references to other groups within the RDA family (e.g. RDA Common standards WG) in order to differentiate from references to non-RDA groups.
Capacity:
(Does the initial membership list include sufficient expertise, and disciplinary and international representation? Are the right people involved in the Working Group to adopt and implement? What individuals or organizations are missing?)
The initial membership covers a range of kinds of organisations, stakeholders within the scholarly communication ecosystem, institutions, and regions. There appear to be no obvious missing categories. We note however that the 4 proposed co-chairs are native speakers based in the Commonwealth or in the USA. It is important that the Group expands the survey well beyond its initial membership as proposed and fully takes into account input from people from other countries and languages. The initial significant Portugese participation, and the presence of one participant from Germany, go in the right direction, but the Group should keep this point in mind in all its activities to ensure that its conclusions are relevant in the RDA context.
Impact and Engagement:
(Is it likely that the outcome(s) of the Working Group will be taken up by the intended community? Is there evidence that the research community wants this? Will the outcome(s) of the Working Group foster data sharing and/or exchange?)
There is increasing interest in a number of sectors of the research producing and managing communities in maximising the value of data through better planning. This activity builds on that interest in ways that appear to be adoptable. It's hard to assess the actual likely adoption ahead of the production of the outputs, but what is proposed is consistent with other activity and so likely to be adopted. We encourage the group to expand the survey and eventually the active Group membership to a wider range of countries and take all opinions fully into account. This could be focussed around issues of wider suitability for adoption. It would be good also to involve other publishers if possible.
Recommendation:
Case Statement is Sufficient __; Case Statement Requires Revision X; Case Statement is Rejected __
- Log in to post comments
- 3277 reads
Author: Lynn Yarmey
Date: 04 Jan, 2018
Responses from the Chairs on direct TAB comments (as sent to Lynn 3 Jan)
We intended re-submitting before the holidays with a covering note to Francoise on what we have done to address the previous TAB review. Until now I hadn’t got round to that, but the changes I wanted to highlight are:
1. More precision on the schedule with respect to the DMP Common Standards WG. : We have discussed with their co-chairs and revised our statement on p.4-6 to clarify that we will use the results of their consultation to inform our own, which will consider DMP process requirements based on their user stories, and feed our results to them to inform development of their model.
2. Clarify the nature of the work with the QoS-Data LC WG: We contacted with Paul Millar who indicated members of the (renamed ) Storage Service Definition WG would likely contribute to a case study. Our case statement now clarifies their status (pending submission) and states that a case study on the topic of storage provisioning based on DMP requirements will be sought from members of this WG, and coordinated through the DMP Common Standards WG, which has shared membership of both groups.
3. Commit to updating our RDA group page with results of community interaction via non-RDA media: revised statement now does this.
4. Broaden membership to include more people from non-English speaking countries: since P10 membership has now grown to 40+ from 15 countries, many of which are non-English speaking. We are inviting a non-English (French) speaking co-chair from the current group membership (Marie-Christine Jacquemot-Perbal) to compensate for the fact that Natalie Meyers has had to step back a little in the short term, due to family commitments arising from recent bereavement. We also agreed to reach out to colleagues from several African organisations involved in RDA.
5. For impact, expand the survey to focus more broadly on the suitability of outcomes for adoption. The revised statement on p. 7 now includes this among the survey topics.
6. Involve other publishers if possible. Springer Nature are contributing through the editor of BMC Research Notes, who has joined the group and will contribute on DMP publication use cases.
Author: Sarah Ramdeen
Date: 04 Jan, 2018
It might be worth pointing this group to the "The Data Management Training (DMT) Clearinghouse" that has come out of the ESIP community. The DMT is a registry for online learning resources focusing on research data management. http://dmtclearinghouse.esipfed.org/. While coming out of an Earth Science community, it aligns with one of their goals to "provide a Use Cases Catalogue". It might act as partner or could be pointed to for examples.