Data Foundation and Terminology

Where we discuss anything related to the RDA (catchall)

Moderators: Leif.Laaksonen, SaraPittonetGaiarin

Re: Data Foundation and Terminology

Postby timmo » Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:38 pm

A couple of comments on the case statement: The timeline is helpful, but it would be useful to include a discrete list of deliverables in a separate section to make it more clear what will be produced. The full name for each acronym should be defined somewhere in the document and not require external searching to resolve (e.g., "OIF").
timmo
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 11:13 pm

Comments in the chat: TelCo 9.Jan.2013

Postby stotzka » Wed Jan 09, 2013 7:00 pm

January 9, 2013,: CET 19:00 - 19:58
Chat of the video conference
just copied, not edited ;-)


Rainer Stotzka: Hi
pewi: yes
pewi: what about the others?
Arcot Rajasekar: hello. happy new year
Stephen Richard: your voice is very low-hard to hear
pewi: Rainer is somewhere in the dark
Gary BergCross: 1. Discussion of the revised draft CS with special attention to schedule, deliverable if and recruiting more resources there are no other issues.Finishing the CS and a clear signal to submit it "officially" for open commenting in the RDA forum. "deadline" for early submissions of CS: 14.1
pewi: yes
pewi: yes larry
Gary BergCross: Yes...
Stan Ahalt: yes we can hear you raja
Arcot Rajasekar: thanks
pewi: yes bob
Gary BergCross: Bob Yes
Johannes (MPGRZG): I hear you well, Bob
pewi: yes rainer
Johannes (MPGRZG): Hi
pewi: hallo stan
Gary BergCross: Rainer, Yes we can hear
pewi: so it seems that we are all on board
Gary BergCross: Johanes??? test voice?
Johannes (MPGRZG): Hi Peter
Stan Ahalt: folks remember to pause about 3 secs after you stop talking before you press the button the second time
Gary BergCross: Can't here steve
Gary BergCross: Yes steve
Stan Ahalt: yes we can hear you!
pewi: very good
Arcot Rajasekar: yes able to hear steven
Stan Ahalt: Gary you are very quiet
Stan Ahalt: can you turn up your volums in some way
Stephen Richard: yes, I can't hear what Gary is saying
Stephen Richard: still very hard to hear Gary, I'm only getting about half of what he says
Gary BergCross: No voice from Nancy
Stan Ahalt: Nancy I am not sure if you know that you need to hit the Start Broadcasting button to start talking
Johannes (MPGRZG): I understand you very well, Gary
pewi: hear you very well Gary - must be the other end
Stan Ahalt: I turned my volume all the way up and can hear you
Arcot Rajasekar: Gary, is it possible to move your mike closer to your chin
Arcot Rajasekar: ok
pewi: can't hear you Johannes
Stan Ahalt: Johannes I cannot hear you
Gary BergCross: Can' hear you.
Gary BergCross: OK now
Stan Ahalt: much better! ;-)
David Baker: was i heard?
pewi: no David did not get you
pewi: ok thanks Joahnnes
Gary BergCross: I have seen it....
Johannes (MPGRZG): I agree, Gary
pewi: right Gary
Stan Ahalt: sounds good to me. Thanks, Bob!
Gary BergCross: Agreed on a sentence or 2 for interoperability
Gary BergCross: Will look at adding it to the value proposition.
Johannes (MPGRZG): integrating Bob's essentials into value proposition is a good idea
pewi: thanks Bob - i got the history indeed - I love the paper as you know
Gary BergCross: Clairify reference to Bob's original document could be noted in the references
Stan Ahalt: ok that sounds great - thanks!
Stephen Richard: I just sent a copy of the 2006 version around to the list
pewi: that sounds great Gary
pewi: Tim from JHU also is supporting
Larry: Agreed
Johannes (MPGRZG): yes it is done
Arcot Rajasekar: I agree that the CASE Statement is good and we should go further to next step
Rainer Stotzka: I am fine with the CS
Gary BergCross: Jan 14 is then the target to send for comments.
Gary BergCross: I email Chris Jenkins today.
Arcot Rajasekar: ocean observatory initiative (OOI)
Gary BergCross: I expect that John G and Boyan will be very busy.
pewi: ok sounds great - so let's get their support
pewi: agree Steve
Gary BergCross: Steve, you mentioned Simon Cox at CSIRO Australia and Bruce Simons
Stephen Richard: Oh yes, Simon Cox, Bruce Simons, Alistair Ritchie, all in Aus or NZ, so not North America...
Gary BergCross: 2 rounds of commenting
Johannes (MPGRZG): There are reasons why I like the CS: e.g. I appreciate a sentence such as "The DFT WG task is to describe a *basic*, abstract data organization model". The emphasis on "basic" is essential wrt to the given timeline (15months), which I fully support.
pewi: absolutely Gary
Stan Ahalt: raja you voice is a bit garbled. Maybe a fan in the background?
Arcot Rajasekar: possible. there is a n a/c outlet just above my head :-(
Johannes (MPGRZG): I will attend
Gary BergCross: How will we go on from here per the case statement. Discuss conceptual notes.
Gary BergCross: I am trying to put some meeting notes into the chat. Such as the Idea is to provide conceptual notes thru January
Gary BergCross: To handel Video conference limitations we might propose a 4 hr F2F meeting at Gothenburg.
pewi: can't hear you
Larry: Only hearing static
Stan Ahalt: only stattic now
Arcot Rajasekar: I will not be attending
pewi: yes better
Rainer Stotzka: works
Arcot Rajasekar: that will be great
Johannes (MPGRZG): at least a streamin system should be provided in Gothenburg
Stan Ahalt: I will be at the meeting.
Rainer Stotzka: I will attend
Larry: Gary is right - it will be extension to existing grants
pewi: october meeting in Washington DC
Gary BergCross: Agreed that we will write a justification for the F2F
Gary BergCross: Meeting for last week of Janaury with conceptual notes
Stan Ahalt: I llike this idea, too.
pewi: yes you are right
Rainer Stotzka: Where do we collect our literature list? Just inside the CS document?
Johannes (MPGRZG): I would say, the literature list in the CS is just indicative. There is much more literature that can be referred to.
pewi: yes but not have many more docs to read - that would kill us
Larry: I have to leave now
Gary BergCross: I like Rainer's library idea as a central place.
pewi: guess we are done so far - Gary and myself need to summarize etc
pewi: great Rainer
Johannes (MPGRZG): but please not soo detailed as last time, Rainer ;-)
Stan Ahalt: sounds good. Thanks everyone!
pewi: ok thanks to all - ciao to all
Gary BergCross: Thanks...happy new year
Arcot Rajasekar: bye
Stephen Richard: thanks, bye
Gary BergCross: bye
Rainer Stotzka: Bye
Johannes (MPGRZG): thanks the CS writers for the work
Johannes (MPGRZG): by
Rainer Stotzka
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)
http://ipelsdf1.lsdf.kit.edu/cms/
User avatar
stotzka
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 7:36 am

RDA DFT Virtual Meeting Notes 09/1/2013

Postby Gary » Thu Jan 10, 2013 3:16 pm

The following are notes summarizing the RDA DFT Virtual Meeting 09/1/2013 including an edited version of the chat.


Channel: Used Flash VC for meeting which worked reasonably well for most. However, several people on Mac equipment had trouble with Flash and people who just wanted to call in such as Ruth Duerr could not. We still need to improve here.

Present: Arcot Rajasekar, Gary Berg-Cross, Johannes Reetz, Larry Lannom, Peter Wittenburg, Rainer Stotzka, Robert Kahn, Stanley C Ahalt, Steve Richard, Nancy Wiegand

These notes are intended to cover the major points and discussions made by various people. In general there were no strong disagreements. Where we had differing opinions this is indicated in sub-points written in italics.
As supplementary, contextual material the chat notes as published on the RDA forum have been added as an appendix.
General Points
• There was general agreement that the Case Statement (Vision, value statement, schedule, & deliverables etc.) was ready to move forward and be finalized to:
o submit it "officially" by Jan 14th for open commenting as part of RDA forum deadline" for early submissions
We are not yet sure when we might expect to hear back on approval or need for revision of the CS

• Before submitting the CS there are minor suggestions for improvement such as combining bullet 4 of the intro paragraph in bullet 3 and adding something on Interoperability as part of the value statement. Bob’s proposed language is probably more than we need but 1-2 line addition is probably useful. Some additions to membership still need to be made.
• We also should reference the original Kahn and Wilensky paper -
o Kahn, Robert, and Robert Wilensky. "A framework for distributed digital object services, May 1995." URL http://www. CNRI. Reston. VA. US/home/cstr/arch/kw. html [1999-10-12] (1995)..
Other January Activities what the group might do as await action on the CS)
There were several activities for the remaining time in January (as we await further guidance). We should
• Read the referenced articles.
• Recruit additional members and bring them up to speed
• Read and comment on other group’s CSes.
• Respond to comments about our CS from other groups
• Mature our thinking and prepare concept notes and discuss things on the forum
o Peter and Gary will prepare a general one and others prepare them as they desire to clarify points of view
• Hold a VC at the end of the month to discuss the above, status and plans for the launch. Peter and Gary may come up with a procedural proposal on how to get started and offer a refined timeline based on feedback and taking other concept papers into account.
o Note, as the group grows it will be impractical to have frequent, virtual meetings and we need to make sure that online discussions and information sharing carry us forward.
Meeting in Gothenburg
• Peter and Gary should prepare a small document justifying a face to face meeting (perhaps 4 hours) to work as a group at the March meeting.
• We are gathering information as to who plans on attending. Gary noted that he had asked about the issue with Fran and Beth at the ESIP meeting in DC and there was as yet not final word from NSF on who or what they will support, but that we hope to have an answer soon.
• This will be an important factor in establishing a standard or participation for future RDA meetings, such as the one planned for DC in the Fall of 2013.
Proposal for a Library
We have the initial list of references in the CS and can keep track of articles by posting these to the forum. New members should be pointed to these as sources. However, it may be valuable to have a centralized library for a growing # of relevant articles. Currently there is no solution, such as a Wiki, for this.

Appendix: Chat- Channel Notes
(This record has been cleaned up by removing all statements about mikes and video at the beginning , correcting typos and inserting some context from speakers to held the reader understand a written response.)

Gary BergCross: Topic 1. Discussion of the revised draft CS with special attention to schedule, deliverable if and recruiting more resources there are no other issues. Finishing the CS and a clear signal to submit it "officially" for open commenting in the RDA forum. "Deadline" for early submissions of CS: 14.1
pewi: so it seems that we are all on board
Gary BergCross:Comments on the current CS I have seen Bob’s suggestions on interoperability..I think they are bit too long for full inclusion...
Johannes (MPGRZG): I agree, Gary
pewi: right Gary
Bob We should include a sentence or 2.
Stan Ahalt: sounds good to me. Thanks, Bob!
Gary BergCross: Agreed on a sentence or 2 for interoperability
Gary BergCross: Will look at adding it to the value proposition.
Johannes (MPGRZG): integrating Bob's essentials into value proposition is a good idea
Bob Kahn there is an older, original article behind the 2006 reference
pewi: thanks Bob - I got the history indeed - I love the paper as you know
Gary BergCross: (I suggest that we) Clarify reference to Bob's original document could be noted in the references
Stan Ahalt: ok that sounds great - thanks!
Stephen Richard: I just sent a copy of the 2006 version around to the list
pewi: that sounds great Gary
pewi: Tim from JHU also is supporting
Larry: Agreed
Johannes (MPGRZG): yes it is done
Arcot Rajasekar: I agree that the CASE Statement is good and we should go further to next step
Rainer Stotzka: I am fine with the CS
Gary BergCross: Jan 14 is then the target to send for comments.
Recruitment topic –suggestions from Steve
Gary BergCross: I emailed Chris Jenkins today (about being a member).
Arcot Rajasekar: (John Graybeal) ocean observatory initiative (OOI)
Gary BergCross: I expect that John G and Boyan will be very busy.
pewi: ok sounds great - so let's get their support
pewi: agree Steve
Gary BergCross: Steve, you mentioned Simon Cox at CSIRO Australia and Bruce Simons
Stephen Richard: Oh yes, Simon Cox, Bruce Simons, Alistair Ritchie, all in Aus or NZ, so not North America...
Gary BergCross: We expect 2 rounds of commenting
Johannes (MPGRZG): There are reasons why I like the CS: e.g. I appreciate a sentence such as "The DFT WG task is to describe a *basic*, abstract data organization model". The emphasis on "basic" is essential wrt to the given timeline (15 months), which I fully support.
pewi: absolutely Gary
Who will attend the March Meeting?
Johannes (MPGRZG): I will attend (Gothenburg meeting)
Gary BergCross: How will we go on from here per the case statement? Discuss conceptual notes.
Gary BergCross: To handle Video conference limitations we might propose a 4 hr F2F meeting at Gothenburg.
Arcot Rajasekar: I will not be attending
Need some remote access to the meeting
Arcot Rajasekar: that will be great
Johannes (MPGRZG): at least a streaming system should be provided in Gothenburg
Stan Ahalt: I will be at the meeting.
Rainer Stotzka: I will attend
Gary –hd some updates from talking to Fran Berman and Beth Plale at the ESIP meeting in DC. Beth is perusing extensions to existing grants as support.
Larry: Gary is right - it will be extension to existing grants
pewi: There is a plan for an October meeting in Washington DC
Gary BergCross: Agreed that we will write a justification for the F2F
Gary BergCross: Meeting for last week of January with conceptual notes
Stan Ahalt: I like this idea, too.
pewi: yes you are right
Rainer Stotzka: Where do we collect our literature list? Just inside the CS document?
Johannes (MPGRZG): I would say, the literature list in the CS is just indicative. There is much more literature that can be referred to.
pewi: yes but not have many more docs to read - that would kill us
Gary BergCross: I like Rainer's library idea as a central place.
pewi: guess we are done so far - Gary and myself need to summarize etc.
pewi: great Rainer
Johannes (MPGRZG): but please not so detailed as last time, Rainer ;-)
Stan Ahalt: sounds good. Thanks everyone!
Johannes (MPGRZG): thanks the CS writers for the work
Gary
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2012 7:45 pm

Re: Data Foundation and Terminology

Postby pwittenburg » Fri Jan 11, 2013 9:07 am

We created a new version of the Case Statement which should be stable now after many discussions in email and video meetings. We are waiting on some more interested people to support this work and to contribute. The intention is to submit the Case Statement to RDA wide commenting at 14.1.

Gary & Peter
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
pwittenburg
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:47 pm

Re: Data Foundation and Terminology

Postby DonatellaCastelli » Fri Jan 11, 2013 11:15 am

Dear Peter, Gerhard, all,

the objective of this WG remind me a similar effort that we did together with a large number of experts in the context of digital libraries some year ago. This effort was initiated in the context of the EU DELOS Network of Excellence on Digital Libraries (http://www.delos.info) and continued supported by the EU DL.org Coordination Action (http://www.dlorg.eu).
I think that it might be of interest and useful for you to have a look to the concept definitions that were produced. As I said it was a collaborative effort and it can certainly provide you a good basis to start with not only in terms of definitions but also in term of literature on the subject.

You can find the result of this effort in the two documents:
Digital Library Reference Model: http://www.dlorg.eu/index.php/outcomes/reference-model

and

Technology and Methodology Digital Library Cookbook: http://www.dlorg.eu/index.php/outcomes/dl-org-cookbook

Hope it is helps

Donatella Castelli
DonatellaCastelli
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2012 10:55 am

Re: Data Foundation and Terminology

Postby paolo.manghi » Fri Jan 11, 2013 11:33 am

Dear All,

let me add to Donatella's post that the areas touched by the Digital Library Reference Model are: content, functionalities, policies, users, quality, and architecture. At a higher level of abstraction (independent from the application domain), such areas can be a starting point for analysing any class of information systems, including data infrastructures. In general, topics of these areas are interrelated and the way this is done for Digital Libraries can certainly inspire our discussion. In particular, the notion of "information objects" as well as on the notion of "interoperability" are worth taking a look, as well as the notion of "end-users" and they way they interrelated with the other axes of functionality, architecture and, most importantly, content. We may indeed find interesting and reusable concepts there.

Best,

Paolo
paolo.manghi
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2012 3:21 pm

Re: Data Foundation and Terminology

Postby Gary » Thu Jan 17, 2013 5:18 pm

Steve,

Thank you for the comment and questions. We are just starting our work so I expect that we will be talking about the nature of our conceptual model of data and information for a while. David Dubin (Center for Informatics Research in Science and Scholarship, Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) has agreed to participate in the WG and will submit a concept paper that may address some of these issues such as a:

"shared formal conceptual model of information representation that is both accurate and sufficiently detailed to accommodate the management and analysis of real world digital data in varying formats"

David and his broup have developed a "Basic Representation Model" that:

" identifies the core entities and relationships that are involved in representing the information
carried by digital objects. This model has its roots in work designed to establish a general model for the preservation
of resources in digital repositories (Sandore& Unsworth, 2010).

This model is somewhat of an enhancement to the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) model which earlier provided a conceptual model to identify data entities and relationships for info and data. See:
https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/35259
for a recent article on the model and a briefing. I expect that David will be able to elaborate and explain the framework in subsequent meetings.
Gary
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2012 7:45 pm

Re: Data Foundation and Terminology

Postby Gary » Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:26 pm

Donatella,

Thank you for the pointer to "Coordination Action on Digital Library Interoperability, Best Practices and Modelling
Foundations." At first look it does indeed seem to have many relevant concepts and discussions. Figure II.4.3. 5S, for example shows nice relations of the Areas Covered by the Reference Model. Areas like Metadata, Information Object and Provenance will be useful. We may have to expand on the topic of Content and consider a finer granularity and more types of relations between concepts.

It will take some time to digest the concepts in the hierarchy and discuss them, but I'm sure that it will be useful.
Gary
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2012 7:45 pm

Re: Data Foundation and Terminology

Postby Gary » Thu Jan 17, 2013 10:39 pm

Dataset may be one core concept the WG needs to come to grips with. There is an article by Allen H. Renear, Simone Sacchi, & Karen M. Wickett called "Definitions of Dataset in the Scientific and Technical Literature" that provides many useful views of how the concept has been used.

You can read the paper at:
http://mail.asis.org/asist2010/proceedi ... ission.pdf

Their summary FINDINGS were of the type the group has discussed that a familiar term really points to a family of related concepts. There Findings were as follows:

Our examination of some explicit definitions of dataset in
scientific and technical literature reveals that:

1. There are common themes in dataset definitions,
suggesting that there is some degree of agreement and
shared understanding, at least at a high level of
generality.

2. More specifically, these definitions usually exhibit in
some form these four characterizing features: grouping,
content, relatedness, and purpose.

3. Although definitions of dataset do appear to fit a
common pattern, with recurring phrases and
semantically similar terms, it is clear that there is no
single well-defined concept of dataset. The variations
in individual terms are significant, the terms
themselves are often used in different senses, and
critical characteristics are left underdetermined.

4. In particular there is uncertainty as to the ontological
status of datasets, and considerable ambiguity and
conflation with respect to level of abstraction of dataset
contents.

5. It is clear from the forgoing that the notion of “dataset”
found in the literature cannot itself be provided with a
precise formal definition, but that this general notion
must be replaced by an interrelated family of more specific concepts.
Gary
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2012 7:45 pm

Re: Data Foundation and Terminology

Postby pwittenburg » Wed Feb 13, 2013 6:25 pm

Dear all,

Friday we should upload a new version of the terminology Case Statement.
The comments we got focused mainly on the following points:
- Get more people into the discussion to show broader community engagement.
- We should identify a few communities/projects where we will have intensive discussions and early adoption.
- Use the forum to show engagement.

So I added/changed some text which I have marked in red color. Please check. However, we should make clear that this WG is special in so far as we expect adoption by all who are involved in the discussions as long as we have agreement.
As always our time-line was too optimistic, so I updated the time-line as well. Please check as well.
As I have already indicated - the preparations of the RDA conference etc made it impossible for me to spend more time on this and I know from Gary that he also has some commitments.

Here are some action points for all of us:
- Please comment on the suggested changes today and tomorrow. Do this even if you think the changes are ok.
- Tomorrow I will take the specific questions from the council and will answer them in a semi-formal way and add them as appendix.
- Start thinking about other initiatives and groups who might be interested. I will start sending emails tomorrow as well to other CWGs in RDA which may be interested. I will also include those new groups that requested BoF sessions in Gothenburg.
- We will take the time to work on the concept note and share it with you via the forum. When we have a new version, we should have a virtual meeting about this.I will create a doodle for this.

As indicated in my last email: given the few changes we don't need to have a virtual meeting now.

SO PLEASE COMMENT VIA THE FORUM to this version.

Best
Peter
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
pwittenburg
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:47 pm

PreviousNext

Return to RDA Discussion Area

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron