Data Foundation and Terminology

Where we discuss anything related to the RDA (catchall)

Moderators: Leif.Laaksonen, SaraPittonetGaiarin

Re: Data Foundation and Terminology

Postby tobiasweigel » Thu Feb 14, 2013 4:32 pm

Hi Peter,

the changes look good to me. Using the OIF more intensively is I think not only important to show engagement, but also to lower the entry barrier for newcomers to the WG; I think the OIF offers the opportunity to become a moderated knowledge base, something a list archive is not so good at.

Best, Tobias
Tobias Weigel, DKRZ
tobiasweigel
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 9:01 am
Location: DKRZ, Hamburg

Re: Data Foundation and Terminology

Postby llannom » Thu Feb 14, 2013 7:25 pm

The changes are good. I found one minor typo

more interaction will be done via them forum

I continue to think that this is an excellent idea for a WG. Its quite ambitious but even if only somewhat successful in defining a shared data model and terminology for use by others, especially but not limited to other RDA WGs, it could considerably ease cross-domain discussions and contribute to a building block approach to scientific data management.
llannom
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 6:20 pm

Re: Data Foundation and Terminology

Postby pwittenburg » Fri Feb 15, 2013 12:31 pm

ok two support statements in the forum and some emails. But there was not so much to change.
We can thus move ahead and submit the CS to being evaluated by the council.

The council created a list of questions which they will use for evaluation. We quickly created an appendix with answers to these questions. Please have a look as well and comment on them via the forum. These answers don't change the CS content and direction, but may shed more light on specifics. Since I am not sure whether the questions are already public I will add them as attachment as well.

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 Gary » Fri Feb 22, 2013 7:22 pm

I have made some of the typo changes suggested for the draft and added:

the idea of the reference model providing a basis for consistent understanding,
the idea of provenance
to Initial Membership David Dubin and Allen Renear (following a discussion with David)

The revised document is attached.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Gary
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2012 7:45 pm

Re: Data Foundation and Terminology

Postby parsonsm » Thu Feb 28, 2013 5:11 pm

This is a nice case statement. The outcome is clear, albeit not without risk. As you point out, it will require strong evangelists. I hope the RDA at large as well as the Council and Secretariat can help with that. I'm also glad you are involving Alan Renear who has thought a lot about this topic.

One question I did have is whether the group has considered explicitly defining some key human roles as part of the reference model. I ask partly because there has already been a fair amount of discussion within RDA about "data practitioners". Not only is that a very general term, it clearly has different meaning to different people.

Good luck moving forward with this. The RDA Secretariat can certainly help with the evangelism :-)

cheers,

-m.

Mark A. Parsons
RDA/US
Mark A. Parsons
RDA/US
User avatar
parsonsm
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 8:44 pm

Re: Data Foundation and Terminology

Postby pwittenburg » Sun Mar 03, 2013 12:21 pm

Thanks Tobias and Stephen for your comments.
And apologies for the delayed response.

Let me first give an answer to Tobias:
Yes it needs to be a lightweight solution, since I assume many ongoing discussions until the definitions will settle. Whatever we are doing we should know that there are formal models such as based on ISO 11173 and ISO 12620 and there is "running code" - so we would not have to re-invent the wheel. Also look at the suggestion from Stephen below. So I would not spend too much time on this issue since there are some of us who are familiar with solutions. For the beginning we should take something easy to use. Let's take a pragmatic view here.

Stephen - you are right when you state that it is not clear from the case statement what the scope of terminology is we are thinking of. Therefore a larger group started to work on a parallel concept note to better understand what the scope is (it's also in the forum). From the discussions we had it was already clear that some of the group would like to set a wider scope including issues of semantic interoperability than others. We agreed to start with "basic notions" addressing the core of data objects, collections and their relations. I am sure that the scope will emerge over time perhaps ending up in new working groups. Some of the group wanted to come up with additional concept notes, but this obviously has not yet been done due to the general workload of all of us. I am currently working on your case statement version - comments will come later. Your suggestion to use a formal framework such as SKOS or OWL to express has been discussed already and the group agreed to first start with a simple non formal approach. Personally I would like to see a more formal outcome at the end, but that is something we might want to include at a later stage to not loose good people. I should also add here that when starting to talk about formal frameworks you get immediately into a discussion with some enthusiasts fighting for their approach which at this moment would be counterproductive.

best
Peter
pwittenburg
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:47 pm

Re: Data Foundation and Terminology

Postby pwittenburg » Sun Mar 03, 2013 12:30 pm

Thanks Mark.
Let's see how the group will elaborate about this. I clearly see that having a discussion forum at this moment is not adequate for moving ahead. There are too many new people - also via email - coming up with questions etc, that we need the Gothenburg f2f meeting to stabilize on a number of aspects. Even our video meeting was not sufficient to make these first steps.

The "evangelists" must come from the domain of data practitioners and I just hope that all see the challenges of Future Internet where we will need a second layer defined by a logical domain of data objects and collections and not one anymore of network nodes, directories, file names etc.

Peter
pwittenburg
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:47 pm

Re: Data Foundation and Terminology

Postby pwittenburg » Sun Mar 03, 2013 12:40 pm

Here I will reply on a note from Yin Chen which can be seen in the Case Statement Forum.

Yin Chen refers to a reference model currently being worked out in an ongoing European project.

I hope that we all agree that RDA should not be a podium for making PR for a project, institute, tool etc., so I will not comment on that part. However, Yin Chen, I would be happy if you will participate in this DFT group, since I am sure that in the projects you are involved in you have accumulated knowledge about the things we are discussing. So welcome in this group and I hope to see you in Gothenburg.

best
Peter
pwittenburg
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:47 pm

Re: Data Foundation and Terminology

Postby pwittenburg » Sun Mar 03, 2013 12:47 pm

Yen Chin - I looked at your comments in the Case Statement. You suggest to refer to the work in ENVRI. I will not accept these changes, since as indicated in my earlier statement, we should not come into a situation where every project wants to be mentioned - there are hundreds of them working on these issues. Everyone is welcome in the group as an expert, but not as a delegate of a project, institute or so. Hope you understand that.

best
Peter
pwittenburg
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:47 pm

Re: Data Foundation and Terminology

Postby pwittenburg » Sun Mar 03, 2013 1:08 pm

Dear all,

We had an excellent interaction with council members and a few people from the working groups. This made more clear how the council's questions should be interpreted. Based on this I created a new version of the answers to these questions - only where I thought additional statements help in explaining the Case Statement. Please take this still as an answer not looked at by the whole group.

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