Communities and Engagement WG

Where we discuss anything related to the RDA (catchall)

Moderators: Leif.Laaksonen, SaraPittonetGaiarin

Communities and Engagement WG

Postby inkouper » Tue Nov 13, 2012 5:11 pm

This is the initial discussion area for the working group on communities and engagement. The case statement is still work in progress, and below are some issues that need to be worked out and finalized. A draft of the statement is attached to this post. Please comment and suggest other issues/considerations that need to be addressed.

We encourage everyone to participate or at least follow this WG. Engagement of researchers is crucial for the success of RDA and data sharing in general.

Name
  • Communities and Engagement Working Group (CEWG) - current working name
  • Research Communities and Engagement
  • Outreach and Engagement
  • Other???

Objectives
  • promote adoption of data sharing by scientific communities
  • increase researchers/scientists’ interest and capacity for active participation in RDA
  • build productive partnerships between various stakeholders in the development of practical infrastructure for data sharing and in RDA activities

Deliverables
  • Identify needs and practices of researchers as well as the existing metrics of engagement and present them in a comparative chart.
  • Collect at least five use cases that describe existing successful data sharing stories and organize them according to a uniform template. The cases and the developed template will serve as a foundation of the library of use cases for validating infrastructure development in other RDA workgroups.
  • Develop guidelines and evaluation criteria for best practices/solutions in data sharing based upon a survey of existing data sharing initiatives and identification of available technologies for data storage and sharing.
  • Establish relationships with researchers to serve as a foundation for further development and testing of engagement models and technologies as well as for the advancement of data sharing culture and practices.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
inkouper
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 12:42 pm

Re: Communities and Engagement WG

Postby mfaerman » Tue Nov 20, 2012 9:06 pm

As some of us previously discussed, I would make the following addition to Researchers in Section 2 Value Proposition

From:
Researchers will have access to the libraries of successful stories and best practices/solutions. It will give them an opportunity to learn from the existing practices and streamline the adoption of data sharing. It will also allow them to contribute to the development and implementation of processes and documentation that inform and stimulate data sharing.


To:
...Researchers will have access to the libraries of successful stories and as well as to a channel through CEWG to best practices/solutions. It will give them an opportunity to learn from the existing practices and streamline the adoption of data sharing. It will also allow them to contribute to the development and implementation of processes and documentation that inform and stimulate data sharing...

I think we should emphasize in the charter the value added by CEWG in terms of engaging stakeholders in new, more efficient, or synergistic practice of data sharing. Any thoughts?

Another issue to consider - Should we circulate the charter in our home institutions and among our collaborators to increase awareness about our proposed group and recruit additional members? Or should we wait to have it made official? In my opinion, the text is at a good level of quality and the ideas are consistent. I would vote for going ahead and sharing it pointing to the fact that the WG is still in proposal stage.
mfaerman
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 2:40 pm

Re: Communities and Engagement WG

Postby HermanStehouwer » Wed Nov 21, 2012 6:25 am

It is usually a good idea to get people in early so they feel more engaged.
With more relevant people involved one can also hope to build a more robust consensus.

To put it another way: don't feel restricted in any way to recruit more people for your candidate working group.
HermanStehouwer
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 1:19 pm

Re: Communities and Engagement WG

Postby amaffei » Thu Dec 06, 2012 1:07 pm

In a separate email Inna has suggested that we transform the case statement above into a wiki (with moderated access to avoid spam) before we distribute a call for comments on it. This makes a lot of sense to me. I think it would provide us with the ability to harvest more details from contributors as they visit the site and foster more collaboration. First impressions are important in cases like this. Is it possible to setup a wiki on this site or some other in the near-term?
amaffei
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 4:01 pm

Re: Communities and Engagement WG

Postby inkouper » Thu Dec 06, 2012 2:04 pm

Cross-posted in the OIF thread for a larger discussion viewtopic.php?f=2&t=23#p65
inkouper
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 12:42 pm

Re: Communities and Engagement WG

Postby inkouper » Tue Dec 18, 2012 7:38 pm

Our case statement is now available online as a google doc. We're still working on it, so please feel free to comment and edit.

You can access the document via this link https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Fj6 ... 4JlUY/edit

Also, the co-chairs of the group (Andy Maffei, Marcio Faerman and I) have met over Skype recently to discuss our further steps. The meeting minutes are available upon request.
inkouper
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 12:42 pm

Re: Communities and Engagement WG

Postby pwittenburg » Thu Feb 14, 2013 10:12 am

When some of us looked at the Case Statement our impression is that "engagement" is an important topic, but that it is not so much a typical RDA working group with concrete outcome, but more an interest group working out part of what the IETF people call Tao: a good way of behavior or whatever you can call this. The outcome of this group could be a sort of "guideline or code of conduct" that may guide the work in RDA with respect to involving researchers, attracting them in solutions etc.
So I would like to suggest the following:
- Announce a special short BoF session at day 3 in Gothenburg to meet a few interested people and exchange ideas.
- Prepare this by providing a short note with propositions that describe the scope and the attitude we expect.
- Discuss this in the forum and in Gothenburg and improve the note stepwise.

What do you think? here I am addressing in particular Inna, Marcio and Andrew, but also anyone else who is interested.

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

Re: Communities and Engagement WG

Postby mfaerman » Fri Feb 15, 2013 4:10 pm

Based on previous discussions with Inna and Andy, however we choose to formalize them, I think that at this stage the RDA the Engagement activities should focus on liaison roles - namely two main thrusts:

    - We need to promote the liaisons between RDA Working Groups - there are already complementarities being identified between Practical Policies, Preservation Data Citation and Metadata working group activities. We need to make sure that such complementarities are exposed and synergies are explored between these groups. Such transversal activities will be essential for our interactions with domain scientists and other prospective data sharing practitioners.

    - Promoting liaisons with Domain Scientists and other Data Sharing Stakeholders - As WG results consolidate in RDA we will have a portfolio of solutions which can then be presented to data scientists and (potential) data sharing practitioners. In most cases these groups are very busy in their own domains having rather limited time to interact and engage with new external activities, such as the ones to be proposed by the RDA. The approach to these groups should occur in a tactful manner, avoiding repetition of interaction from the RDA side. If researchers are approached in an uncoordinated fashion, by multiple working groups, the noise generated by multiple solutions may produce a unproductive and disengaging noise. To avoid this problem, consolidation and transversal coordination must take place to leverage complementarities, to enhance synergies amongst the working groups and to pack (or strive to come up with) a consolidated portfolio of solutions to our customers. Engagement activities will play an important role on this front.

Having these in mind, Peter's suggestions seem reasonable to me regarding the RDA March Meeting. We expect that the engagement activities will intensify with time, as more solutions in RDA Working Groups evolve shaping into a consolidated portfolio.

I looked at the Tao of the IETF and there seems to be common points indeed to what we are proposing here. The main difference however, appears to reside in the fact that the Tao of the IETF is more of an evolving set of documentations - RFCs. The Engagement activities, on the other hand, will require in my view upfront "hands-on" participation.

Best,
Marcio
mfaerman
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 2:40 pm

Re: Communities and Engagement WG

Postby inkouper » Fri Feb 15, 2013 7:09 pm

pwittenburg wrote:The outcome of this group could be a sort of "guideline or code of conduct" that may guide the work in RDA with respect to involving researchers, attracting them in solutions etc.


I'd say that our outcome is rather a registry rather than a code of conduct. We plan to consolidate existing use cases and develop a database/registry of them so that any data-related initiative can rely on existing researchers requirements with regard to data exchanges. But one could also see our efforts as guiding the work of RDA - it was another prong in our approach. I think at this point it doesn't really matter whether we call it a BoF or a WG. It all comes down to whether the work is done or not.

So, as long as we have time/place for interested people to meet and exchange ideas, a BoF session is fine. I'd only ask to not do it at the end of the whole plenary when most people have already left :)
inkouper
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 12:42 pm

Re: Communities and Engagement WG

Postby amaffei » Sun Feb 17, 2013 4:49 pm

Apologies for the length on this. Next 2 paragraphs are the main points. Remaining paragraphs are background material.

I am going to try to make arrangements to attend RDA meeting in Sweeden. Only one thing left to re-schedule. Hopefully I'll be able to lead the BOF. I'm hoping Inna and Marcio can attend remotely, the BOF meeting time will not conflict w any possible ocean-data related activities (see ODIP below), and the hopefully it is held before folks leave (as Inna suggests). :)

I like the "spirit" of Peter's idea above about a code of conduct for research organizations. However, I wonder if we might re-state these goals as establishing a "framework for engagement" that supports and promotes global researchers/research communities and RDA Working Groups to communicate most effectively. My feeling is that this type of communication is CRITICAL to RDA success. One of the more important parts of such an effort would be to provide a registry/library to inform and feed other RDA working groups as they develop solutions (as Inna re-iterated).

Background material ---

A "helpful" conundrum has emerged for me personally as I try to understand the separate roles and possible interactions between the US NSF-funded EarthCube effort and US NSF-funded US-RDA effort. This has helped me to think about the Global RDA CEWG role as some sort of bridge for these types of community-interactions. Here is where I presently am at:

EarthCube is a US effort to establish a community that defines and implements (over many years) a data/knowledge environment for US GeoScientists to accomplish improved science". RDA is a global effort that aims to accelerate and facilitate research data sharing and exchange. It seems that once GeoScientists in EarthCube determine their needs and RDA is far enough along that they can be trusted to provide certain future services in the data sharing realm then the groups will want to work together and avoid duplication of effort. However, they will want to make sure that the standards and technologies developed by RDA will meet the needs they establish. Likewise, RDA WG members will want to make sure that they are aware of these needs and hopefully will want to test their solutions against them.

There are other US, EU, and AU similar to the US EarthCube effort. There are also other more global/national organization-scale, discipline-specific-scale, small laboratory-scale, and perhaps even single-researcher-scale efforts that might like to help shape the solutions RDA working groups develop. One such effort that has already shown a strong interest in RDA has been the global Ocean Data Interoperability Platform (ODIP) project that has participants from EU, AU, and US around oceanographic data.

I'd like to think that we could create a framework that would be inviting to scientists from communities at different scales. Perhaps we need to create an RDA membership category for science-researcher-representatives. Perhaps the stature of a science-researcher-representative in RDA could be increased by accomplishing certain milestones such as publishing 1 or more use-cases to the CEWG use-case library, or evaluating the solution that a different RDA WG has come up with against one of their published use-cases, or participating in several RDA WG face-to-face meetings.

I'll be interested to see who shows up at the BOF and will work with Inna and Marcio on an agenda and a short presentation to start off the BOF. Hopefully they will both be able to participate remotely. If there is any ODIP-related activity plan (I know Helen Glaves was thinking about this) it would be nice if the schedules of the 2 were complementary rather than overlapping.
amaffei
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 4:01 pm


Return to RDA Discussion Area

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron