[Esip-dds] Esip-dds Digest, Vol 2, Issue 8

[Uhlir, Paul]

Hi all: I agree these are all good issues to consider once the study gets underway, but not necessarily in defining the research survey proposal.

Cheers,
Paul

________________________________________
From: esip-dds-bounces at lists.esipfed.org [esip-dds-bounces at lists.esipfed.org] On Behalf Of Anne Wilson [anne.wilson at lasp.colorado.edu]
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 1:38 PM
To: Siri Jodha Singh Khalsa
Cc: esip-dds at lists.esipfed.org
Subject: Re: [Esip-dds] Esip-dds Digest, Vol 2, Issue 8

Hi Siri Jodha,

Thanks for chiming in and asking about these things!  The following is
my $.02.  All, please correct me if I say something wrong.

citizen science:

Right now we're not scoping the survey itself, but rather options for
the survey.

(The way the survey process works is that agencies or organization
request the NRC to conduct the survey and pay for it.  I see our role as
a cluster as identifying options for the survey in order to determine
whether agencies are interested in taking the step of requesting and
funding the survey.)

In providing a report of options, we should at least mention citizen
science to make sure it's on the radar.  We should also consider the
mapping of citizen science activities to the data life cycle - they may
be different and we should think about that.  Though, in glancing at the
model, I don't see any glaring conflicts...


multi-purpose sensor networks:

???  What concerns you about them?


sernedipitous discovery:

Again, a more specific concern?  Like citizen science, I don't see
conflicts with the life cycle model.


Unanticipated repurposing:

That subject is on my radar, anyway.  It appeared in several of the
models.  I believe that is captured in the life cycle model we're using
by the implicit loopbacks.  (We had a conversation about that:
http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/Science_data_life_cycle_model.)


Anne


On 2/14/13 2:21 PM, Siri Jodha Singh Khalsa wrote:
> I hope no one minds me jumping into the discussion.
>
> Are we adequately taking into account non-traditional data
> gathering/generation methods such as citizen science, multi-purpose
> sensor networks, serendipitous discovery and unanticipated re-purposing
> of data collected for entirely different reasons? The nature and
> sequence of activities and concerns may be quite different from what's
> currently being considered.
>
> Or is this considered out of scope?
>
> SiriJodha
>
_______________________________________________
Esip-dds mailing list
Esip-dds at lists.esipfed.org
http://www.lists.esipfed.org/mailman/listinfo/esip-dds