[Esip-dds] An example for mapping a document to the data life cycle model
anne.wilson at lasp.colorado.edu
Wed Feb 27 11:39:09 EST 2013
Thanks for checking this out. I share your concerns. And, I do think
we need to review some more documents and evolve something accordingly.
It's just a starting point.
I suspect the documents are going to be all over the place in terms of
content, so converging on some sort of summary form may take some time.
I agree that in the end we need to able to identify gaps, so we must
keep that in mind.
Some gaps can be inferred from the doc, e.g.,
doc says: "(C) Report provides guidelines for assessing donation and
reception priorities for donors and recipients of geoscience data and
Inferred gap: "the community needs a process for managing donations of
geoscience data and collections"
More broadly, "the community lacks resources and organization needed to
curate, manage and preserve physical data."
Are these good examples of what we're looking for? These are not
necessarily issues needing research, though they need other kinds of
attention. The report itself does recommend paths forward, though for
their relatively narrow scope. Are we trying to draw broader
conclusions about paths forward? ... Now I'm getting lost in the weeds -
what exactly are we looking for???
Another question is whether the framework can handle non earth science
reviews, though it seems pretty domain agnostic to me. We should try
that early in the process.
So, tomorrow let's talk again about what we're looking for in the
literature review, whether this framework is worth pursuing, how to move
I'll make an agenda for our telecon tomorrow and post it on the wiki.
On 2/26/13 3:11 PM, Ruth Duerr wrote:
> Hi Anne,
> Your document does a good job of covering the recommendations and considerations in the document you looked at. What isn't clear to me is how well the draft framework will capture issues needing research and identification of paths forward. However, I can't really tell whether that is an issue with the framework or an issue with the particular document you reviewed (which aside from a comment about the need for "incentives" really did not appear to talk about gaps other than funding and awareness). Perhaps we need to have one or two more documents mapped before we'll be able to tell?
> What I am thinking about is whether obvious gaps from a few years ago (e.g., like the need for data identifiers or data citation) would ever have appeared in the framework as currently mapped, presuming those topics had been discussed in a mapped document.
> In other words, it isn't yet clear to me how easy or hard it will be to pull out gaps using the framework.
> As an aside it would be interesting to find out if any of the recommendations from this particular document have been implemented…
> On Feb 22, 2013, at 5:09 PM, Anne Wilson <anne.wilson at lasp.colorado.edu> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> I created a document that attempts to provide a framework based on the data life cycle that we chose, and map the report "Geoscience Data and Collections: National Resources in Peril" to that framework. (Please don't grade me on consistency, yet, anyway.)
>> (Denise, you should take a look at the report - the emphasis is on physical samples and addresses some of things we talked about in our session in January.)
>> Please take a look and let me know what you think. At our telecon next week we could discuss this framework as a vehicle for doing our literature review and compiling the results. Are we on the right track?
>> Thanks! Talk with you next week. Happy Friday!
>> <mapping to data life cycle.pdf>_______________________________________________
>> Esip-dds mailing list
>> Esip-dds at lists.esipfed.org
More information about the Esip-dds