[Esip-preserve] Citations

[Alice Barkstrom]

I suspect that the production paradigms create a collection 
organization structure
that could stabilize our understanding and ensure representativeness to the use
cases we choose.  This kind of structural work would also provide a 
checklist that
could be used to make it easier to classify the kind of cases we're 
dealing with.
I'll take a look at the NSB report and see if I can merge the suggestion I made
yesterday with that categorization.

Bruce B.

At 06:52 PM 4/14/2010, Ruth Duerr wrote:
>Actually these descriptions correspond pretty well to the 
>descriptions of research, resource, and reference collections  in 
>the report NSB (National Science Board). 2005. Long-Lived Digital 
>Data Collections: Enabling Research and Education in the 21st 
>Century. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. 87 pp. despite 
>the factor that you are talking about production approaches and they 
>are talking about types of data.
>
>Ruth
>
>On Apr 14, 2010, at 3:07 PM, Alice Barkstrom wrote:
>
> > It may be useful to deal with a simple separation of approaches to
> > production that incorporates the size of the groups involved:
> >
> > 1.  Single author production and publication - classic 
> sociological scenario
> > that has supported a great deal of previous work
> >
> > Scenario: author collects measurements, analyzes the data, and writes
> > up a summary paper; data may be preserved on paper, or in electronic
> > files; peer-review accomplished by submission of paper to journal, with
> > a moderate number (three to five) of referees; data publication 
> would involve
> > having paper or electronic copies of data accepted by a library 
> or data center
> >
> > 2.  Working group production and publication - field experiment 
> (of a variety
> > of different kinds) would be a typical example
> >
> > Scenario: group sets up equipment, with single person in charge of each
> > instrument that will collect data, management of WG done by one or two
> > people (PI); data from individual instruments combined and intercompared
> > within the group; data preserved in electronic files - which may 
> be distributed
> > amongst the WG; each instrument's scientist writes up a paper on his or her
> > data; peer-review accomplished by submission of papers to a journal special
> > issue and perhaps a special editor who selects a fair number of referees;
> > data publication requires formal accession planning by a data center owing
> > to the volume of data and the cost of curation
> >
> > 3.  Large-scale production and publication - "Big Science" owing 
> to the size
> > of the effort involved
> >
> > Scenario: instrument and producer teams selected by large scale proposal
> > effort - may involve one hundred to two hundred people over a 
> decade; long time
> > period (5 years is typical) of preparation before data collection 
> begins, including
> > design of production system and data production software; 
> substantial pre-collection
> > peer-review, including ATBDs and related algorithm outlines, as 
> well as such documentation
> > as coordinate transformations, data formats, calibration plans 
> and procedures, etc.;
> > production highly rigid, with extensive planning and scheduling; 
> periodic (two to three
> > times per year) science team reviews of progress - stretching out 
> over a decade or
> > more; multiple publications, both jointly as a team and as 
> individual contributions to
> > journals; multiple calibration and validation exercises in 
> support of establishing bounds
> > on uncertainties; peer-review may involve intercomparisons with 
> competing instruments
> > or data sources; data publication requires resources for 
> large-scale, special purpose
> > data centers owing to cost of computing resources, storage 
> resources, and curation
> > over long periods.
> >
> > These could be neatened up - and perhaps enumerated.  We really 
> need samples of
> > each different kind of scenario and group interaction.  Is it 
> worth writing these thoughts up into
> > a format that can go into the wiki?
> >
> > Bruce B.
> >
> >
> > At 04:06 PM 4/14/2010, Mark A. Parsons wrote:
> >> After hearing today's discussion, I thought it might be useful 
> for everyone to see the essay that Ruth and I wrote on citations.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> -m.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 14 Apr 2010, at 9:38 AM, Ruth Duerr wrote:
> >>
> >> > Wednesday March 10, 1 pm MST (3 pm EST)
> >> > Telephone: 877-326-0011
> >> > Meeting #: *4917475*
> >> > Agenda:
> >> >
> >> > - Identifiers paper status
> >> > - Identifiers testbed report
> >> > - Status of report on AGU townhall
> >> > - Provenance paper status
> >> > - Data management recommendations status
> >> > - Summer ESIP meeting plans
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Esip-preserve mailing list
> >> > Esip-preserve at lists.esipfed.org
> >> > http://www.lists.esipfed.org/mailman/listinfo/esip-preserve
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Esip-preserve mailing list
> >> Esip-preserve at lists.esipfed.org
> >> http://www.lists.esipfed.org/mailman/listinfo/esip-preserve
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Esip-preserve mailing list
> > Esip-preserve at lists.esipfed.org
> > http://www.lists.esipfed.org/mailman/listinfo/esip-preserve