Working Group Title: Exposing Data Management Plans WG
Group Page: https://www.rd-alliance.org/groups/exposing-data-management-plans-wg
Case Statement: https://www.rd-alliance.org/sites/default/files/case_statement/Exposing%20Plans%20casestatement%20SUBMITTED_24072017.pdf
REVISED Case Statement: https://www.rd-alliance.org/sites/default/files/case_statement/Exposing%...
Proposers: Angus Whyte, Fiona Murphy, Natalie Meyers, Kathryn Unsworth
Date Received by TAB: 24 July 2017
Completeness of Case Statement:
(Does it include the six requisite components: (1) WG Charter; (2) Value Proposition: (3) Engagement with Existing Work in the Area; (4) Work Plan; (5) Adoption Plan; (6) Initial Membership?): Yes (x); No __; Comments:
Focus and Fit:
(Are the Working Group objectives and deliverables aligned with the RDA mission ? Is the scope too large for effective progress, too small for an RDA effort, or not appropriate for the RDA? Overall, is this a worthwhile effort for the RDA to take on? Is this an effort that adds value over and above what is currently being done within the community?)
The WG Group objectives are aligned with the RDA mission and are worth being tackled by the RDA. It would be useful to have the Group positioned in the RDA DMP landscape. This should appear already in the introduction so that the relationship with other Groups described in 'Engagement with existing Groups' is clearer. The charter identifies a number of benefits for different stakeholders in the research data ecosystem, and the objectives and deliverables will serve to reduce barriers to data interoperability and access. The work should aim to complement existing work within the RDA.
Work Plan, Deliverables, and Outcomes:
(Are there measurable, practical deliverables and outcomes? Can the proposed work, outcomes/deliverables, and Work Plan described in the Case Statement be accomplished in 12-18 months?)
The scope appears right for an 18 month effort, and the group is building on lots of existing work which reduces the risk of non-completion. However, we have some comments:
- There should be a more precise discussion of the Group foreseen schedule with respect to the DMP Common standards WG. For the moment the case statement says that they will use the outputs of the other Group 'as far as possible' 'as they become available' but the outputs of the two Groups should be coherent.
- What is the status of the QoS-Data LC WG, which is referred to as Storage Service Definition WG? Again the scheduling of the respective Group activities should be discussed if relevant.
- The Group plans to use other media than the RDA ones to engage a broader community, which is good. It will be useful to keep track on the RDA Group page.
- Minor comment: it would help that RDA is indicated in front of references to other groups within the RDA family (e.g. RDA Common standards WG) in order to differentiate from references to non-RDA groups.
(Does the initial membership list include sufficient expertise, and disciplinary and international representation? Are the right people involved in the Working Group to adopt and implement? What individuals or organizations are missing?)
The initial membership covers a range of kinds of organisations, stakeholders within the scholarly communication ecosystem, institutions, and regions. There appear to be no obvious missing categories. We note however that the 4 proposed co-chairs are native speakers based in the Commonwealth or in the USA. It is important that the Group expands the survey well beyond its initial membership as proposed and fully takes into account input from people from other countries and languages. The initial significant Portugese participation, and the presence of one participant from Germany, go in the right direction, but the Group should keep this point in mind in all its activities to ensure that its conclusions are relevant in the RDA context.
Impact and Engagement:
(Is it likely that the outcome(s) of the Working Group will be taken up by the intended community? Is there evidence that the research community wants this? Will the outcome(s) of the Working Group foster data sharing and/or exchange?)
There is increasing interest in a number of sectors of the research producing and managing communities in maximising the value of data through better planning. This activity builds on that interest in ways that appear to be adoptable. It's hard to assess the actual likely adoption ahead of the production of the outputs, but what is proposed is consistent with other activity and so likely to be adopted. We encourage the group to expand the survey and eventually the active Group membership to a wider range of countries and take all opinions fully into account. This could be focussed around issues of wider suitability for adoption. It would be good also to involve other publishers if possible.
Case Statement is Sufficient __; Case Statement Requires Revision X; Case Statement is Rejected __