18 Dec 2014

Thanks Michael,
I looked at your extensions and made a few comments on the comments.
Let me add two points in this email.
- RDA DFIG should focus on specification and of course integrate all kinds of knowledge and experience which is around. It also should make statements about compliance of components etc. Uptake and deciding about certain real software needs to be discussed carefully, since RDA groups should avoid making statements about products. This needs to be left to policy groups observing RDA activities. The reason for this is simple: RDA needs to remain a neutral meeting place as far as possible and not a place for people who want to "make PR for their products". It will not always be easy, but ...
- Organizing uptake, encouraging towards solutions is something RDA Europe (which is a project) will do. We will give training courses, give advice, give even some support etc. This will include software solutions that are compliant with the RDA specs.
Hope you agree.

File Attachment: 
File DF-whitepaper-v0-5.docx942.2 KB
  • Michael Lautenschlager's picture

    Author: Michael Lautens...

    Date: 18 Dec, 2014

    Hello Peter,
    thanks for reading and commenting. I agree with your points outlined in
    your mail. RDA should avoid to make advertisement for products and
    offering training courses by RDA Europe is also a beneficial activity.
    But this is not my point.
    I think the RDA/DFIG should not stop at the level of concepts and
    knowledge integration. This might stop at an academic paper level
    without a roadmap for real applications. My idea is to integrate people
    with operational data management requirements into the discussion but my
    feeling is that they only will be active if they see a benefit for real
    problems beyond the academic level. Therefore my suggestion is that DFIG
    should formulate a strategy to foster the transistion form concepts and
    knowledge integration into operational data management applications. Use
    cases in the white paper could be a starting point and Larry's
    suggestion of DFIG related working groups for specific problems could be
    a realisation. I hope this will be clear enough to demonstrate benefits
    from DFIG for operational data management problems. I think at the end
    we need prototypes and demonstrators.
    I hope this makes my point clearer and that it is not a contradiction to
    your two aspects on RDA work.
    Best regards, Michael
    Dr. Michael Lautenschlager
    Abteilungsleiter Datenmanagement
    World Data Center for Climate (WDCC)
    Deutsches Klimarechenzentrum GmbH (DKRZ)
    Bundesstraße 45a * D-20146 Hamburg * Germany
    Phone: +49 40 460094-118
    Email: ***@***.***
    URL: www.dkrz.de
    Geschäftsführer: Prof. Dr. Thomas Ludwig
    Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg
    Amtsgericht Hamburg HRB 39784

  • Rob Pennington's picture

    Author: Rob Pennington

    Date: 18 Dec, 2014

    Hello Michael,
    The transition to practice is a point that needs to be addressed as you are correct in commenting about the academic paper level as a stopping point. The DFIG is one step in the process of moving concepts and ideas from within the individual working groups into practice. The other side of this is to bring together the experiences and requirements from those who have operational responsibilities to get their inputs and expectations. In this sense, the DFIG is one of the possible crossing points for the two efforts.
    I think that there at least two things that are being worked on for the P5 meeting that could be relevant - the adoption day effort and a proposed follow on session with the large scale data projects. There are undoubtedly other efforts that would be relevant and we should think about how to engage with them.

submit a comment