Re: [tab][rda-oab] Thoughts on outputs

02 Dec 2015
Groups audience: 

Dear Mark and all,
Suppose there was a project, organisation, or other entity, that through interactions with the RDA (BoFs, IGs, WGs, some of the “outputs” below, or just simply “networking"), managed to achieve concrete results in any area of data sharing more efficiently, more rapidly or more thoroughly than otherwise, where would that fit in the scheme below?
As an Organisational member, I would care more about this sort of benefit as it is something my management(s) would appreciate.
It is also an area where both qualitative and quantitative benefits can be cited.
Cheers, Jamie
On 01 Dec 2015, at 15:48, Mark Parsons
<***@***.***> wrote:
Hi TAB and OAB,
There has been a lot of discussion of the types of outputs RDA produces. The Secretariat has been thinking about this, especially in terms of how we promote the outputs. Here are our thoughts for your consideration.
RDA produces many different kind of outputs. The current RDA Output Policy defines three general categories:
* RDA Recommendations—the adopted deliverables produced by WGs. They are the primary "social and technical bridges" of RDA. They undergo several levels of review and are ultimately endorsed by Council based on the community Consensus (draft paper).
* Policies, Case Statements, and Charters are the working documents of RDA and have distinct processes for their creation and management (see Document policy and WG Case Statement / IG Charter process)
* Discussion Documents are essentially everything else.
While it is appropriate to emphasize RDA Recommendations, other types of RDA outputs deserve recognition, and virtually all RDA outputs should be discoverable and referable. Furthermore, there is some confusion in the community on what to call all these things and how or whether they should be promoted.
To better define what RDA produces and to better promote RDA impact, the Secretariat makes the following suggestions:
* We should define three types of outputs for presentation and promotion on the web site and elsewhere: Recommendations, Recognized Outputs, and Other Outputs. (Polices, etc. are treated separately)
* “Recommendations” are as currently defined and should be presented as the flagship outputs of RDA. We should specifically use the word Recommendation (capitalized). They are our equivalent of the “specifications” or “standards” that other organisations create and endorse. The process for creating and endorsing these is already defined.
* "Other Recognized Outputs" (better term needed) are the outputs of RDA WGs and IGs that we especially want to promote as useful work of RDA, but are not necessarily adoptable bridges. Some current examples are the incipient legal interoperability guidelines and the “23 things a library can do to get involved in data management”. We propose that, upon request, these sort of outputs go through a community comment period and if no major objections or gaps are identified they get the RDA Brand. The Secretariat will make the determination unless a significant issue is identified.
* Other Outputs include workshop reports, published articles, survey results, etc. Anything a WG or IG wants to register and report. Upon request, these are published and discoverable on the RDA website but have no level of endorsement.
* In addition to the existing Recommendations process, the Secretariat would establish a process (form) for registering the other outputs to be listed in the Outputs section of the RDA web site.
* Secretariat promotes all three types of output to the press and other stakeholders in collaboration with relevant WG/IG chairs.
* RDA should adopt the generic term “outputs” to describe all the things RDA produces and use that as the generic term on our web site, promotional material, etc. This is not a perfect term and others have been suggested (deliverables, products, etc.), but “outputs” seems to be most broadly used.
I would welcome the opportunity to discuss these proposals at a future meeting.
cheers,
-m. and the Secretariat
--
Full post: https://rd-alliance.org/group/rda-technical-advisory-board-tab-rda-organ...
Manage my subscriptions: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/50544

  • David Baker's picture

    Author: David Baker

    Date: 02 Dec, 2015

    If we were applying a mission logic model to RDA then would that not be after the Outputs and more into the Outcomes and Impacts?
    Sent while mobile.

  • David Baker's picture

    Author: David Baker

    Date: 02 Dec, 2015

    If we were applying a mission logic model to RDA then would that not be after the Outputs and more into the Outcomes and Impacts?
    Sent while mobile.

  • Mark Parsons's picture

    Author: Mark Parsons

    Date: 03 Dec, 2015

    Hi Jamie,
    I think David is right. Impacts are different that outputs. Impacts are often less tangible too. Some might be captured in the “other outputs” section through press reports and things like that, but, in general, they are incorporated into a broader communications strategy.
    So far, most of RDA impact is best told through stories. I try to tell them in my talks. We’ll try to tell them better on the new web site. We all need to tell them more often in our communities and share them with each other.
    Some of the stories I like to tell are:
    - Jamie’s savings of ~ 3years of work in HEP data preservation because of the connections and knowledge gained in rDA.
    - The creation of the joint data citation principles was started at an RDA meeting and is apparent in increasing requirements from journals and societies. RDA provided the neutral space to unite many groups into collaborative action.
    - The woman who told me she attributes getting three proposals funded because of her collaborations in RDA (Would that I could remember her name!)
    - The realization that “scientists like assigning types to their data”, i,e, DTR is really useful.
    - The simple consensus around the centrality of PIDs
    cheers,
    -m.
    On Dec 2, 2015, at 5:13 AM, ***@***.*** wrote:
    If we were applying a mission logic model to RDA then would that not be after the Outputs and more into the Outcomes and Impacts?
    Sent while mobile.
    On Dec 2, 2015, at 3:02 AM, Jamie Shiers <***@***.***> wrote:
    Dear Mark and all,
    Suppose there was a project, organisation, or other entity, that through interactions with the RDA (BoFs, IGs, WGs, some of the “outputs” below, or just simply “networking"), managed to achieve concrete results in any area of data sharing more efficiently, more rapidly or more thoroughly than otherwise, where would that fit in the scheme below?
    As an Organisational member, I would care more about this sort of benefit as it is something my management(s) would appreciate.
    It is also an area where both qualitative and quantitative benefits can be cited.
    Cheers, Jamie
    On 01 Dec 2015, at 15:48, Mark Parsons
    <***@***.***> wrote:
    Hi TAB and OAB,
    There has been a lot of discussion of the types of outputs RDA produces. The Secretariat has been thinking about this, especially in terms of how we promote the outputs. Here are our thoughts for your consideration.
    RDA produces many different kind of outputs. The current RDA Output Policy defines three general categories:
    * RDA Recommendations—the adopted deliverables produced by WGs. They are the primary "social and technical bridges" of RDA. They undergo several levels of review and are ultimately endorsed by Council based on the community Consensus (draft paper).
    * Policies, Case Statements, and Charters are the working documents of RDA and have distinct processes for their creation and management (see Document policy and WG Case Statement / IG Charter process)
    * Discussion Documents are essentially everything else.
    While it is appropriate to emphasize RDA Recommendations, other types of RDA outputs deserve recognition, and virtually all RDA outputs should be discoverable and referable. Furthermore, there is some confusion in the community on what to call all these things and how or whether they should be promoted.
    To better define what RDA produces and to better promote RDA impact, the Secretariat makes the following suggestions:
    * We should define three types of outputs for presentation and promotion on the web site and elsewhere: Recommendations, Recognized Outputs, and Other Outputs. (Polices, etc. are treated separately)
    * “Recommendations” are as currently defined and should be presented as the flagship outputs of RDA. We should specifically use the word Recommendation (capitalized). They are our equivalent of the “specifications” or “standards” that other organisations create and endorse. The process for creating and endorsing these is already defined.
    * "Other Recognized Outputs" (better term needed) are the outputs of RDA WGs and IGs that we especially want to promote as useful work of RDA, but are not necessarily adoptable bridges. Some current examples are the incipient legal interoperability guidelines and the “23 things a library can do to get involved in data management”. We propose that, upon request, these sort of outputs go through a community comment period and if no major objections or gaps are identified they get the RDA Brand. The Secretariat will make the determination unless a significant issue is identified.
    * Other Outputs include workshop reports, published articles, survey results, etc. Anything a WG or IG wants to register and report. Upon request, these are published and discoverable on the RDA website but have no level of endorsement.
    * In addition to the existing Recommendations process, the Secretariat would establish a process (form) for registering the other outputs to be listed in the Outputs section of the RDA web site.
    * Secretariat promotes all three types of output to the press and other stakeholders in collaboration with relevant WG/IG chairs.
    * RDA should adopt the generic term “outputs” to describe all the things RDA produces and use that as the generic term on our web site, promotional material, etc. This is not a perfect term and others have been suggested (deliverables, products, etc.), but “outputs” seems to be most broadly used.
    I would welcome the opportunity to discuss these proposals at a future meeting.
    cheers,
    -m. and the Secretariat
    --
    Full post: https://rd-alliance.org/group/rda-technical-advisory-board-tab-rda-organ...
    Manage my subscriptions: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/50544
    --
    Full post: https://rd-alliance.org/group/rda-organisational-advisory-board-oab/post...
    Manage my subscriptions: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/50555
    --
    Full post: https://rd-alliance.org/group/rda-organisational-advisory-board-oab/post...
    Manage my subscriptions: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/50555

  • Jamie Shiers's picture

    Author: Jamie Shiers

    Date: 04 Dec, 2015

    Hi Mark,
    Good. I just think that it is important that these things are not somehow forgotten or overlooked, and should also preferably be “citable”.
    Cheers, Jamie
    On 03 Dec 2015, at 20:11, Parsons, Mark
    <***@***.***> wrote:
    Hi Jamie,
    I think David is right. Impacts are different that outputs. Impacts are often less tangible too. Some might be captured in the “other outputs” section through press reports and things like that, but, in general, they are incorporated into a broader communications strategy.
    So far, most of RDA impact is best told through stories. I try to tell them in my talks. We’ll try to tell them better on the new web site. We all need to tell them more often in our communities and share them with each other.
    Some of the stories I like to tell are:
    - Jamie’s savings of ~ 3years of work in HEP data preservation because of the connections and knowledge gained in rDA.
    - The creation of the joint data citation principles was started at an RDA meeting and is apparent in increasing requirements from journals and societies. RDA provided the neutral space to unite many groups into collaborative action.
    - The woman who told me she attributes getting three proposals funded because of her collaborations in RDA (Would that I could remember her name!)
    - The realization that “scientists like assigning types to their data”, i,e, DTR is really useful.
    - The simple consensus around the centrality of PIDs
    cheers,
    -m.
    On Dec 2, 2015, at 5:13 AM, ***@***.*** wrote:
    If we were applying a mission logic model to RDA then would that not be after the Outputs and more into the Outcomes and Impacts?
    Sent while mobile.
    On Dec 2, 2015, at 3:02 AM, Jamie Shiers <***@***.***> wrote:
    Dear Mark and all,
    Suppose there was a project, organisation, or other entity, that through interactions with the RDA (BoFs, IGs, WGs, some of the “outputs” below, or just simply “networking"), managed to achieve concrete results in any area of data sharing more efficiently, more rapidly or more thoroughly than otherwise, where would that fit in the scheme below?
    As an Organisational member, I would care more about this sort of benefit as it is something my management(s) would appreciate.
    It is also an area where both qualitative and quantitative benefits can be cited.
    Cheers, Jamie
    On 01 Dec 2015, at 15:48, Mark Parsons
    <***@***.***> wrote:
    Hi TAB and OAB,
    There has been a lot of discussion of the types of outputs RDA produces. The Secretariat has been thinking about this, especially in terms of how we promote the outputs. Here are our thoughts for your consideration.
    RDA produces many different kind of outputs. The current RDA Output Policy defines three general categories:
    * RDA Recommendations—the adopted deliverables produced by WGs. They are the primary "social and technical bridges" of RDA. They undergo several levels of review and are ultimately endorsed by Council based on the community Consensus (draft paper).
    * Policies, Case Statements, and Charters are the working documents of RDA and have distinct processes for their creation and management (see Document policy and WG Case Statement / IG Charter process)
    * Discussion Documents are essentially everything else.
    While it is appropriate to emphasize RDA Recommendations, other types of RDA outputs deserve recognition, and virtually all RDA outputs should be discoverable and referable. Furthermore, there is some confusion in the community on what to call all these things and how or whether they should be promoted.
    To better define what RDA produces and to better promote RDA impact, the Secretariat makes the following suggestions:
    * We should define three types of outputs for presentation and promotion on the web site and elsewhere: Recommendations, Recognized Outputs, and Other Outputs. (Polices, etc. are treated separately)
    * “Recommendations” are as currently defined and should be presented as the flagship outputs of RDA. We should specifically use the word Recommendation (capitalized). They are our equivalent of the “specifications” or “standards” that other organisations create and endorse. The process for creating and endorsing these is already defined.
    * "Other Recognized Outputs" (better term needed) are the outputs of RDA WGs and IGs that we especially want to promote as useful work of RDA, but are not necessarily adoptable bridges. Some current examples are the incipient legal interoperability guidelines and the “23 things a library can do to get involved in data management”. We propose that, upon request, these sort of outputs go through a community comment period and if no major objections or gaps are identified they get the RDA Brand. The Secretariat will make the determination unless a significant issue is identified.
    * Other Outputs include workshop reports, published articles, survey results, etc. Anything a WG or IG wants to register and report. Upon request, these are published and discoverable on the RDA website but have no level of endorsement.
    * In addition to the existing Recommendations process, the Secretariat would establish a process (form) for registering the other outputs to be listed in the Outputs section of the RDA web site.
    * Secretariat promotes all three types of output to the press and other stakeholders in collaboration with relevant WG/IG chairs.
    * RDA should adopt the generic term “outputs” to describe all the things RDA produces and use that as the generic term on our web site, promotional material, etc. This is not a perfect term and others have been suggested (deliverables, products, etc.), but “outputs” seems to be most broadly used.
    I would welcome the opportunity to discuss these proposals at a future meeting.
    cheers,
    -m. and the Secretariat
    --
    Full post: https://rd-alliance.org/group/rda-technical-advisory-board-tab-rda-organ...
    Manage my subscriptions: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/50544
    --
    Full post: https://rd-alliance.org/group/rda-organisational-advisory-board-oab/post...
    Manage my subscriptions: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/50555
    --
    Full post: https://rd-alliance.org/group/rda-organisational-advisory-board-oab/post...
    Manage my subscriptions: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/50555

submit a comment