RE: [rda-datamanagplans] Draft cae statement for ADMP Interest Group

21 Oct 2014

Hi David, all,
I agree that the more we can make DMPs 'active' so they're updated and monitored the better. There are a couple of examples from funders where they expect DMPs to evolve. See for example NERC, which has an outline DMP at the grant proposal stage and a full plan post-award that is created by the data centres together with the PI. The Horizon 2020 open data pilot meanwhile asks for DMPs as a project deliverable that should evolve to gain more precision and substance during the lifespan of the project.
Rob makes an important point that the focus should be a bit broader than archiving. If the DMP is to be active throughout the whole data lifecycle, then it'll play an important role for researchers, their institutions, data archives, and funders. The ADMP group should address all of these stakeholders and their needs.
Monitoring is definitely an area where more work could be done too, especially where aspects could be automated e.g. confirming deposit in the stated repository. I expect there's scope to build some of this into existing tools like DMPonline and DMPTool.
All best
- Show quoted text -From: rob.hooft=***@***.*** [rob.hooft=***@***.***] on behalf of Rob Hooft [***@***.***]
Sent: 20 October 2014 19:42
To: ***@***.***
Subject: Re: [rda-datamanagplans] Draft cae statement for ADMP Interest Group
I think the ADMP initiative could benefit if it included not only a focus on archiving, but also include proper data management during a project. In my opinion a data management plan also should include ideas on how data will be handled during the project: e.g. how backups will be able to deal with hardware failure or human error, but also aspects as simple as the question whether all x TB of data will arrive at once, or over the course of a year can make a huge difference in both project logistics as well as project costs and should be part of the (A)DMP.
One of my rules of thumb is that good data management should benefit the scientist performing the project, it should not be an obligation that only helps others. Better traceability of data and ICT staff that is not going to be shocked by surprises are definite benefits to a project.
On Oct 20, 2014, at 15:07 , dgiaretta <***@***.***> wrote:
Comments please by COB Monday 27th Oct on the following:
Draft Charter for Active Data Management Plans (ADMP) Interest Group
Co-Chairs: David Giaretta (UK), Helen Glaves (BGS, UK), David Baker (CASRAI, USA)
The proposed activity of this group is to act as a nucleus for discussing requirements for and identifying developments needed to support active (i.e. able to evolve and be monitored) data management planning. Working groups will be proposed to carry out work on specific areas of interest.
Currently research data management plans (DMP), created at the proposal stage of a project, do not evolve and cannot be monitored in any detail. The DMP should be the first step in the data life cycle for any dataset and therefore fundamental to ensuring that data is appropriately archived, preserved and available for re-use.
Initial meetings have demonstrated that there is very broad interest in this topic and also a willingness to contribute to the work. Preliminary ideas around the concept of ADMPs and potential topics for the working groups have been identified. These include specifying practical tools and services to support the data creators in making their data re-usable and also as the data managers and funders that have a requirement to administer and monitor these plans. The ADMP IG is distinct from, but will need to work with, many other groups including those on certification, domain repositories, metadata and preservation e-infrastructures.
Full post:
Manage my subscriptions:
Stop emails for this post:

Rob W.W. Hooft || Skype: robhooft || Phone: +31 6 27034319
DTL Programme Manager Life Science Data @ Netherlands eScience Center
Dutch Techcentre for Life Sciences ||