Organisational Assembly - San Diego

RDA Organisational Assembly

Plenary 5, San Diego

Monday 9 March 2015, 14:00-17:30

Agenda and  draft minutes

Session A – Open meeting (14:00-15:30) Garden Room

Objectives of the Open Part of the meeting:

  • Introduce the Organisational Assembly to potential new members
  • Hear views of Organisational members on data sharing and interoperability challenges and how they can benefit from RDA

Draft Minutes (work in progress)

Present: List of members that signed-up electronically

  1. Call to Order, Juan Bicarregui, OAB co-chair
  2. Brief introductions (10 minutes), Juan Bicarregui - ppt for the whole session
    • ​​Juan introduced why there are 2 sessions, an open one (attract new memmbers and get their views) and a closed one (only for current members)
  3. Panel Discussion  - Data sharing challenges – Views from RDA Organisational Members (60 minutes total)
  • Panel Chair: Amy Nurnberger, Columbia University Libraries/Information Services, USA - (5 minutes introduction)
    • How RDA helps addressing the data sharing challenges; how organisations do address them;
  • Panelists:
    • Ingrid Dillo, DANS, The Netherlands (10 minutes) - ppt
      • Main points (see slides for more details):
        • Focus on cultural aspects
        • Data sharing has different meanings! One end of the spectrum: controlled sharing, other end: open sharing.
        • Data sharing far from common practice. Most common objections to not share.
        • Incentives for sharing data. (DAP: Data Availability Plans). TDR: Trustworthy Digital Repositories.
        • How DANS stimulate data sharing.
        • DANS Data Journal. More exposure and more citations.
        • What RDA could do: It is in its core mission and there are related WGs. Work with researchers (develop best practices and recommendatios for data sharing) but also funders.
    • Wolfram Horstmann, Association of European Univeristy Libraries - LIBER (10 minutes) - ppt
      • Main points (see slides for more details):
        • International perspective.
        • LIBER and research data:Shared and published data deserve the same reliable treatment as literature and they must be linked to keep a record of research.
        • Why LIBER joined RDA: A big part of our agenda discusses RDA matters. Synchronise! Communication interface between Library and RDM domain. Also IGs. Not only big data centres such as DANS, but also long tail. Libraries for Research Data and the Long Tail of Research Data Interest Groups.
        •  RDM must result in a permanent record of research for published research findings. From soft money to sustained models!
    • Malcolm Wolski, Division of Information Services, Griffith University, Australia (10 minutes) -ppt
      • Main points (see slides for more details)
        • Challenges: Scaling up services (broad scale service delivery). Focus on whole research cycle. Researcher uptake (lack of interest).
        •  Why Griffith joined RDA: No way to know everything, especially in depth--> Rely on knowledge in the network. And several other problems are global, as is research --> So is RDA (i..e. global).
    • Questions and Discussion - Questions/Comments/Views may include 1' madness slides (25 minutes)'
      • Amy: Starting from Wolframs question: How will RDA and research data management transition from soft money to sustained models? More soft money is not an option!
        • Ingrid: Start from soft money for data preservation. If this is not sovled people get stuck.And then discuss sustainable models. The ERIC (EU legal structure) may be one area.
        • Wolfram: We have funders who look at policy making and have the power to change funding structures. RDA should lobby the funders in this direction for sustainable funding. ICPSR  has a 50-year track record of reliably storing research data. They can do data curation, but they cannot use money outside the project duration.
        • Stefan: Come up with a White Paper: Plea to funding agencies for sustainble fudning for RDM. Open ICPSR model. https://www.openicpsr.org/home/about
        • Aaron: We are succeeding despite of what’s going on. Found ways to survive. Don't agree that soft money is not an option.
        • Amy: small step to include RDM and related budget in proposals (previously not the case). RDA offers an opportunity for sync, have a place for lowering barriers. Influence priorities and needs.
        • Mustapha: RDA Added value: Global perspective. Across countries and across communities. Overcome two types of silos: domains and national. Science operates in silos. Research is int'l but it is funded at national level. So not a compatible funding model.
      • Why RDA and OAB role
        • Tiziana: OAB role in RDA governance. EGI is re-using data. In Europe we are lacking a cooperation with libraries and Research Infrastructures who act as data factories. Need to get together to solve the problem. Different point of views. Business case: One way is to involve industry to make the data reusable  And fees to reuse them. Alos liked the Libraries for long tail, as there are many communitie who do not even have archiing facilities.
        • Adam British Library: Original framing around organisational membership: Connect this back to that. Discussion: RDA has a lot to offer to organisations. Clear proposition. E.g. the WGs that Ingrid mentioned. Great value for showing up.
        • Mustapha: Wrong question! The question is not what RDA is brnging to organisation? But what organisations are bringing to RDA!
        • Walter: Research Data Canada joined as an organisational member because it gives greater visibility to our country/government. As part of RDA there is support by other organisations. So this needs to be recognized and thus funded by national governments. RDA creaters an opportunity to create colletive strength. One other thing: Open Research Data Report (now publicly available) from ANDS (Australian National Data Service) on the value of research data. In Australia value of research data: 1.4-1.9 Billion per year and may be much more. Overall a relatively small investment in a combination of data policy and infrastructure provides a significant increase in value to Australian innovation, research, and the broader economy --> Return of investment.
        • Malcolm: Not only the membership fees, but also the travel costs to follow and work on the groups.
        • Mustapha: Questions the current OA funding model in RDA: For me an alliance is a group that work together. Fundamental problem on the payment.
        • Stean: First level I agree. But paraphrasing JFK: "Do not ask what RDA can do for you, what you can do for RDA!" Companies working on software for data they need to see value. Where RDA wants to go next.
        • Wolfram: Quite active. Credit structure ok. It is important that there is a concept of a democratic organisation.
        • Patrick: Efficient organisation: Structured one. Including secretariat. Second: For me research data sharing is about sharing with businesses and entrepreneurs. We need more industry. Future is more in this direction. If RDA cannot provide models for taking up the industry, industry will create its own.
        • Herman: Democratic organisation indeed: Nomination committee for Council members! And if someone has concrete comments, they should raise them! We need help!
      • Malcolm: Professional organisations are needed for accrediting and creating the new librarians of the future. 
  1. Review of the Function of the Organisational Assembly and Organisational Advisory Board - Results of RDA adoption survey (15 minutes), Juan Bicarregui - ppt (same)
    • Juan presented the outcome of RDA adoption survey (see slides).
      • Answers to questions like:
        • 10 Key reasons why organisations care about research data sharing and interoperability
        • 12 Impediments to the reuse of data
        • 10 Problems OMs are seeking to address through involvement in RDA
        • 12 ways OMs anticipate using the solutions developed in RDA groups
      • Summary:
        • Benefits: 1. Better collaboration, especially internationally, 2. Improved research practice, 3. Policy
        • Impediments: 1. Cultural resistance (not seeing sharing as in their interest), 2. Lack of accepted standards for metadata, 3. Use of proprietary data formats, 4. Data is not cleaned up and ready for sharing
        • Problems to address: 1. Networking, sharing skills and knowledge, potential collaboration, 2. Collecting case studies to highlight the benefits, 3. Improving data deposit workflows, 4. How to cite data, defining core data fields
        • Ways to adopt: 1. Direct adoption by own organisation, 2. Targeting key research events to disseminate information, 3. Adoption is through IT support and faculty librarian groups
        • Other issues: 1. Researcher identity, a standardised open repository approach, 2. Consensus …about what standard open data practices should be. 3. Truly open data, …that satisfies requirements of scientific domain
    • Discussion:
      • Main points:
        • On benefits:
          • Mustapha: Most of them are not technical rather cultural, policy.
          • Adam: Better collaboration specifically around specific outputs.
          • Jamie: Joint effort needed for long term funding.
          • Juan: STFC as a funder: Costs around research data can be covered in the project grant. The costs beyond the project into the institution costs.
          • John: Talking to EC: Sustainable funding needed for many years. Pressure on funders. Longer term. The EC do understand. They look into how they will change the process. The more pressure the better.
          • Larry: Look for sustained funding. There needs to be a model of how much it will cost!
          • John: The amount may be huge and the funders are paniced!
          • Wolfram: Specific issue: They do not include RDM and DMP because they reduce their research funding. Solution: Different pot for RDM. Interesting discussion to have and influence.
          • Ross: Not only a cost model but also a value model. (Andrew: Walter already reported about the ANDS report!) Try to  come up with the value.
        • On impediments.
          • Katherine (MIT): 4 (Data is not cleaned up and ready for sharing) is an area of potential.
          • Stefan: What is common in impediments: It is the reserachers’ fault! There is a disconnect.
          • Mustpaha: Research is a special case. It is the research landscape that is very chaotic. It is not the researchers’ fault!
          • Aaron: Another impediment: There are no consequences to take extra care or to comply with something standard. If there was a compliance issue then it would have been different.
          • Mustapha: Interesting to attract industry!
          • Wolfram: Anybody from Google, Dropbox or Amazon?
          • Patrick: Industry is not well prepared for data. They need more time to prepare.
          • Amy: Research can learn from industry, but at the same time, research is chaotic because it is creative. Industry is not well in preserving or managing their data.
          • John: Two things: 1. Neeliee Kroes: You need to come up with a coherent message to the funders. We need to remember this! 2. Robert Jan Smits: How many jobs are you going to create?! I have to answer this question! So funders need a coherent message and ways to create more jobs.
        • Juan: Final messages. Please consider joining. Those who are members, continue after the break!
  2. Break – 30 minutes

 

Session B – Closed meeting (16:00-17:30) (to the ones who will have signed the membership application form(s) by the San Diego meeting) - Palm Room Salons I & II

Objectives of the Closed part of the meeting:

  • Discuss the OAB role in RDA outputs adoption
  • Provide feedback to the RDA strategy planning
  • Brainstorm about RDA WG gaps and future directions
  • Provide ideas on recruitement of new members

Draft Minutes

Present: List of members that signed-up electronically, see also photo at the end with members present.

  1. Call to Order - Walter Stewart, OAB co-chair
  2. Introduction of new members (5 minutes)
  3. Approval of minutes from previous meetings (5 minutes)
    • The minutes from the 2 previous meetings were approved.
  4. Report from the Strategy Consultation meeting - Walter Stewart and Juan Bicarregui (20 minutes) - Future Directions Planning organic group (created after the meeting). Includes report , presentation at plenary and submit your comments page
    • Walter introduced the topic:
      • It is the beginning of a process. A frame on how to develop a strategy document, rather a fixed document.
      • Main points: Coordination/Communication/Engagement. Many of the points were for more than once.
      • A high level presentation. There are a lot of notes, and we need to come up with a report. Grabbing some main headings, here is what came up:
      • SLIDES (from business plenary - similar slideset)
        • Communication: Social bridges white paper; Goto source for data sharing/interop; Stories to funders and adopters based on results;
        • Coordination: Establish a coordination group at P6 for domain engagement; Review organisational models; Automated processes; Mission map and chart goals; Coordination among national/regional/global;
        • Engagement: With data driven orgs (CERN, NASA); With industry/entrepreneurs; With new geographies; With individuals with alternate viewpoints; Develop fora for dialogue with other orgs; Develop mechanisms to grow next generation leaders;
        • A survey will be developed for the RDA community.
        • Timeline: Survey results for the June council. Integrate comments and then available for community comments. Final version to be presented in Paris plenary.
    • Comments-Discussion:
      • Fran: Everything subject to change. Draft timeline. Everything thoughtful. Garbage in, garbage out. Walter good summary. We need ideas for new things being actionable! What particular things do we do! We will try as much as we can.
      • Jill: Do you have to be a member of the community? Walter: Not a closed survey. For the 2800 RDA members.
      • Mustapha: Comment on actionable: This means that people will be doing things. Who is responsible for/doing these actions! Walter: Agreed, this was very clear on Satursday!
      • Fran: We can improve our coordination. We need to prioritize. What the communities want to prioritize. We are a volunteer organisation.
      • Mustapha: Because voluntary, the community is growing, so that we can address the challenges collectively.
      • Leif: Is there is anything this group can do to contribute to the process? Walter: Structuring the monthly telecons to happen through this process so that they can participate and act.
      • Mark: The survey that the directions and priorities are on the right track. So main point: priorities.  Question: “Which ones are you willing to work on”?
  5. Future directions for RDA Working Groups: Input from TAB about clustering and input from OA members about gaps in RDA work (problems that are not addressed by current RDA WGs) (20 minutes)
    • Beth Pale delivered a presentation on the TAB clustering effort. Main points:
      • Beth: There is a relatively even distribution of groups (slide with figure). We were not expecting that.
      • Main outputs come from the yellow Q3 area (provider-technical)
      • John: More Q3 is normal. Q1 more IGs than WGs also normal
      • The TAB asked the WG/IG chairs to check the binning and most of them agreed.
    • Main comments:
      • OA clustering
        • Leif: Looks very interesting. OA should do the same way of mapping. In which way the OA organisations can support the activities.
        • Ross: Process that TAB went through for OAB (for themselves) or look how to contribute to the binning of TAB? Leif: Maybe both.
        • Walter: Create a sub-committee/sub-group to do a similar effort on OA clustering (Action: Leif to chair a subgroup on a OAB clustering effort). Members:  Amy, Jill, Leif, Mustpha Ross, Steven.
      • .High number of WG/IGs and overlaps
        • Damien: 56 groups! People complaining about overlaps. Has RDA a process to check if groups are out of scope or if needed to terminate them? There may be practical problems, if groups > 100.
        • Mark: If groups are not active, then they are terminated (this happened only once) And if they want more than 1 slot in the plenaries, then they have to combine with another group. Encouraing approach rarther than penalising.
      • .BoFs
        • Stefan: How many BoFs do we have?.
        • Mark: A BoF is only allowed once. Then it has to become an IG. ~10 BoFs per plenary.
      • Tags
        • Mustapha: List of tags: Where does it come from? How will it evolve? E.g. Control vocabulary?
        • Beth: Tags were examples. Tags useful to determine overlaps.
        • Mark: If tags are codified, then part of terminology.
      • TAB-OAB
        • Walter: Are there things TAB is doing that OAB can help? Or things that the OAB is doing that can help TAB.
        • Beth: More coordination is welcome.
        • Walter: After we do the Leif’s action on OAB clustering, then a joint meeting with TAB. (Action Walter: After the OAB clustering effort is done, organise a joint meeting with TAB)
      • [David Baker enters the room (CASRAI)].
      • RFCs (Request for Comments)
        •  Mark: We put things for comments and get rather limited amount of comments. We assume that no comment is ok, but it maybe that no comments is not ok. But maybe: Is this useful, adoptable?
        • Tiziana: Adopters should comment on RFCs.
        • Mark: They are part of the WG. Actively involved. Multiple orgs.
        • Walter: Adopters are part of the case statement in the beginning of the process.
        • Walter: Perspective WGs be announced to OA so that members can opt for adopting. Action: New WGs to be announced to the OA so that members can opt for adopting.
        • Walter: The OA should be looking at RFCs.
        • Jill:  Being new, experienced information overload. Finding some way to organize the questions so that people cannot ignore.
        • Walter: The organisation participation in OAB should survive a person leaving the org.
        • Stefan: Who is the primary, who is second, possibly also third. This is already done (asking for a deputy OA member from each organisation).
        • David CASRAI: Are we (members) at a high level to implement strategies? Involve the CxOs.
        • Mustapha: There is a burden in organisations. There is a limit to what we can handle. We might reach a level of fatigue. So to what extend we need to grow. Do we need to cap? How much to handle?
        • Kevin: Commenting to RFCs is the best thing we can do! E.g. if overlaps, then say it so that we keep the number down.
  6. Further questions and Discussion with Council and TAB Representatives - Recruitment of new members (15 minutes)
    • Main comments:
      • John W: Mapping exercise very useful for Council. Looking at the nomination process for balance right. Extremely useful for us. Also Leif’s bit on OA mapping/clustering.
      • Leif: TAB clear purpose of looking at WG/IGs. For OA, is there a clear task defined?
      • Walter: This is included as part of governance doc (and also on the OA process document). We may need to review this.
      • Mark: TAB clear mission yes. For OAB, as matures, now it probably focus on adoption. This is the heart of OAB. TAB: technically viable for adoption. But OAB: actual adoption.
      • Walter: Talked many times in monthly calls about adoption and the role of OAB. Andrew also gave a presentation with the outputs at the time and the upcoming one and also adoption day on Sunday.
      • Ross: Quite hard for OAB to deliver on adoption. Maybe OAB, Council, TAB, secretariat work on this together?
      • Walter: Outputs review and innovation as standard part of the agenda. Bringing forward issues where they would like to see outputs. Action:  Include outputs/outputs review as a regular item in the agenda.
      • Steve Internet2: If you overlay the OA clustering/bining on top of the TAB one, there may be useful conclusions.
      • Stefan: Should members be self-serving or for the common good. Also some of the membership benefits are not real benefits.
      • Walter: Need to review the OA benefits! And bring these back in a call. Better as part of the steering committee for the review of strategic planning. Action: Walter to bring to the strategic planning steering committee for review the OA benefits
      • David: Adaptivity metrics?
      • Walter: Not "build it and they will come" rather "build it for someone"!
      • Mark: If 5 orgs says a WG is useful then this is enough. If none or one maybe not.
      • Walter: If new WGs are created or there are RFCs then flag the OA. Action:  Include in the OAB agendas an item for new WGs/RFCs.
      • David CASRAI: Gravity of having an OA member in the adopters?
      • Mark: Yes, if there is an OA one of the adopters, then this will give a gravity.
      • Mustapha: Which orgs are part of the WG? Raise of hands? Many raise. So you have the adopters here!
  7. Any Other Business (5 minutes)
    • Mark: Tax issues resolved so more invoices to US organisations soon.
    • Fotis to subscribe Adam Farquhar, Datacite. Action
    • Next meetings
  8. Membership photo
    •                                               

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

      (full photo from San Diego OAB)

 

Original Agenda

Objectives of the Open Part of the meeting:

  • Introduce the Organisational Assembly to potential new members
  • Hear views of Organisational members on data sharing and interoperability challenges and how they can benefit from RDA

Agenda

  1. Call to Order, Juan Bicarregui, OAB co-chair
  2. Brief introductions (10 minutes), Juan Bicarregui
  3. Panel Discussion  - Data sharing challenges – Views from RDA Organisational Members (60 minutes total)
  • Panel Chair: Amy Nurnberger, Columbia University Libraries/Information Services, USA - (5 minutes introduction)
    • How RDA helps addressing the challenges; how organisations do address them;
  • Panelists:
    • Ingrid Dillo, DANS, The Netherlands (10 minutes)
    • Wolfram Horstmann, Association of European Univeristy Libraries - LIBER (10 minutes)
    • Malcolm Wolski, Division of Information Services, Griffith University, Australia (10 minutes)
    • Questions and Discussion - Questions/Comments/Views may include 1' madness slides (25 minutes)'
  1. Review of the Function of the Organisational Assembly and Organisational Advisory Board - Results of RDA adoption survey (15 minutes), Juan Bicarregui
  1. Break – 30 minutes

Session B – Closed meeting (16:00-17:30) (to the ones who will have signed the membership application form(s) by the San Diego meeting) - Palm Room Salons I & II

Objectives of the Closed part of the meeting:

  • Discuss the OAB role in RDA outputs adoption
  • Provide feedback to the RDA strategy planning
  • Brainstorm about RDA WG gaps and future directions
  • Provide ideas on recruitement of new members

Agenda

  1. Call to Order - Walter Stewart, OAB co-chair
  2. Introduction of new members (5 minutes)
  3. Approval of minutes from previous meetings (5 minutes)
  4. Report from the Strategy Consultation meeting - Walter Stewart and Juan Bicarregui (20 minutes) - For feedback by RDA OAB members
  5. What can OAB do to drive adoption and relationship with TAB (also with focus on adoption) (20 minutes) - For discussion
  6. Future directions for RDA Working Groups: Input from TAB about clustering and input from OA members about gaps in RDA work (problems that are not addressed by current RDA WGs) (20 minutes)
  7. Further questions and Discussion with Council and TAB Representatives - Recruitment of new members (15 minutes)
  8. Any Other Business (5 minutes)
    • Next meetings
  9. Membership photo