Re: [rda-oab][rda-datafabric-ig] [rda-datafabric-ig] 3 DFIG items and one action

22 Feb 2017

Well, it has certainly caused some confusion in HEP that I am at pains to address.
The document does not read like you suggest.
Cheers, Jamie
Executive Summary
This document presents an assessment of the RDA global alliance and the European support project – RDA Europe (phase 3 Sept 2015 – Feb 2018). The partners of the RDA Europe consortium and some members of RDA global, particularly the Secretary General – Mark Parsons, have contributed to this document. Based on a set of questions posed to the consortium by the European Commission, the answers are outlined below with a series of references and notes to other sections of the document. The achievements of RDA global which are the basis for the majority of RDA Europe activities are outlined in section 2, a wide variety of statistics about outreach and impact of RDA in Europe as a result of the specific RDA Europe project activities are outlined in section 3.
On 22 Feb 2017, at 10:19, Parsons, Mark
<***@***.***> wrote:
On Feb 22, 2017, at 06:53, Jamie Shiers <***@***.***> wrote:
Perhaps some of you were as surprised as me to receive this mail with “recommendations on what we should do next”.
I think Peter simply means what the DFIG should do next.
cheers,
-m.

  • Peter Wittenburg's picture

    Author: Peter Wittenburg

    Date: 22 Feb, 2017

    Hallo Jamie, all,

    indeed we will continue our interactions in the DFIG realm about guidelines/ recommendations and as indicated there is probably much more around that could be put on paper. I also hope that the "charrettes" (focus area groups) we agreed upon last time will result in first agreed statements - at least in the cross-disciplinary GEDE group there was much consensus on a number of issues. Of course, the content which a group of people formulated can be debated. So come to the session.

    There is a longer story behind this recommendation/guidelines section which I will not start to explain here, but it is obvious that different people have different expectations with respect to RDA, but at least in DFIG we agreed that RDA needs to "deliver" - therefore all these debates about tests, testbeds and gaps which you do not seem to be aware of. For some funders this for example means that after 4 years of work in RDA they want to know what comes next beyond the excellent results the RDA Groups delivered. When I was asked whether "we" (whoever that is in RDA) could have a paper within a month I said "yes" mentioning clearly that this can only be statements from a bunch of people. That was all clear to the people who asked for the paper, since finally they will get many recommendations from different sides and before they will come to conclusions funders will also read papers from various other people/initiatives.

    As said: we will continue this discussion with the agreed scope limitations in DFIG and the next spot is P9 in Barcelona - hope to see you there and to contribute.

    best

    peter

submit a comment