Organisational Assembly - Barcelona

Draft minutes

Plenary 9,  Barcelona

Tuesday 4 April 2017, 14:00-16:00 local time (CEST)

Organisational Assembly meeting - Room MR12 (at Barcelo Sants)

          

Chair: Amy Nurnberger (see slides covering the whole agenda)

Recording: tbc

Present: Aaron Addison, Kevin Ashley, Juan Bicarregui, Christoph Bruch, Wenbo Chu, Fabrizio Gagliardi, Jason Haga, Leif Laaksonen, Larry Lannom, Mark Leggott, Mattew Lucas, Amy Nurnberger (co-Chair), Raphael Ritz, Thomas Runge, Malcolm Wolski, Fran Berman, John Wood (RDA Council), Andrew Treloar (RDA TAB), Mark Parsons (RDA Secretary General), Fotis Karayanis (RDA secretariat).

  1. Introduction to RDA Organisational Assembly OA -(in case there are non-members), Amy Nurnberger, Columbia University, RDA OA co-chair
    • No non-members present (besides RDA EU project reviewer).
  2. Introduction of new OA members (that have not been introduced before)- 5'
    • No new members present.
  3. Introduction of RDA/EU reviewers
    • The Chair welcomed Prof. Christine Borgman, one of the two informal reviewers of the RDA Europe project.
  4. Update on OAB election, Amy Nurnberger, 10'
  5. Updates from Council, Secretary General and TAB, 20'
    • Updates from Secretary General - Mark Parsons slides
      • Main points:
        • RDA continues to grow.
          • ~5400 members now from 123 countries. Mali joined!
          • Frascatti classification of disciplines: just to show the breadth:
          • 81 RDA working and interest groups now (not 84 some finished which is good!) 50ish IGs. A lot of discussions about IGs. How to coordinate across IGs.
          • 75 adoption stories, bet that we have a couple of hundred adopters. Also there is set of recommendations that have become formal EU technical specifications.
          • Supporting outputs also important: the 23 things best seller and legal interop guidelines! Incredible uptake.
          • Future directions activity: 15 targeted initiatives in external communications.
            • 15 activities (consolidated in 14) priorities and status: Status= rough status according to my mind. Red= value propositions.
              • One of them is the industry engagement activity. There was a NIST workshop from RDA US that discussed industry value proposition. The outcome of the discussions was that there is no single value proposition for industry; rather several value propositions for the different industry sections.
              • Not only industry but also research and funding stakeholders.
              • Yellow: Mapping the landscape: Also IG: How RDA is fitting inside the broader landscape. TAB also involved in this. Other groups also.
        • Core Business Services of RDA
          • Distiction between the work and the business. The work is the actual groups' work. RDA business is the support for the work (see slides).
            •  Run plenaries
            • Provide communication, collaboration, discussion tools for RDA, including the website, discussion support, email support, remote meeting support
            • Facilitate and advise on the creation, operation, and outputs of the groups
            • Endorse the outputs of groups and support Recommendation adoption and dissemination of outputs
            • General Operations (governance, administration, business development and fundraising, reporting to stakeholders).
              • And OA involved in two bullets.
        • Estimation of estimated annual activities budget and annual business budget (different from the full budget);Minor changes from the slide presented in Denver.
        • RDA Foundation budget (small portion of the overall budget).
      • Discussion:
        • Fab: Total Barcelona cost: 270K Euros. Registration low: Deficit of ~10K.Juan: Work on sponsorship is for plenaries at central level.
        • Kevin: Medical research under represented. Need to engage more with this community together with DataCite. PIDs and DOIs relevant for them.
        • Christoph: The ability of RDA to act as a neutral is dependant on not being too dependant from different sources. It is important to get industry and value propositions but there are different interests on which we should not be dependant. Mark: This was discussed in the funders forum. Yes, don’t get special treatment. Different influences are balanced out. Strings attached with possible funding from industry should not interfere with RDA processes.
    • Update from TAB - Andrew Treloar
      • TAB-Chairs meeting earlier today. Main points:
        • Outputs - there is set of cards with the outputs summaries in your RDA conference bags!
        • Coordination among groups needed. There is a coordination exercise starting tomorrow.
          • TAB did already a few exercises:
            • Clustering initially with Beth Plale. But now much more complicated with many groups.
            • Then TAB Landscape Overview Group (LOG), now stalled.
            • Now Atlas of Knowledge is an attempt to map group activities but now also outputs. To be made available very soon.
              • Leif: the bonus is now the relation between groups. Put groups of thematic categories. E.g interested in this view: but also connections between groups.
        • We are also available for OAB - work with the OA to advance the work of RDA
    • Report from RDA Council - Fran Berman
      • Main activities
        • This week:
          • Talking to RDA EU reviewers, giving the Council views.
          • And also will be interviewing the Secretary General candidates'
        • Recent activities
          • Mid-way review of Future Directions document. A strategic plan around 3 areas: Engagement, Coordination and Communicaiton. 14-15 different activities (as presented by Mark). Secretariat has been leading this activity and will be checking this.
          • Council will loose John Wood after this meeting. Need to spend some time how to elect the next co-Chair.
          • Secretary General applicants: a bunch of them. There is now a shortlist. Interviewing them this week. New Secretary General in time before July.
          • Funders Forum this morning, chaired by Josh Greenberg from Sloan Foundation in the US.
          • Scale up secretariat and prepare for transition to new SG.
          • Goodbye to 3 members: John, Kay and Patrick.
        • Thanks to OA/OAB for all the important work done
      • Amy: Thanks to members stepping down. Thanks to John (being present).
  6. Experiences with adoption (of RDA Recommendations), (open discussion), 15'
    • Experiences:
      1. Amy: Columbia Univ. Libraries:
        • Publishing data workflows and looking at how that interacts with our repository. Adoption process remarkably easy as I was a co-chair of this group. But that also means that as an organisation I was able to make sure that the elements that I was interested in seeing/developing as part of the WG was something I had a voice in (from an org perspective).
        • WDS Data Seal of approval certification for our data repositoriy. Working through as an implementation. Members of the WG were very easy to work in and it’s been a good experience for us.
      2. Kevin: UK Digital Curation Centre
        • Metadata standards (catalogue-directory). We started this effort. We built it but we could not sustain it. And RDA came in (with this WG) to make it sustainable.
        • Certification: We do not run a repository. But spend a lot of time advising people who do. Improve their own practice. Helpful tool.
        • Legal interoperability: Difficult to say adopting. Report about set of issues. But make use of it. Comes up again and again in many areas.
        • Work around Data Management Plans (DMPs)
      3. Jason, AIST, Japan
        • PIDs: Work with Beth Plale. Took the recommnedations and pushed them to the community in Asia.Mainly computer scientists.
        • Rice metadata standards group. Several groups in Philippines and others in the area. Also Taiwan.
          • Fran: It is important to take the recommendaitons and adapt + adopt them in the local environments. Get them in their mainstream jobs/orgs.
      4. Mark (Leggott), RDC, Canada
        • RDC: Not so much adopted, but articulated intersections both re. PIDs and legal interoperability. RDC created its set of principles. The v2 of that will have explicit links to the equivalent elements in the legal interop output of RDA, as a way to highlight the work of RDA.
        • Also making recommendations around PIDs. Same thing.
        • Similar work around what is called CASRAI RDM glossary. Glossary definitions and work together with CASRAI.
        • More adoptions though explicit articulation of intersections.
      5. Christoph, Helmholtz, Germany:
        • I am with legal interoperability group. And we are a bit slow in promoting the adoption. But will do this now.
        • Also a number of other groups creating related papers.
        • There may be a task for TAB, how to coordinate the ones to come with the existing one. Link the broad ones with the specific ones in various fields. So better to link outcomes.
      6. Wenbo, GEO:
        • Not adopted yet but will do. Interested in data repository certification. As GEO is independent, we have our own structures to adopt technical solutions. And programme board the one to make the decision. The RDA solution can act as a self-assessment tool for our repository providers. This can be discussed in our providers' workshop, late April.
        • Comment: It may be good to investigate the brokering governace work.
    • Open discussion
      • Mark (Parsons):
        • Having a new output: Biosharing group. Key component is a portal. When discussing about what RDA recommendations are, we concluded they are documents in a loose sense: it could be code, but have to be stable things. Biosharing guys are pushing back. Also with metadata groups. Also for Scholix. The implementation of the recommendation becomes more exciting than the recommendation itself. The groups say: We don’t release docs. But code and also operate it! Which is good.
          • Larry: Who owns what? This is the main issue. Easier to say who owns a doc. But with code is more difficult. Liability, who is responsible, who is testing, etc.. But a whole different deal than releasing specs.
          • Andrew: Difference between a reference implementation from a running code.
          • Stefan: Output: something for which a persistent identifier can be reasonably assigned with versioning. It’s not RDA’s code.
          • Mark: The ownership issue is the need to describe what the thing is, bouncing back the need of the orgs that produced it and want to push it, to have something that they can really demonstrate and get attention. Technical specs are only so exciting, but implementation is even more important.
          • Raphael: Two examples from my own team.
            • At Data Foundation Terminology group we decided to setup a semantic media wiki with a few add-ons to organise our process and helped us produce the output of the WG that is the standard. Then continued with an IG with larger scope and now this tool is even more useful and other people are using it and the content keeps expanding and every now and then we make a release and can get PIDs (one already has but we should be more consistent). Content created by the community and this is something RDA owns or could endorse. But the tool as such is operated by our group and do not consider this RDA business. 
            • Another example (more of an adoption story): several PID server instances of the handle system. Soon deploy a DTR. This is our core business as a data center. Not RDA. This is adoption. Influenced by the RDA context. But in terms of ownership, it is ours.
            • Amy: Where adoption is implementation.
          • Juan: Already Raphael said a lot to distinguish a service from a reference implementation. But running services are outside RDA.
          • Mark: A Working Group can decide to do a version 2 group. Fast track process but it is another group.
      • Christophe: In some cases sub-groups of RDA groups seek funding. RDA endorsement may open doors for funding.
      • Amy: Important discussion with people that are adopting: what is something that is adoptable
      • Mark Leggott: Coming back to articulated links or articulation with RDA outputs: The internal conversation we had was, can we define terminology: endorsement of, adoption of, implementation of. The idea was to have an explicit articulation of the nature of the link to the RDA output: Form of articulation of output.
  7. Experiences with commenting process (of new RDA Working Groups), (open discussion), 10'
    • OA Commentator expertise and interest - 5' (for the commentary process) - see slides
      • Amy:We have now a process and templates. Approach people to comment based on their expertise. Strongly encourage to fill the survey to record your expertise. And after the comment you get a personal note of thanks by the SG.
        • Mark: Working with ORCID so that the OA commentary contribution also appears in your ORCID profile. Need to solve tech issues. Also opportunity to get your ORCID id. ORCID is an affiliate member.
  8. OA member newsletter spotlight, 5'
    • Amy: Interested people to step forward to be included in the RDA newsletter
  9. Industry Engagement, (open discussion), 15'
    • Amy: Not many industrial members now. Mainly publishers. Christoph mentioned that we need to be careful in the influences from industrial members. Any views? Who are we interested in reaching out to engage with from industry? What are those areas, who are these people, what do we expect?
      • Stefan: We should not decide who joins from industry. We should leave this to them. I am not sure whether the present members should work on getting new industrial ones. Amy: Clairfy. Not role of date-keeping. If we don’t spread the word, it will remain a secret group. Stefan: We should be domain agnostic. Not our problem.
      • Kevin: Not only from RDA OA perspective. From RDA wider perspective we want to see engagement in the working groups from industry doing work in these areas and bridges. But OA also source of income. We may want their engagement.
      • Matthew Lucas: Are industry interests well-enough aligned with RDA goals? Or maybe another group can link with industry. Brainstorming?
  10. Council subcommittee recommendations, (open discussion), 15'
  11. Draft OAB report to Council, Amy Nurnberger, 10' (see Amy's slides below)
    • Amy: Executive summary:
      • The OA/OAB’s accomplishments over the past year:
        • Commenting process, survey of OA member expertise & interest, living document of OA value and engagement, more efficient call schedule
      • OAB membership
      • Challenge areas for member organisations (2015 survey) & how they have been addressed:
      • This gets its own set of slides, up next!
      • Request for decision: Future memoranda of understanding or similar will consider an exchange of member benefits for OA members
  12. Any Other Business - 5'

Organisational Assembly Group Photo

You can also dial in using your phone: Access Code: 949-835-389
Phone numbers
Australia: +61 2 8355 1050, Austria: +43 1 2530 22520, Belgium: +32 28 93 7010, Canada: +1 (647) 497-9391, Denmark: +45 43 31 47 82, Finland: +358 942 45 0453 , France: +33 170 950 594 , Germany: +49 692 5736 7210 , Ireland: +353 15 621 586, Italy: +39 0 694 80 34 40 , Netherlands: +31 707 709 523 , New Zealand: +64 9 909 7888 , Norway: +47 23 96 01 70 , Spain: +34 932 20 0596, Sweden: +46 775 757 474
Switzerland: +41 445 1124 88, United Kingdom: +44 330 221 0086 United States: +1 (646) 749-3129
First GoToMeeting? Try a test session: http://help.citrix.com/getready

 

Orginal agenda

Plenary 9,  Barcelona

Tuesday 4 April 2017, 14:00-16:00 local time (CEST)

Organisational Assembly meeting - Room MR12 (at Barcelo Sants)

              For remote partcipation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/949835389 (for dial-in option via phone please see at the end) 

 

Objectives of the meeting:

The Organisational Assembly (OA) is the main body through which organisations can influence the work of RDA.  The OA is composed of representatives of all RDA Member Organisations (Organisational and Affiliate Members). Organisational membership gives organisations a chance to introduce real problems in data interoperability and to call for those issues to be addressed.  OA membership gives organisations a chance for early access to RDA outcomes and a pre-publication opportunity to review outcomes and provide feedback on their utility.  The OA is in the process of updating its 12-member Organisational Advisory Board which meets on a regular basis between plenaries to ensure that the organisational voice is a constant in the governance of the RDA.  Although this session is primarily for the members of the Organisational Assembly, representatives of any organisation interested in RDA to explore organisational membership and to gain a sense of the important work accomplished by the OA can be allowed.  Please contact the co-Chairs or the RDA secretariat at enquiries@rd-alliance.org to join us to learn how your organisation can make a difference and can receive real value through associations with RDA. In this meeting major emphasis will be given in the value of OA for its members and a case study on engaging with RDA outputs, followed by an open discussion.

Chair: Amy Nurnberger

  1. Introduction to RDA Organisational Assembly OA -(in case there are non-members), Amy Nurnberger, Columbia University, RDA OA co-chair, 5’
  2. Introduction of new OA members (that have not been introduced before)- 5'
    • Centro Argentino e Información Científica y Tecnológica, CAICYT-CONICET, Argentina
    • Data Observation Network for Earth - DataONE
    • ELSEVIER, The Netherlands
    • Global Open Data for Agriculture & Nutrition (GODAN)
    • Interdisciplinary Centre for Mathematical and Computational Modelling (ICM), University of Warsaw
    • John Wiley & Sons Ltd., UK
  3. Introduction of RDA/EU reviewers
  4. Update on OAB election, Amy Nurnberger, 10'
  5. Updates from Council, Secretary General and TAB, 20'
  6. Experiences with adoption (of RDA Recommendations), (open discussion), 15'
    • Shared experiences (Do you have an experience to share? Please let us know) 
    • Recommendations relevance spreadsheet - spreadsheet and related e-mail
    • Open discussion
  7. Experiences with commenting process (of new RDA Working Groups), (open discussion), 10'
    • OA Commentator expertise and interest - 5' (for the commentary process)
    • Open action all OA members: Fill in the poll
  8. OA member newsletter spotlight: Hot or Not? (open discussion), 5'
  9. Industry Engagement, (open discussion), 15'
  10. Council subcommittee recommendations, (open discussion), 15'
  11. Draft OAB report to Council, Amy Nurnberger, 10'
  12. Any Other Business - 5'
  13. Organisational Assembly Group Photo

You can also dial in using your phone: Access Code: 949-835-389
Phone numbers
Australia: +61 2 8355 1050, Austria: +43 1 2530 22520, Belgium: +32 28 93 7010, Canada: +1 (647) 497-9391, Denmark: +45 43 31 47 82, Finland: +358 942 45 0453 , France: +33 170 950 594 , Germany: +49 692 5736 7210 , Ireland: +353 15 621 586, Italy: +39 0 694 80 34 40 , Netherlands: +31 707 709 523 , New Zealand: +64 9 909 7888 , Norway: +47 23 96 01 70 , Spain: +34 932 20 0596, Sweden: +46 775 757 474
Switzerland: +41 445 1124 88, United Kingdom: +44 330 221 0086 United States: +1 (646) 749-3129
First GoToMeeting? Try a test session: http://help.citrix.com/getready