Persistent Identification of Instruments WG - TAB Review

Working Group Title: Persistent Identification of Instruments WG

Group Page:

Case Statement:

Proposers: Louise Darroch, Markus Stocker, Alessandro Oggioni, Andrew Janke

Date Received by TAB: 27 Dec 2017

Completeness of Case Statement:  

(Does it include the six requisite components: (1) WG Charter; (2) Value Proposition: (3) Engagement with Existing Work in the Area; (4) Work Plan; (5) Adoption Plan; (6) Initial Membership?): Yes _X_; No __; Comments:

Focus and Fit:  

 (Are the Working Group objectives and deliverables aligned with the RDA mission ?  Is the scope too large for effective progress, too small for an RDA effort, or not appropriate for the RDA?  Overall, is this a worthwhile effort for the RDA to take on?  Is this an effort that adds value over and above what is currently being done within the community?)

The objectives and deliverables are well aligned with the RDA mission and the scope, while ambitious especially vis-a-vis involvement of instrument manufacturors, is well defined and can certainly be addressed. It is a very worthwhile effort and if successful will be a very positive contribution associated with RDA.

Work Plan, Deliverables, and Outcomes:

(Are there measurable, practical deliverables and outcomes?  Can the proposed work, outcomes/deliverables, and Work Plan described in the Case Statement be accomplished in 12-18 months?)

Yes. The Chairs seem to clearly understand that sticking to their schedule will require discipline and a lot of effort, but they appear capable, determined, and as far as we understand the area they seem to understand what needs to be done.


(Does the initial membership list include sufficient expertise, and disciplinary and international representation?  Are the right people involved in the Working Group to adopt and implement?  What individuals or organizations are missing?)

While a greater variety of disciplines, and thus instrument types, would of course be valuable, the initial group seems adequate.  Greater representation from the engineering sector (academia if not industry) would likely also enable more rapid progress but given the scope defined this is not a reason to not proceed.

Impact and Engagement:

(Is it likely that the outcome(s) of the Working Group will be taken up by the intended community?  Is there evidence that the research community wants this?  Will the outcome(s) of the Working Group foster data sharing and/or exchange?)

We think it likely that the outcomes will be welcomed by the PID community and will certainly improve the precision of data sharing and interpretation. The big question is potential uptake by manufacturers, but this is certainly worth the effort.


Case Statement is Sufficient _X_; Case Statement Requires Revision __; Case Statement is Rejected __




Additional Comments:

Suggest only that representative from academic and or industrial engineering be engaged as they may have appropriate comments regarding how end goal integrating with manufacturers may be ultimately done.  Eg How cellular phone unique IMEI numbers are globally managed.