AW: [rdawds_workflows_wg] Development of Data Publishing Vocabulary

Dear Michael et al.
that is a very timely reminder.
As we are working heavily on the revision of the article for IJDL, we had a long discussion last week on definitions we provide. Claire Austin (among others) had been contributing a lot to this particular task and has been liaising with both groups.
We would be happy to liaise with you and Gary in more detail to align our interests and outcomes better/more. Would be good to coordinate the integration of definitions on both sides, I think.
Thanks for reaching out.
Best wishes,
Sünje
________________________________
From: mdiepenbroek=***@***.***-groups.org [mdiepenbroek=***@***.***-groups.org] on behalf of mdiepenbroek [***@***.***]
Sent: 08 November 2015 16:08
To: 'Gary'; 'leonardo.candela'; 'RDA/WDS Publishing Data Workflows WG'
Cc: Eefke Smit
Subject: [rdawds_workflows_wg] AW: [rdawds_workflows_wg] Development of Data Publishing Vocabulary
Dear Gary, Sünje et al,
what has be the outcome of this communication. Reading through the mail I thought that a vocabulary would indeed extend some of the activities currently going on under the umbrella of the IG data publishing. In particular important is the definition of publication types. PANGAEA is currently working on the definition of data collection, so our group will be happy to contribute to some aspects.
What is the further planning?
Michael
Michael Diepenbroek
PANGAEA Data Publisher - www.pangaea.de
_____________________________________________
MARUM - Center for Marine Environmental Sciences
University Bremen
Hochschulring 18
POP 330 440
28359 Bremen
Phone ++49 421 218-65590, Fax ++49 421 218-65505
e-mail ***@***.***
Von: gbergcross=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] Im Auftrag von Gary
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 2. Juli 2015 21:10
An: leonardo.candela; RDA/WDS Publishing Data Workflows WG
Betreff: Re: [rdawds_workflows_wg] Development of Data Publishing Vocabulary
Leonardo,
Thanks for the prompt response. I have a few (2 cents worth of) thoughts on what you said and I expect that some of the main folks involved in the WG will too, such as on the idea that how publishing is implemented (say to the Web) is now part of the definition. I wonder of types of publishing/release such as to the web or a journal are distinguished as publishing sub-types. They appear in workflows for examples and may be distinguished there. So perhaps as work terms for the workflow are discussed there will be suitable definitions to make things clear.
Dear Michael et al.
that is a very timely reminder.
As we are working heavily on the revision of the article for IJDL, we had a long discussion last week on definitions we provide. Claire Austin (among others) had been contributing a lot to this particular task and has been liaising with both groups.
We would be happy to liaise with you and Gary in more detail to align our interests and outcomes better/more. Would be good to coordinate the integration of definitions on both sides, I think.
Thanks for reaching out.
Best wishes,
Sünje
________________________________
From: mdiepenbroek=***@***.***-groups.org [mdiepenbroek=***@***.***-groups.org] on behalf of mdiepenbroek [***@***.***]
Sent: 08 November 2015 16:08
To: 'Gary'; 'leonardo.candela'; 'RDA/WDS Publishing Data Workflows WG'
Cc: Eefke Smit
Subject: [rdawds_workflows_wg] AW: [rdawds_workflows_wg] Development of Data Publishing Vocabulary
Dear Gary, Sünje et al,
what has be the outcome of this communication. Reading through the mail I thought that a vocabulary would indeed extend some of the activities currently going on under the umbrella of the IG data publishing. In particular important is the definition of publication types. PANGAEA is currently working on the definition of data collection, so our group will be happy to contribute to some aspects.
What is the further planning?
Michael
Michael Diepenbroek
PANGAEA Data Publisher - www.pangaea.de
_____________________________________________
MARUM - Center for Marine Environmental Sciences
University Bremen
Hochschulring 18
POP 330 440
28359 Bremen
Phone ++49 421 218-65590, Fax ++49 421 218-65505
e-mail ***@***.***
Von: gbergcross=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] Im Auftrag von Gary
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 2. Juli 2015 21:10
An: leonardo.candela; RDA/WDS Publishing Data Workflows WG
Betreff: Re: [rdawds_workflows_wg] Development of Data Publishing Vocabulary
Leonardo,
Thanks for the prompt response. I have a few (2 cents worth of) thoughts on what you said and I expect that some of the main folks involved in the WG will too, such as on the idea that how publishing is implemented (say to the Web) is now part of the definition. I wonder of types of publishing/release such as to the web or a journal are distinguished as publishing sub-types. They appear in workflows for examples and may be distinguished there. So perhaps as work terms for the workflow are discussed there will be suitable definitions to make things clear.
>A key decision to be taken is whether to "characterise" the term data or not and then use this decision accordingly.
>If the aim is to "deal" with any "data", then it seems OK to try to define "data publishing". If this is the case the definition of "data publishing" should contain the term "data" referring to its definition (rather >than "... making research data and other research objects ...").
>However, since the project name suggests (RDA stands for "Research Data"), I would like to use >this as "main concept". Thus the term you are aiming to define should be "Research Data >Publishing" rather than "Data Publishing".
This is a point that would potentially apply across all the RDA groups. I agree that research data is the main type of data that RDA might focus on, but wonder if this distinction is relevant. Much data is generated by research activities while other "data" may come from non-research sources and then applied to a research question. It then becomes research data in a similar way that something might become metadata although not consciously generated for that role. This does fit your definition below since it becomes evidence for a research activity etc.
>In a paper my colleagues and I are working on we are using something like:
· Research Data: entities used as evidence of phenomena for the purpose of research or scholarship;
o This definition is borrowed from Borgman, C. L., 2015. Big Data, Little Data, No Data: Scholarship in the Networked World. The MIT Press.
· Research Data Publishing: the release of research data for (re)use by others.
o The key aspects are
§ "release", i.e. "making available to the public";
§ "(re)use", i.e. the motivation of publishing is to make it possible for others to use the "product";
o The how publishing is expected to be implement should not be part of the definition. Publishing can happen by a "data paper", by the deposition in a repository, etc.
>It is also useful to use the concept of dataset here to introduce the concept of "unit of information". >Thus, a "dataset" is a unit of "research data" (no matter how many files and entities) subject of a >"research data publishing" act.
The Data Foundations and Terminology WG (and now the IG) touched on this issue of Collections and Aggregations but we didn't have enough converging input from members to arrive as agreed upon and useful definitions. Some members talk in terms of Digital Objects as the Unit of Info (or as the carrier of Info, which I prefer). But distinctions between datasets and data collections is not settled although I lean towards a dataset being a unit from which data collections are assembled for particular collection purposes.
Gary Berg-Cross, Ph.D.
***@***.***
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?GaryBergCross
SOCoP Executive Secretary
Independent Consultant
Potomac, MD
240-426-0770
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 1:04 PM, leonardo.candela <***@***.***> wrote:
A key decision to be taken is whether to "characterise" the term data or not and then use this decision accordingly.
If the aim is to "deal" with any "data", then it seems OK to try to define "data publishing". If this is the case the definition of "data publishing" should contain the term "data" referring to its definition (rather than "... making research data and other research objects ...").
However, since the project name suggests (RDA stands for "Research Data"), I would like to use this as "main concept". Thus the term you are aiming to define should be "Research Data Publishing" rather than "Data Publishing".
In a paper my colleagues and I are working on we are using something like:
* Research Data: entities used as evidence of phenomena for the purpose of research or scholarship;
* This definition is borrowed from Borgman, C. L., 2015. Big Data, Little Data, No Data: Scholarship in the Networked World. The MIT Press.
* Research Data Publishing: the release of research data for (re)use by others.
* The key aspects are
* "release", i.e. "making available to the public";
* "(re)use", i.e. the motivation of publishing is to make it possible for others to use the "product";
* The how publishing is expected to be implement should not be part of the definition. Publishing can happen by a "data paper", by the deposition in a repository, etc.
It is also useful to use the concept of dataset here to introduce the concept of "unit of information". Thus, a "dataset" is a unit of "research data" (no matter how many files and entities) subject of a "research data publishing" act.
--
Full post: https://rd-alliance.org/group/rdawds-publishing-data-workflows-wg/post/d...
Manage my subscriptions: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/49008
Dear Michael et al.
that is a very timely reminder.
As we are working heavily on the revision of the article for IJDL, we had a long discussion last week on definitions we provide. Claire Austin (among others) had been contributing a lot to this particular task and has been liaising with both groups.
We would be happy to liaise with you and Gary in more detail to align our interests and outcomes better/more. Would be good to coordinate the integration of definitions on both sides, I think.
Thanks for reaching out.
Best wishes,
Sünje
________________________________
From: mdiepenbroek=***@***.***-groups.org [mdiepenbroek=***@***.***-groups.org] on behalf of mdiepenbroek [***@***.***]
Sent: 08 November 2015 16:08
To: 'Gary'; 'leonardo.candela'; 'RDA/WDS Publishing Data Workflows WG'
Cc: Eefke Smit
Subject: [rdawds_workflows_wg] AW: [rdawds_workflows_wg] Development of Data Publishing Vocabulary
Dear Gary, Sünje et al,
what has be the outcome of this communication. Reading through the mail I thought that a vocabulary would indeed extend some of the activities currently going on under the umbrella of the IG data publishing. In particular important is the definition of publication types. PANGAEA is currently working on the definition of data collection, so our group will be happy to contribute to some aspects.
What is the further planning?
Michael
Michael Diepenbroek
PANGAEA Data Publisher - www.pangaea.de
_____________________________________________
MARUM - Center for Marine Environmental Sciences
University Bremen
Hochschulring 18
POP 330 440
28359 Bremen
Phone ++49 421 218-65590, Fax ++49 421 218-65505
e-mail ***@***.***
Von: gbergcross=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] Im Auftrag von Gary
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 2. Juli 2015 21:10
An: leonardo.candela; RDA/WDS Publishing Data Workflows WG
Betreff: Re: [rdawds_workflows_wg] Development of Data Publishing Vocabulary
Leonardo,
Thanks for the prompt response. I have a few (2 cents worth of) thoughts on what you said and I expect that some of the main folks involved in the WG will too, such as on the idea that how publishing is implemented (say to the Web) is now part of the definition. I wonder of types of publishing/release such as to the web or a journal are distinguished as publishing sub-types. They appear in workflows for examples and may be distinguished there. So perhaps as work terms for the workflow are discussed there will be suitable definitions to make things clear.
>A key decision to be taken is whether to "characterise" the term data or not and then use this decision accordingly.
>If the aim is to "deal" with any "data", then it seems OK to try to define "data publishing". If this is the case the definition of "data publishing" should contain the term "data" referring to its definition (rather >than "... making research data and other research objects ...").
>However, since the project name suggests (RDA stands for "Research Data"), I would like to use >this as "main concept". Thus the term you are aiming to define should be "Research Data >Publishing" rather than "Data Publishing".
This is a point that would potentially apply across all the RDA groups. I agree that research data is the main type of data that RDA might focus on, but wonder if this distinction is relevant. Much data is generated by research activities while other "data" may come from non-research sources and then applied to a research question. It then becomes research data in a similar way that something might become metadata although not consciously generated for that role. This does fit your definition below since it becomes evidence for a research activity etc.
>In a paper my colleagues and I are working on we are using something like:
· Research Data: entities used as evidence of phenomena for the purpose of research or scholarship;
o This definition is borrowed from Borgman, C. L., 2015. Big Data, Little Data, No Data: Scholarship in the Networked World. The MIT Press.
· Research Data Publishing: the release of research data for (re)use by others.
o The key aspects are
§ "release", i.e. "making available to the public";
§ "(re)use", i.e. the motivation of publishing is to make it possible for others to use the "product";
o The how publishing is expected to be implement should not be part of the definition. Publishing can happen by a "data paper", by the deposition in a repository, etc.
The Data Foundations and Terminology WG (and now the IG) touched on this issue of Collections and Aggregations but we didn't have enough converging input from members to arrive as agreed upon and useful definitions. Some members talk in terms of Digital Objects as the Unit of Info (or as the carrier of Info, which I prefer). But distinctions between datasets and data collections is not settled although I lean towards a dataset being a unit from which data collections are assembled for particular collection purposes.
Gary Berg-Cross, Ph.D.
***@***.***
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?GaryBergCross
SOCoP Executive Secretary
Independent Consultant
Potomac, MD
240-426-0770
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 1:04 PM, leonardo.candela <***@***.***> wrote:
A key decision to be taken is whether to "characterise" the term data or not and then use this decision accordingly.
If the aim is to "deal" with any "data", then it seems OK to try to define "data publishing". If this is the case the definition of "data publishing" should contain the term "data" referring to its definition (rather than "... making research data and other research objects ...").
However, since the project name suggests (RDA stands for "Research Data"), I would like to use this as "main concept". Thus the term you are aiming to define should be "Research Data Publishing" rather than "Data Publishing".
In a paper my colleagues and I are working on we are using something like:
* Research Data: entities used as evidence of phenomena for the purpose of research or scholarship;
* This definition is borrowed from Borgman, C. L., 2015. Big Data, Little Data, No Data: Scholarship in the Networked World. The MIT Press.
* Research Data Publishing: the release of research data for (re)use by others.
* The key aspects are
* "release", i.e. "making available to the public";
* "(re)use", i.e. the motivation of publishing is to make it possible for others to use the "product";
* The how publishing is expected to be implement should not be part of the definition. Publishing can happen by a "data paper", by the deposition in a repository, etc.
It is also useful to use the concept of dataset here to introduce the concept of "unit of information". Thus, a "dataset" is a unit of "research data" (no matter how many files and entities) subject of a "research data publishing" act.
--
Full post: https://rd-alliance.org/group/rdawds-publishing-data-workflows-wg/post/d...
Manage my subscriptions: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/49008