Skip to main content

Notice

The new RDA web platform is still being rolled out. Existing RDA members PLEASE REACTIVATE YOUR ACCOUNT using this link: https://rda-login.wicketcloud.com/users/confirmation. Please report bugs, broken links and provide your feedback using the UserSnap tool on the bottom right corner of each page. Stay updated about the web site milestones at https://www.rd-alliance.org/rda-web-platform-upcoming-features-and-functionalities/.

TAB/OAB Feedback

  • Creator
    Discussion
  • #138129

    Case Statement Revisions required from the TAB/OAB Review

    Must do:

    • Elaborate on the statement in the Value Proposition that PID Information Types and the DTR are sufficient tools to describe collections
    • Better demonstrate the need for unifying layer and CRUD support and clarify what will this enable that can’t be done now. What use case motivates this work? (the ESGF example is a partial answer to this question). Provide evidence that differing practices across communities are hindering interoperability.
    • Supply additional “impact visions” (other than “interoperability”).  How, for example, might this work benefit curation or registration activities?
    • more clearly identify outputs and differences between definite and possible ‘bonus’ outputs or processes
    • identify if/how the WG outcomes will address data access questions
    • fix typos

    Should do:

    • clarify difference between collections, compound objects and aggregations
    • expand upon connection to fragment identifier scheme
    • contribute to the evaluation of the PIT and the DTR
    • involve players outside of US and Europe
    • include people from Collections efforts (such as OAI)
    • include other people who participated at P6
    • engage with existing efforts and service providers (particularly cross-disciplinary and multi-national services) as potential adopters

Log in to reply.