[Paul Millar]

Dear all,
Here is the current (live) version of the Case Statement:
https://desycloud.desy.de/index.php/s/SULWbHST3oJViKx
I’d be grateful if everyone could read through the document and check it matches their expectations for this working group.  Please send comments / suggestions / corrections to this list so we can update the document accordingly!
Cheers,
Paul.

Discussion

[Ville Tenhunen]

Hi all,
I’m happy with the document, but I like to propose some additional
things or clarifications:
# Chapter: Stakeholders
I propose that we add one group of the stakeholders:
“Storage technology vendors and developers that create storage solutions
for research communties”.
(This group creates these solutions and it could be good idea that they
have same vocabularies than users of these services.)
# Chapter: Non-goals
I don’t know if it is needed, but just in case I like to add this kind
of restriction:
“The group will not describe any technical qualifier, specification or
proposal for suggesting specific solution for any particular need of the
organization or the project. This kind of evaluations are very domain
specific ones.”
# Chapter:Beneficiaries
I propose that we add something like that:
“Other group of beneficiaries are storage providers and service
providers who can make better offers which reduce costs and after all
they will understand better needs of research communities.”
# Chapter: Engagement with existing work in this area
Perhaps we could add this to the list:
“Pay attention to Matrix of use cases and functional requirements for
research data repository platforms by Repository Platforms for Research
Data Interest Group.”
(This matrix
(https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/repository-platforms-research-data-ig/…)
include use cases for repositories and therefore they are not directly
usable here but perhaps there is something to take into account.)
# Chapter: Adoption plan
Perhaps we should describe little bit more strict time line? Following
proposal based on idea that outcome will be created on 12 months and
then after 6 month discussion and evaluation period there will be the
final report:
“The work is organized in following phases framed by the RDA plenary
meetings beginning with P9.
Milestones
April 2017; Starting session of the Workin Grpoup; Session participants
April – June 2017; An initial set of QoS descriptions; Members of the
Working Group
July – September 2017; Updated set of QoS descriptions; Members of the
Working Group
September 2017; Working Group meeting during P10 for creating primer
document and to prepare next steps; Session participants
September – December 2017; Vocabulary updated to describe DataLC
transitions; Members of the Working Group
January – April 2018; Stakeholder commenting on vocabularies; Co chairs,
Stakeholders, Members of the Working Group
April 2018; Working Group meeting during P11, First complete draft for
the outcome report for discussion; Session participants
April 2018 – September 2018; Discussion about final specification with
the community; Co chairs, Stakeholders, Members of the Working Group
September 2018; Presenting final report at P12; Co-chairs, Members of
the Working Group”
# Chapter: Initial Membership
I’d like to join the gang 🙂
See you at Barcelona!
BR,
Ville Tenhunen

[Paul Millar]

Hi Ville,
Hi Ville,
On 20/03/17 13:32, vtenhunen wrote:
> I’m happy with the document, but I like to propose some additional
> things or clarifications:
Great, thanks!
I think you raised some good points and I’ve tried to fold them into the
document (and tidy up the Work Plan and Adoption Plan sections)
Could you double-check the updated version is still OK?
Hi Ville,
On 20/03/17 13:32, vtenhunen wrote:
> I’m happy with the document, but I like to propose some additional
> things or clarifications:
Great, thanks!
I think you raised some good points and I’ve tried to fold them into the
document (and tidy up the Work Plan and Adoption Plan sections)
Could you double-check the updated version is still OK?
> I’d like to join the gang 🙂
Excellent: welcome on board!
Sadly, I can’t make it this time, but Mikael and Patrick will both be there.
We have a session on Friday during Breakout 7 (09:00 — 10:30). I hope
this will be useful to hack away at the “straw-man”!
Cheers,
Paul.

[Ville Tenhunen]

Hi Paul,

Hi Paul,
> paul
kirjoitti 21.3.2017 kello 20.21:
>
> Hi Ville,
>
>> On 20/03/17 13:32, vtenhunen wrote:
>> I’m happy with the document, but I like to propose some additional
>> things or clarifications:
>
> Great, thanks!
>
> I think you raised some good points and I’ve tried to fold them into the document (and tidy up the Work Plan and Adoption Plan sections)
>
> Could you double-check the updated version is still OK?
Yes, I read it. I think udpated version is ok and I’m very happy with it 🙂

Hi Paul,
> paul
kirjoitti 21.3.2017 kello 20.21:
>
> Hi Ville,
>
>> On 20/03/17 13:32, vtenhunen wrote:
>> I’m happy with the document, but I like to propose some additional
>> things or clarifications:
>
> Great, thanks!
>
> I think you raised some good points and I’ve tried to fold them into the document (and tidy up the Work Plan and Adoption Plan sections)
>
> Could you double-check the updated version is still OK?
Yes, I read it. I think udpated version is ok and I’m very happy with it 🙂
>> I’d like to join the gang 🙂
>
> Excellent: welcome on board!
Thanks!

Hi Paul,
> paul
kirjoitti 21.3.2017 kello 20.21:
>
> Hi Ville,
>
>> On 20/03/17 13:32, vtenhunen wrote:
>> I’m happy with the document, but I like to propose some additional
>> things or clarifications:
>
> Great, thanks!
>
> I think you raised some good points and I’ve tried to fold them into the document (and tidy up the Work Plan and Adoption Plan sections)
>
> Could you double-check the updated version is still OK?
Yes, I read it. I think udpated version is ok and I’m very happy with it 🙂
>> I’d like to join the gang 🙂
>
> Excellent: welcome on board!
Thanks!
>
>> See you at Barcelona!
>
> Sadly, I can’t make it this time, but Mikael and Patrick will both be there.
>
> We have a session on Friday during Breakout 7 (09:00 — 10:30). I hope this will be useful to hack away at the “straw-man”!
Ok, we’ll do our best.
BR,
Ville

[Mikael Borg]

On 2017-03-21 20:39, vtenhunen wrote:
>> Sadly, I can’t make it this time, but Mikael and Patrick will both be there.
>>
>> We have a session on Friday during Breakout 7 (09:00 — 10:30). I hope this will be useful to hack away at the “straw-man”!
>
> Ok, we’ll do our best.
>
Thanks for getting involved – looking forward to meeting you in Barcelona!
Cheers,
/Micke
—
Mikael Borg, PhD
technical coordinator
NBIS – National Bioinformatics Infrastructure – https://nbis.se
ORCiD: 0000-0002-0646-4231
e-mail: ***@***.***
phone: +46-(0)76-306 50 80
address: SciLifeLab, Box 1031, 171 21 Solna, Sweden
Thanks for getting involved – looking forward to meeting you in Barcelona!
Cheers,
/Micke
—
Mikael Borg, PhD
technical coordinator
NBIS – National Bioinformatics Infrastructure – https://nbis.se
ORCiD: 0000-0002-0646-4231
e-mail: ***@***.***
phone: +46-(0)76-306 50 80
address: SciLifeLab, Box 1031, 171 21 Solna, Sweden

[Paul Millar]

Hi all,

I’ve uploaded the current/latest version of the Case Statement into this group’s File Repository.  Group members should be able to see it, but its not yet public.

Cheers,

Paul.

[Mikael Borg]

Dear all,
I sent our case statement to RDA yesterday, it is now available from the
WG page:
https://www.rd-alliance.org/groups/qos-datalc-definitions-wg
Thanks for the contributions, looking forward to seeing you next week.
Our session is Friday morning 9:00-10:30.
Proposed agenda:
1 Introduction (Mikael Borg)
2 How the research data infrastructure could benefit from QoS and DataLC
definitions? Case: The Project Mildred (Ville Tenhonen)
3 INDIGO Data Cloud (Patrick Fuhrmann)
4 Discussion: case statement, initial work and how to move forward
I will update the agenda on the session page as soon as I get permission
to do so.
https://www.rd-alliance.org/wg-qos-datalc-definitions-rda-9th-plenary-me…
Kind regards,
/Micke

[Author]

Replies