[Tomasz Miksa]

Dear all,
Thank you for participation in the poll. The next working meeting in which we go through the NIH template will be on 24.03.2021 17-19 CET – please find the invitation attached.
Best wishes,
Tomasz
– Show quoted text -From: ***@***.***-groups.org
Sent: czwartek, 18 marca 2021 18:05
To: DMP Common Standards WG
Subject: [dmp-common] March update on maDMPs
Dear all,
We have had calls in February and March to discuss the mapping of maDMPs to various funder templates. You can find all the relevant information here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YxehrDGBQqO-gMRP4pdP6x4fF8ZNj1aN96yw…
Meeting minutes from the last meeting:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tFwHVDEXlCK09TPA9m9eW1e3i6EynydZIaQd…
Next week we are planning to analyse together the NIH DMP for 2023. If you want to join the meeting, please indicate your availability by tomorrow EOB:
https://doodle.com/poll/s8xw7ukrvkmap49s
Taking the opportunity, I would like to draw your attention to the discussion on the mechanism for extensions and the role of JSON-LD:
https://github.com/RDA-DMP-Common/RDA-DMP-Common-Standard/issues/27#issu…
We would appreciate your comments!
Best wishes,
Tomasz Miksa
P.S. Don’t forget to register for the RDA Plenary. We will have a session there!

[Tomasz Miksa]

Dear all,
There was a mistake in one of the attached invitations. Please find the correct one for the meeting “maDMPs 02/2020 #2” on the 18th of February.
It is not at 5AM CET, but at 5PM CET.
Sorry for the inconvenience!
Tomasz
– Show quoted text -From: ***@***.***-groups.org
Sent: wtorek, 2 lutego 2021 11:32
To: DMP Common Standards WG
Subject: [dmp-common] Updates and next steps – join us for the funder mapping!
Dear group members!
To begin with, we would like thank for numerous participation in the calls we had in January (meeting minutes). With this e-mail, we would like to inform you on the next developments we plan together:
1. Mapping to funder templates
2. Next video meetings
3. RDA Plenary in Edinburgh
4. Community of Practice
5. Recommendation maintenance
Please find the details below and join us!
Best wishes,
Tomasz Miksa
Ad 1. Mapping to funder templates
In the calls, we have identified that the Science Europe and the Horizon Europe templates were the most popular choices to establish a mapping between them and the recommendation on maDMPs. For this reason, we will create two teams that will work on mappings. In case there is still interest to include any other templates, please let us know.
To facilitate the work, we will reactivate the slack community we used during the hackathon on maDMPs. We will create channels for each template (#science-europe-madmps and #horzion-madmps). Everyone can join the channels. To do so, use this link (click). A detailed description of the exercise and the methodology we want to follow can be found here. A list of team members who expressed their interest in this exercise can be found here. The teams will report on the progress during the video meetings – see the next point.
Ad 2. Next video meetings
Apart from the interaction on Slack we plan to have calls in the middle of February and April. The goal of these calls is to discuss progress regarding mappings and any other issues concerning adoption of maDMPs. We will have again two slots to accommodate for time differences. Please find the calendar invitations attached.
Call 02/2020: 18 February, 10 CET and 18 February, 17 CET
Call 03/2020: 16 March, 10 CET and 18 March, 17 CET
Ad 3. RDA Plenary in Edinburgh
We have submitted two session proposals:
· WG DMP Common Standards: session on maintenance and to present new adoptions
· Joint Session of Active DMPs IG, Exposing DMPs WG and Common Standards WG: to present results from the Exposing DMPs WG and discuss open topics, e.g. community of practice
Both proposals are currently under review.
Ad 4. Community of Practice
We are still evaluating whether establishing the Community of Practice around maDMPs should be the next step for us. We would appreciate any feedback and suggestions.
Ad 5. Recommendation maintenance
We had some good discussions during the calls and there are new ideas and suggestions. Please check the issues on GitHub and provide your feedback. We plan to make small updates, e.g. include a mechanism to indicate extensions, but before we do that, we would like to get your feedback first!

[Tomasz Miksa]

Dear all,
Thank you for the contributions to the CODATA journal paper. The good news is that the deadline has been extended. This gives a chance to others who haven’t contributed yet! Please add your parts on the adoption of the standard and provide any feedback here:
https://www.overleaf.com/2284336473crmxqbpcmcmc
In case you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Best wishes,
Tomasz Miksa
– Show quoted text -From: ***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org]
Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2020 4:43 PM
To: DMP Common Standards WG
Subject: [dmp-common] RDA DMP Common Standards – April Updates
Dear all,
We are writing to update you on the ongoing and planned activities of the DMP Common Standards WG. There are several ways in which you can contribute. Here is an outline of activities:
1. Participate in a virtual session at the P15 Plenary
2. Contribute to a joint paper submitted to the CODATA journal
3. Help in shaping the hackathon on maDMPs
4. Submit your adoption story
5. (work opportunities @ TU Wien)
Please find all details below.
We look forward to hearing from you!
Best wishes,
Tomasz, Peter, Paul
1. Participate in a virtual session at the P15 Plenary
Together with the other DMP groups we are co-organising a session in which the maDMPs will be one of the key topics. There will be pre-recorded presentations and two sessions for discussions. Please join the one that suits you best:
– Tuesday, 7 April 13.00 UTC/ 15.00 CEST/ 14.00 BST/ 09.00 EDT
– Thursday 9th April 04:00 UTC/ 14:00 AEST/ 09:30 IST/ Wednesday, 8 April 2020, 21:00 PDT
You can now find the session in the Virtual Plenary agenda here: https://www.rd-alliance.org/rda-virtual-plenary-programme
With the session page here: https://www.rd-alliance.org/recommending-fair-practices-dmps-emphasis-%E…
2. Contribute to a joint paper submitted to CODATA journal
During the development of the common standard we described individual steps in publications. The final output produced by this WG is in form of a technical documentation. We would like to use the opportunity provided by RDA Europe that covers publication fee in the CODATA journal and write up a paper summarising the whole work performed by this WG.
The idea is to describe how we jointly developed the standard, present the standard itself together with a discussion explaining design decisions made, etc. On top of that we would like to present existing and pending adoptions. We have created an overleaf document here:
https://www.overleaf.com/2284336473crmxqbpcmcmc
All members who actively contributed to the development of the standard are welcomed to add their name and affiliation to the list of co-authors. I would like to specifically invite everyone who is currently working on adopting the standard to provide 1-2 paragraphs describing their adoption story – work in progress is also ok. We believe a wide range of examples will create added value.
The deadline for the submission of the paper is 15 April. We need to have all inputs from you by 12 April, so that we have enough time to finalise the paper. We look forward to your contributions!
3. Help in shaping the hackathon on maDMPs
Together with the RDA national nodes we would like to organise a hackathon on maDMPs. The original hackathon was supposed to be hosted in Vienna, but given the recent developments we have decided to host it virtually. Discussions at the IDCC15 conference revealed that the DMP tool providers are independently implementing RDA recommendation on maDMPs. Based on the follow-up discussion we identified that a joint meeting in which the ongoing work could be discussed, coordinated and aligned for the future will be of benefit to the broad RDM community. For this reason, we would like to organize a hackathon with the following goals:
– to identify common challenges and establish common practices,
– to test integrations between tools to improve their interoperability,
– to develop new serializations, define mapping to templates, etc.
The hackathon will take place on 27 and 28 May 2020.
Since the event is not restricted by the physical room capacity, we can have parallel sessions. This means we can cover a broader range of topics discussed in various break out groups, but related directly to maDMPs and the output produced by this WG.
For this reason, we would like to ask everyone interested to complete a short questionnaire by 12 April. The information and suggestions provided by you will help us better plan the event:
https://forms.gle/mHUoq5wFwDntkju1A
4. Submit your adoption story
Please let us know if you are planning or if you are already adopting the common standard for maDMPs. Tracking adoptions helps us in promoting the standard. We are also always happy to provide (early) feedback if needed.
5. Jobs @ TU Wien
TU Wien is implementing research data management infrastructure. We are currently looking for a solution architect (full time, permanent!), software developers and a FAIR Data officer.
If you have experience in running IT projects and/or are familiar with the FAIR principles and would like to join our team in Vienna, then one of the jobs may be a perfect fit for you:
https://tuwien.bewerberportal.at/Job/127648
https://www.tuwien.at/forschung/fti-support/forschungsdaten/news/news/jo…
https://tuwien.bewerberportal.at/Job/127643
For more information, please contact Tomasz Miksa.

[Tomasz Miksa]

Hi,
I think the original intention was to structure regions in the same way as funders (forum/assembly/board). Thus, we wanted to remain consistent with the existing architecture of RDA.
However, I agree that we might have ended up in creating too many entities. Giving up on Regional Forum now makes sense to me. It can be easily replaced with informal meetings or an interest group.
KISS!
Tomasz
From: juan.bicarregui=***@***.***-groups.org On Behalf Of JuanBicarregui
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 3:01 PM
To: Hilary Hanahoe ; RDA Regional Engagement Discussion Group
Cc: Bridget Walker
Subject: Re: [regional_engagement] RDA Regional Engagement: Update on Framework and Governance
Thanks, Hilary, for the feedback.
I have no objection to the removal of the Regional Forum – it makes sense that this should not be a formal body. We can always call informal, ad-hoc meetings if required. It’s removal certainly makes things simpler.
“As simple as possible but no simpler” as they say.
Best regards,
Juan.
From: hilary.hanahoe=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of Hilary Hanahoe
Sent: 05 July 2019 17:40
To: RDA Regional Engagement Discussion Group
Cc: Bridget Walker
Subject: [regional_engagement] RDA Regional Engagement: Update on Framework and Governance
Dear Regional Engagement Task Force Members,
During the June 2019 Council meeting, the latest version of the RE Framework document was presented and the governance aspects outlined.
The latest version of the document is available at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1t6pKy8e44n_CnhiV3ILlv445gzxE73nI9Crd…
Council appreciates very much your work to draft and define the latest version of the framework. There are a few minor edits that I have flagged in the online document. In reference to the governance model proposed, Council asks that the Regional Forum be removed as a “formal” body and we revise the document accordingly. Edits made in track mode on-line.
The rationale behind this request is that the regional model would start out with many layers of governance and complexity while the most important boards are the Assembly and the Advisory Board, covering regions with an MoU.
Aspiring region meetings and fora can be arranged on an ad-hoc basis, ensuring a lower overhead for both the secretariat and the Foundation.
So the next step would be to ask you to let me know if you have any objections to the proposed changes by close of business 19 July so that we can finalise the word version and update the public regional framework on the RDA Regions section of the web site – https://www.rd-alliance.org/groups/rda-regions
This would be timely for me also as I will be in Australia from 20 July for 3 weeks and I would like to have an updated version of the RE Framework document available.
Many thanks to you all and have a lovely weekend.
Hilary
Hilary Hanahoe
Secretary General Research Data Alliance
Tel: +39-345-4719284
email: ***@***.***-foundation.org
skype: hilary.hanahoe
Twitter: @hilaryhanahoe
Orcid ID: 0000-0002-0328-3419
Web: http://www.rd-alliance.org
_____________________________________
RDA 14th Plenary Meeting, 23-25 October 2019, Helsinki, Finland – see updates
_____________________________________
The information contained in this message and any attachments are intended solely for the attention and use of the named addressee and may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are reminded that the information remains the property of the sender. You must not use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender immediately and irrevocably delete or destroy this message and any copies.

Homepage

[Tomasz Miksa]

Dear Christine, Christine, all,
Thank you very much for starting this discussion. Indeed, DMPs have to describe data at different stages of their life cycle. This means that we have cases like:
* Project has finished, data was published, DMP contains a list of DOIs pointing to data – illustrated by example [3]
* Project starts, NSF in the USA requires researchers to pre-book DOIs for their data, before data exists. Hence, DMP shows that DOI was assigned, but data has not been created yet. The issue date for the dataset is set to the future. This tells that information provided about a dataset are not final. This also implies that the size of the dataset is to be considered as an estimation – illustrated by example [5]
* Example [7] shows that DMP can described both performed and planned actions – some data was already released, some other actions are planned (and can change in a newer version of DMP).
To simplify the model we decided to remove status fields. Now the logic on how to interpret specific information is implicit:
* ‘dmp modification date’ and’ dataset issue date’ allow to distinguish between planned and performed actions
* ‘license start date’ indicates whether there is an embargo period or not
* properties that are not set indicate that information at a given revision of a DMP was not available at a moment when DMP was created, e.g. costs section does not exist
[3] https://github.com/RDA-DMP-Common/RDA-DMP-Common-Standard/blob/master/ex…
[5] https://github.com/RDA-DMP-Common/RDA-DMP-Common-Standard/blob/master/ex…
[7] https://github.com/RDA-DMP-Common/RDA-DMP-Common-Standard/blob/master/ex…
When it comes to the provenance, we believe it is out of scope of a DMP. Current DMPs do not contain it and such information should be collected somewhere else – we only want to point to data (e.g. by DOIs) and do not want to duplicate information.
Furthermore, we received feedback that for many settings in which DMPs are used, there is no need to distinguish between specific datasets, for example, a DMP often states what licenses will be used and which repositories, but does not say that dataset A goes to repository X, and dataset B goes to repository Y. Our model supports both scenarios – a very detailed and a very generic DMP. As a consequence, we focused on a minimal number of fields that are common and necessary in both cases.
Thank you for the link to the paper. You’re the first one bringing it up here – seems very relevant… and similar! Thank you!
Tomasz
From: marie-christine.jacquemot=***@***.***-groups.org On Behalf Of jacquemotmc
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 2:56 PM
To: laaboch ; Tomasz Miksa ; DMP Common Standards WG
Cc: OPDL ODP
Subject: Re: [dmp-common] DMP Common Standards – model your own maDMP
Dear Tomasz, Christine and all,
I understand Christine’s remarks. However It seems to me that maDMP are supposed to describe data (and/or all other outputs of a project) throughout the different stages of their life cycle. We can easily imagine that during the active phase of a project, data is only accessible to the partners of the project, or that it may not be worth sharing all data (raw or derived) and therefore it might not be worth attributing a DOI. DMP is becoming a tool for researchers and also for research organization and services that want to have an inventory of the data that they are responsible of.
Some potentially missing information: the provenance of a dataset; the ontology/vocabulary that is being used to describe the data/output, persons and roles at different stages.
One last point, are you aware of the work done based on DataId ontology : https://svn.aksw.org/papers/2016/MSOR_DataID2/public.pdf. I apologize if it has already been mentioned.
Best,
Christine
De : christine.laaboudi=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] De la part de laaboch
Envoyé : mercredi 13 mars 2019 10:31
À : ‘tmiksa’ ; DMP Common Standards WG
Cc : OPDL ODP
Objet : Re: [dmp-common] DMP Common Standards – model your own maDMP
Dear Tomasz,
I have revised the examples and would like to give you my feedback about datasets with no DOI (dataset) and no accessURL (distribution).
* In examples 3, the dataset has a DOI and the data are accessible through an accessURL (distribution)
* In example 5, the dataset has a DOI but no accessURL (distribution).
* In example 7, the second dataset has a DOI (source code) and an accessURL (distribution) while the first one (Cool data) has not DOI and no accessURL. As a result, the DMP doesn’t provide any information about how to get the data from the first dataset.
In order to cover this specific case, I would suggest to either (1) changing the cardinality of accessURL [1] in the distribution, or (2) adding a “dcat:landingPage” property in the dataset, pointing to the project page where the data are available.
Best regards,
Christine LAABOUDI-SPOIDEN
Knowledge Management Assistant – Data Librarian
[logo signature mail]
Publications Office of the European Union
Directorate C – Access to and reuse of public information
C.4 – EU Open Data and CORDIS
EU Open Data
2, rue Mercier * L-2985 Luxembourg
Tel. +352 292942858 * Fax +352 292944604
***@***.***
http://publications.europa.eu
Facebook – @EU Bookshop – @EUR-Lex
@CORDIS_EU – @EUTenders
@EULawDataPubs – @EU_opendata
– Show quoted text -From: tmiksa=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of tmiksa
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2019 5:11 PM
To: DMP Common Standards WG
Subject: [dmp-common] DMP Common Standards – model your own maDMP
Dear group members,
We have created some JSON examples of maDMPs. You can find them here:
https://github.com/RDA-DMP-Common/RDA-DMP-Common-Standard/tree/master/ex…
They are based on the model that you have already seen (which continuously undergoes adaptations):
https://www.lucidchart.com/invitations/accept/ee26bc71-01a6-442a-b946-5b…
We would like to ask you to:
* Revise the examples and provide feedback
* Create your own maDMPs examples – you can either model your own scenarios to check how (and if) model supports them, or use some of the user stories from the first consultation in case you need inspiration [1]
The goal of this exercise is to collaboratively do the first verification and validation of the model and detect any problems early on. We count on your help!
Please provide your feedback through issues mechanisms on GitHub or drop us a mail – whatever is easier for you. The sooner, the better – the plan is to present the first draft of the model during the P13 in April!
In the meantime we’re working on a documentation that will complement/replace the current diagram, but we believe that existing resources should provide you enough information to work on examples/provide feedback.
We look forward to hearing from you!
Best wishes,
Tomasz, Paul, Peter
[1] https://github.com/RDA-DMP-Common/user-stories

[Tomasz Miksa]

Dear Sadia,
I am one of the co-chairs of this WG. Thanks for reaching out to us! We’re open to all kinds of collaborations, especially with experts like you.
Currently, we don’t have plans for the next call, but we can always organise one ad hoc! Maybe even tomorrow?
Here is the current version of our model for exchange of maDMPs:
https://www.lucidchart.com/documents/edit/346ec6f7-c37a-48cb-93ca-c0184f…
We’re now working towards specific serialisations and generating easy to understand examples reflecting typical DMP use cases.
Best wishes,
Tomasz
– Show quoted text -From: sadia.vancauwenbergh=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of SadiaVancauwenbergh
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 1:42 PM
To: DMP Common Standards WG
Subject: Re: [dmp-common] RDA DMP Common standards – February 2019 Call
Dear Paul,
My colleague met Peter Neish on the IDCC conference and just pointed me towards this working group. This wg is highly important to us as we are assisting the implementation of RD standards in Flemish Research Information Systems. On the other hand, I’m Ex. Board Member Standards and Classifications with respect to EuroCRIS, the organization on research information systems that creates the CERIF-XML format for exchanging research information in a standardized way.
I noticed I just missed a tel call earlier this week, however do you have another one scheduled as I think it’s highly relevant that both communities team up efforts.
Kind regards,
Sadia
—
Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/dmp-common-standards-wg/post/rda-dmp-c…
Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62103

[Tomasz Miksa]

Dear all,
Thank you very much to all those who joined us today.
The meeting minutes can be found here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P0VBZxglHCSJE2zXYhOC8H94yzlgBl5dz_sB…
We are still waiting for your inputs on dictionaries:
DM Roles – dictionary?
Cost types – dictionary?
Cost units – dictionary?
Dataset types – dictionary?
Technical resources – dictionary?
Please also take a look at cardinalities assigned to classes and fields. Do they make sense to you?
https://www.lucidchart.com/invitations/accept/ee26bc71-01a6-442a-b946-5b…
Apart from these outstanding tasks, it seems that we have a pretty stable outline of our interchange format for maDMPs.
In the next weeks we will work on providing examples consisting of:
– a short use case, e.g. “I will keep me source code on GitHub”
– a JSON example following our common model
Best wishes
Tomasz Miksa
—–Original Message—–
From: paul=***@***.***-groups.org
On Behalf Of paulwalk
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2019 12:04 PM
To: DMP Common Standards WG
Subject: Re: [dmp-common] RDA DMP Common standards – February 2019 Call
All,
The connection URL for the RDA DMP Common standards call tomorrow (2019-02-19 17:00 CET) is:
https://zoom.us/j/416673627
Looking forward to the call!
Paul

[Tomasz Miksa]

Dear group members,
The winning slot for our next call is Tuesday, 19.02, 17 CET.
Connection details will follow!
Best wishes,
Tomasz Miksa
– Show quoted text -From: tmiksa=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of tmiksa
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 5:39 PM
To: DMP Common Standards WG
Subject: [dmp-common] RDA DMP Common standards – February 2019 Call
Dear group members,
Since our last call in January, we have introduced some changes in the model. The last call was very fruitful and we would like to organise another one next week.
Please indicate your availability:
https://doodle.com/poll/2mpt3hdchcu58a7k
Current version of the model can be found here:
https://www.lucidchart.com/invitations/accept/ee26bc71-01a6-442a-b946-5b…
When looking at the model you may want to ask yourselves: does the set of fields would fulfil requirements of my funder/institution/template?
During the call we would like to hear your opinion on that, discuss points listed below and address any comments you may have.
The model is likely to evolve within the next few days. We have some outstanding to-dos and would appreciate your feedback:
1. Identifiers and their consistent use (do we provide a full HTTP link for DOI, or only a number, etc.)
2. DMP State – do we need to indicate state of a DMP as a global flag: draft, submitted, etc. Is this universally understandable?
3. DM Roles – dictionary?
4. Cost types – dictionary?
5. Cost units – dictionary?
6. Dataset types – dictionary?
7. Technical resources – dictionary?
8. Host and quality of service fields? What is missing?
We look forward to hearing from you!
Best wishes,
Tomasz Miksa

[Tomasz Miksa]

Dear colleagues!
Thank you very much for joining us in the call and providing your feedback.
Meeting minutes and slides can be found here:
https://www.rd-alliance.org/dmp-common-standards-wg-call-january-2019
We look forward to further contributions to the model. Please add comments
directly in the model, or send us questions to validate if the model
addresses the needs of your use cases.
https://www.lucidchart.com/invitations/accept/ee26bc71-01a6-442a-b946-5b…
0fb926
Best wishes
Tomasz Miksa
From: tmiksa=***@***.***-groups.org
[mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of tmiksa
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2019 2:06 PM
To: ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: [dmp-common] RE: [dmp-common] DMP Common Standards – Model
development in progress – online…
Hi,
Please find below the connection details for tomorrow’s call.
https://meetings.webex.com/collabs/meetings/join?uuid=MA4BZF7G7BCVHCIIC2…
PK8Q-8DG7
https://meetings.webex.com/collabsres0103l/local_domain_res/images/email…
cess-info-16.png
Access Information
Where:
WebEx Online
Meeting number:
239 317 273
Password:
This meeting does not require a password.
https://meetings.webex.com/collabsres0103l/local_domain_res/images/email…
dio-16.png
Audio Connection
0800-297252 Austria Toll Free
+43-720-815221 Austria Toll
Access code: 239 317 273
Need more numbers or information? Check out

7G7BCVHCIIC2XX82PK8Q-8DG7> global call-in numbers and
toll-free calling
restrictions.
Best wishes,
Tomasz
From: tmiksa=***@***.***-groups.org
[mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of tmiksa
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2019 5:25 PM
To: ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: Re: [dmp-common] DMP Common Standards – Model development in
progress – online…
Hi everyone!
Thank you very much for all the votes. Friday, 25.01 at 1pm CET is the
winning option.
We will provide connection details later.
We look forward to seeing you!
Tomasz Miksa
From: tmiksa=***@***.***-groups.org
On Behalf Of tmiksa
Sent: wtorek, 15 stycznia 2019 16:58
To: ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: [dmp-common] DMP Common Standards – Model development in progress –
online meeting
Dear colleagues,
We have been recently progressing with the common DMP model and would like
to get in sync with you. We would like to invite you to join a call.
In the call we would like to walk you through the model, discuss it, and get
feedback.
Please indicate your availability by Friday EOB:
https://doodle.com/poll/ramnun6afcqp6uui
The current version of the model can be found here:
https://www.lucidchart.com/invitations/accept/ee26bc71-01a6-442a-b946-5b…
0fb926
We encourage you to take a look at it before the call. You can also add
comments to the model.
Its current form aims at giving the possibility to model a wide range of
cases. For example, DMPs can be connected to Projects, but don’t have to.
DMPs can be of different granularity, but don’t’ have to, etc.
Please note that the model itself cannot be to restrictive and cannot set
constrains stemming from business needs. Those constraints must be set on a
higher level, for example, in the logic of software that uses this model.
We have also identified areas in the model that may require inputs from
other RDA groups. For example, modelling “Security and Privacy” issues could
become a topic for discussion beyond our group.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Tomasz Miksa
Paul Walk
Peter Neish
P.S. Australian participants will also have a chance to discuss the model
with Peter during the upcoming IDCC conference in Melbourne. More details
will follow!

[Tomasz Miksa]

Hi everyone!
Thank you very much for all the votes. Friday, 25.01 at 1pm CET is the winning option.
We will provide connection details later.
We look forward to seeing you!
Tomasz Miksa
– Show quoted text -From: tmiksa=***@***.***-groups.org On Behalf Of tmiksa
Sent: wtorek, 15 stycznia 2019 16:58
To: ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: [dmp-common] DMP Common Standards – Model development in progress – online meeting
Dear colleagues,
We have been recently progressing with the common DMP model and would like to get in sync with you. We would like to invite you to join a call.
In the call we would like to walk you through the model, discuss it, and get feedback.
Please indicate your availability by Friday EOB:
https://doodle.com/poll/ramnun6afcqp6uui
The current version of the model can be found here:
https://www.lucidchart.com/invitations/accept/ee26bc71-01a6-442a-b946-5b…
We encourage you to take a look at it before the call. You can also add comments to the model.
Its current form aims at giving the possibility to model a wide range of cases. For example, DMPs can be connected to Projects, but don’t have to. DMPs can be of different granularity, but don’t’ have to, etc.
Please note that the model itself cannot be to restrictive and cannot set constrains stemming from business needs. Those constraints must be set on a higher level, for example, in the logic of software that uses this model.
We have also identified areas in the model that may require inputs from other RDA groups. For example, modelling “Security and Privacy” issues could become a topic for discussion beyond our group.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Tomasz Miksa
Paul Walk
Peter Neish
P.S. Australian participants will also have a chance to discuss the model with Peter during the upcoming IDCC conference in Melbourne. More details will follow!

[Tomasz Miksa]

Hi,
The link was wrongly parsed by the RDA website… already fixed. Here you are:
https://www.lucidchart.com/invitations/accept/ee26bc71-01a6-442a-b946-5b…
Tomasz
– Show quoted text -From: sarah.jones=***@***.***-groups.org On Behalf Of sjDCC
Sent: piątek, 4 stycznia 2019 19:23
To: DMP Common Standards WG
Subject: Re: [dmp-common] DMP Common Standards – between plenaries – update
Hi Tomasz
The link to the draft model is broken. Could you please repost / correct this?
Thanks
Sarah
—
Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/dmp-common-standards-wg/post/dmp-commo…
Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/61442

[Tomasz Miksa]

Dear all,
Many thanks to those who had time to join today and for their feedback.
For those who missed the call we published slides and meeting minutes
online:
-slides
https://www.rd-alliance.org/system/files/documents/2018-RDA-DMP-Call-Oct…
.pdf
-meeting minutes
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1fz4_wnFswLWYWmf3kdAIzeFwbgt0SpeX
The next 6 months will be super interesting! Stay tuned!
Tomasz
From: tmiksa=***@***.***-groups.org
[mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of tmiksa
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 11:03 AM
To: ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: [dmp-common] RDA DMP Common Standards – October Meeting
Dear DMP Common members,
Please find the connection details below for tomorrow’s call.
Look forward to hearing you!
Tomasz
https://meetings.webex.com/collabs/meetings/join?uuid=MAVPTYT78V0Z10UWNC…
97S6-8DG7
https://meetings.webex.com/collabsres0103l/local_domain_res/images/email…
eting.png

U97S6-8DG7&ucs=email> RDA DMP Common Standards – October 2018
Thu, Oct 18, 9:00 am | 1 hr
Amsterdam (Europe Summer Time, GMT+02:00)
Host: SBA Research

U97S6-8DG7> Join
https://meetings.webex.com/collabsres0103l/local_domain_res/images/email…
cess-info-16.png
Access Information
Where:
WebEx Online
Meeting number:
238 414 461
Password:
This meeting does not require a password.
https://meetings.webex.com/collabsres0103l/local_domain_res/images/email…
dio-16.png
Audio Connection
0800-297252 Austria Toll Free
+43-720-815221 Austria Toll
Access code: 238 414 461
Need more numbers or information? Check out

T78V0Z10UWNC34XU97S6-8DG7> global call-in numbers and
toll-free calling
restrictions.

[Tomasz Miksa]

Hi,
Unfortunately same here – won’t be able to join this time.
Tomasz
– Show quoted text -From: juan.bicarregui=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of JuanBicarregui
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 6:25 PM
To: Hilary Hanahoe; ***@***.***-groups.org; Lupo-Petta, Jamie
Subject: Re: [regional_engagement] Regional Engagement Meeting Reminder – 11 Oct 11UTC
Dear All,
Sorry, I’m not going to be able to join you at 11 UTC tomorrow.
I may be able to join the meeting later, a little after 11:30, depending on whether my other meeting keeps to time (which I suspect it might not).
Have a good meeting,
Juan
From: hilary.hanahoe=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of Hilary Hanahoe
Sent: 10 October 2018 15:07
To: ***@***.***-groups.org; Lupo-Petta, Jamie
Subject: [regional_engagement] Regional Engagement Meeting Reminder – 11 Oct 11UTC
Dear Regional Engagement Task Force,
a gentle reminder that the Regional Engagement Task Force meeting is scheduled for 11 UTC on 11 October 2018
The go to meeting link is: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/889463285
(Dial in details are at the bottom of the message).
Items on the agenda for tomorrow are:
Agenda Items
1. Regional Engagement Framework
1. Governance
2. Document
2. US Grant. – International Network of Networks
3. P13 (brief)
4. Botswana Meeting
5. Post Botswana
The meeting notes (in the google folder) are available at – https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gY9CGSeTfpeFDeSUhZGK6QwFmPZSn3pzJt_H…
Looking forward to speaking with you tomorrow
Hilary
Regional Engagement Task Force Meeting
Call-in Phone numbers:
Australia: +61 2 9087 3604
Austria: +43 7 2081 5427
Belgium: +32 28 93 7018
Canada: +1 (647) 497-9391
Denmark: +45 32 72 03 82
Finland: +358 923 17 0568
France: +33 170 950 594
Germany: +49 692 5736 7317
Ireland: +353 15 360 728
Italy: +39 0 247 92 13 01
Netherlands: +31 207 941 377
New Zealand: +64 9 280 6302
Norway: +47 21 93 37 51
Spain: +34 932 75 2004
Sweden: +46 853 527 836
Switzerland: +41 225 4599 78
United Kingdom: +44 20 3713 5028
United States: +1 646-749-3129
_____________________________________
Hilary Hanahoe
Secretary General Research Data Alliance
Tel: +39-345-4719284
***@***.***
skype: lunastella72
Twitter: @hilaryhanahoe
http://www.rd-alliance.org
_____________________________________
Registration is now open for International Data Week (comprising SciDataCon and the 12th RDA Plenary Meeting ), 5-8 November 2018, Gaborone, Botswana: register here!
The information contained in this message and any attachments are intended solely for the attention
and use of the named addressee and may be confidential. If you are not the
intended recipient,
you are reminded that the information remains the property of the sender.
You must not use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this e-mail.
If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender immediately
and irrevocably delete or destroy this message and any copies.
Hi,
Unfortunately same here – won’t be able to join this time.
Tomasz
From: juan.bicarregui=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of JuanBicarregui
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 6:25 PM
To: Hilary Hanahoe; ***@***.***-groups.org; Lupo-Petta, Jamie
Subject: Re: [regional_engagement] Regional Engagement Meeting Reminder – 11 Oct 11UTC
Dear All,
Sorry, I’m not going to be able to join you at 11 UTC tomorrow.
I may be able to join the meeting later, a little after 11:30, depending on whether my other meeting keeps to time (which I suspect it might not).
Have a good meeting,
Juan
– Show quoted text -From: hilary.hanahoe=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of Hilary Hanahoe
Sent: 10 October 2018 15:07
To: ***@***.***-groups.org; Lupo-Petta, Jamie
Subject: [regional_engagement] Regional Engagement Meeting Reminder – 11 Oct 11UTC
Dear Regional Engagement Task Force,
a gentle reminder that the Regional Engagement Task Force meeting is scheduled for 11 UTC on 11 October 2018
The go to meeting link is: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/889463285
(Dial in details are at the bottom of the message).
Items on the agenda for tomorrow are:
Agenda Items
1. Regional Engagement Framework
1. Governance
2. Document
2. US Grant. – International Network of Networks
3. P13 (brief)
4. Botswana Meeting
5. Post Botswana
The meeting notes (in the google folder) are available at – https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gY9CGSeTfpeFDeSUhZGK6QwFmPZSn3pzJt_H…
Looking forward to speaking with you tomorrow
Hilary
Regional Engagement Task Force Meeting
Call-in Phone numbers:
Australia: +61 2 9087 3604
Austria: +43 7 2081 5427
Belgium: +32 28 93 7018
Canada: +1 (647) 497-9391
Denmark: +45 32 72 03 82
Finland: +358 923 17 0568
France: +33 170 950 594
Germany: +49 692 5736 7317
Ireland: +353 15 360 728
Italy: +39 0 247 92 13 01
Netherlands: +31 207 941 377
New Zealand: +64 9 280 6302
Norway: +47 21 93 37 51
Spain: +34 932 75 2004
Sweden: +46 853 527 836
Switzerland: +41 225 4599 78
United Kingdom: +44 20 3713 5028
United States: +1 646-749-3129
_____________________________________
Hilary Hanahoe
Secretary General Research Data Alliance
Tel: +39-345-4719284
***@***.***
skype: lunastella72
Twitter: @hilaryhanahoe
http://www.rd-alliance.org
_____________________________________
Registration is now open for International Data Week (comprising SciDataCon and the 12th RDA Plenary Meeting ), 5-8 November 2018, Gaborone, Botswana: register here!
The information contained in this message and any attachments are intended solely for the attention
and use of the named addressee and may be confidential. If you are not the
intended recipient,
you are reminded that the information remains the property of the sender.
You must not use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this e-mail.
If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender immediately
and irrevocably delete or destroy this message and any copies.

Homepage

[Tomasz Miksa]

Dear all,
Based on the poll results, the next call will be: 18 October, Thursday,
9-10am Vienna local time
I am sorry if the time does not suit everyone. We can arrange direct calls
if necessary – just let me know.
I will send connection details prior to the call.
Best wishes
Tomasz
From: tmiksa=***@***.***-groups.org
[mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of tmiksa
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2018 4:36 PM
To: ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: [dmp-common] RDA DMP Common Standards WG – update and invitation to
a call
Dear group members!
I would like to share some updates with you on our activity and invite to
participate in a call in which we would like to sync with you on our
activities and plan next.
1. We will have a plenary meeting in Gaborone.
https://www.rd-alliance.org/wg-dmp-common-standards-rda-12th-plenary-mee…
2. We had a workshop at the TPDL conference in Porto. During the
workshop we asked participants to review some of the processes that we
defined that show how data management activities can be automated when our
model is in place. We also collected feedback for our second consultation in
which we asked for standards/models/dictionaries/ontologies/etc. that can be
relevant for our model.
a. Workshop website: http://rda-ws-tpdl2018.idsswh.sysresearch.org/#

b. Notes:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-q–q__l_xVJhftZcUtBNlaJrM_6V637sGEh…
J2M/edit?usp=sharing
c. BPMN processes:
http://rda-ws-tpdl2018.sysresearch.org/documents/2018-TPDL-Porto-Handout…
N.pdf
d. Slides:
http://rda-ws-tpdl2018.sysresearch.org/documents/2018-Porto-TPDL-Worksho…
ides.pptx
e. Tools: http://tool2.rda-ws-tpdl2018.sysresearch.org/
http://tool3.rda-ws-tpdl2018.sysresearch.org/
f. Consultation:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mMJqmvqEAkbEWbdV7rtFU9hiQMOuH0ESn4Up…
1Es/edit#heading=h.womufr1pvz1j
3. We also presented a paper at iPRES conference that described
results of our first consultation. The feedback was very positive and it
looks that we may have some pilot cases when the model is ready.
a. Paper: http://ifs.tuwien.ac.at/~miksa/papers/2018-iPres-maDMPs.pdf
b. Conference: https://ipres2018.org
Next steps:
. We have defined the landscape:
o Performed consultation to identify who and when needs what information.
o Developed prototype models, processes and tools that demonstrate what
machine-actionability means for DMPs and what the benefits can be.
. Now it is time to clean up the results of our consultations
o Develop guidelines
o Model examples
In the call I would like to update you on the recent developments (the list
above), get feedback and suggestions. I would also like to hear from you
whether you’re attending the plenary, if so maybe we can plan do some work
together.
Please indicate your availability by the end of this week:
https://doodle.com/poll/ue62cubwm3d3a4nn
Depending on votes we will organise 1 or 2 calls so that majority can
participate.
Best wishes,
Tomasz Miksa

[Tomasz Miksa]

Dear Joao,
“been there, done that” – I was considering that at some point, but we concluded that such an approach limits interoperability of the model. That’s one of the lessons learned in the past months, and that’s why we put some effort into developing use cases – to really narrow the scope of the model.
Machine-actionability means that using information stored in the model, external tools/services can take action in an automated way. These tools/services can be modelled using BPMN (or in any other way, or not modelled at all…). The maDMP just needs to provide inputs to these models. maDMPs should not prescribe how certain actions are performed.
Simplest example is information on costs. maDMP should contain a field informing on costs of data management. maDMP should not contain an algorithm (BPMN process) on how to calculate the costs of data management. Calculating the cost is the job of a service that provides this value.
For this reason in our slides and also in the ten principles for maDMPs we stress that 3 things are needed to put maDMPs in place:
– model to persist and exchange information
– infrastructure (services) that actually do something with the information from the maDMP
– processes that define how stakeholders interact with each other (using services and model) to achieve their objectives, e.g. researcher to deliver a DMP, funder to validate DMP, research support to provide cost estimation, etc.
In my opinion, we will be able to rip benefits from the model, only when we have the ecosystem of services that actually do something with the model. For this reason, I am really looking forward to our pilot projects – I am sure they will be very diverse, e.g. will come up with different ways of using/providing information from/to maDMPs.
For now, our discussion should focus on how to convert collected requirements into specific fields of the model – we will provide more details soon on how to contribute. Later we (or a different WG) can focus on how to do magic with this information.
Cheers
Tomasz
From: João Silva [mailto:***@***.***]
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2018 6:35 PM
To: tmiksa; paulwalk; DMP Common Standards WG; kashley
Cc: ***@***.***
Subject: Re: [dmp-common] Machine-actionable DMPs – a disengaging administrative burden?
Dear Paul, Kevin, Tomasz, and all others,
I see your point when you say that the WG should focus on the deployment of the maDMP overall model. Perhaps it should limit itself to laying the foundation for “plugging in” future BPMN workflows, maybe by including a few related Classes and Properties (in case this model is formalised as an ontology) to reference these models, but without actually embedding them in the model itself?
A future WG could then be created with the goal of creating some sort of “minimum viable product” for a maDMP-compliant repository or workflow software; afterwards, perhaps we can present a revised model with any lessons learned from the engineering side of things if need be.
Best,
João Rocha da Silva
Invited Assistant Professor — Dendro Lead Developer — Research Data Management
Faculty of Engineering of the University of Porto, Portugal
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9659-6256 GitHub: https://github.com/silvae86
On 4 Oct 2018, 12:39 +0100, kashley , wrote:
From a number of perspectives, I am in strong agreement with Paul that the
group’s scope should not try to take this task on. If this is a useful area to
explore, I would rather see a new working group take it on – I speak now as
co-chair of the overall interest group looking after the DMP working groups.
The Common Standards Group has an admirably narrow focus and task to complete
and I would want to see that achieved first before branching out. Lots else
depends on getting this standard agreed.
I’ll return to the original criticisms made by Phillip Conzett in a separate
reply as I think we’ve ended up with two quite distinct issues in this email thread.
On 04/10/18 11:12, tmiksa wrote:
Hi,
The idea to model processes using BPMN was to showcase how certain activities
that relate to information contained in DMPs can be automated. In other words,
it is a way to demonstrate machine-actionability of DMPs.
When our model is in place, then institutions rolling out maDMPs will have to
think about the process in which maDMPs are used – that’s also why we had the
first consultation to find out who use! s which information and when.
Depending on the research field and existing infrastructure and practices, the
processes will be implemented differently. However, very likely most of the
processes will be to some extenet similar, e.g. getting recommendation on
repositories, getting information on costs, etc. For this reason, a set of BPMNs
is just a useful set of ideas that enable us now to have a more focused
discussion on requirements for the model.
Yes, it is not the ambition of this working group to define processes – we do
the model.
Tomasz
*From:*paul=***@***.***-groups.org
[mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] *On Behalf Of *paulwalk
*Sent:* Thursday, September 27, 2018 9:00 AM
*To:* jrocha; DMP Common Standards WG
*Cc:* ***@***.***
*Subject:* Re: [dmp-common] Machine-actionable DMPs – a disengaging
administrative burden?
I’m not sure that i agree with expanding the scope of this activity to include
developing a standard for describing business processes relating to DMPs. We can
make a real difference if we focus on our mission to establish a standard data
interchange.
I think you are right to emphasise the importance of understanding the business
processes which will use mDMPs, but I think we should stop short of trying to
model these formally with something like BPMN. It is too soon to be able to
predict with any confidence precisely how mDMPs will be used and we should, in
my opinion, avoid over-engineering a solution at this stage. Rather, we should
be aiming for improving broad interoperability, and for maintaining flexibility
& future extensibility.
Cheers,
Paul
——————————————-
Paul Walk
http://www.paulwalk.net
Founder and Director, Antleaf Ltd
http://www.antleaf.com
Antleaf provides Management Services to DCMI
http://www.dublincore.org
——————————————-
On 27 Sep 2018, at 01:48, jrocha <***@***.***
> wrote:
Hi all,
I did not have the opportunity to attend the TPDL 2018 workshop, so at the
risk of being outdated, here are my two cents on this until we can meet in
Gaborone and discuss this in person.
*1. maDMPs need an ecosystem of “automatable” software (Rules 1 and 2 of the
*10 Simple Rules for maDMPs *)*
One important goal is to have the maDMP automate repetitive work, but people
should be able to keep their own repositories and other software platforms
in the maDMP workflow, or, at most, install an upgrade to these existing
solutions. However, automation across different systems requires
interoperability.
Thus, interoperability with existing data management tools is a must,
because a maDMP is basically worthless if no software knows how to execute
what it prescribes or enforces. An off-the-shelf workflow engine should be
able to fire off the proper events to the data management software, with the
necessary payload, which would itself comply with a set interoperability
standard (this is where we could come in, I think). In a sense, we could
work towards an API specification covering a core set of operations that
should be supported by any repository or data staging platform that wants to
be “maDMP Ready” in the RDA sense.
*2. maDMPs should be modular*
Every research project has its own way of handling data but! some needs are
common, as shown by the recent tools that aid in building a DMP. A very
strong interest of maDMPs thus lies in possible reuse either as a whole or
as building blocks. The maDMP should expose the subprocesses inside it in a
modular way, with certain elementary validation and processing workflows
being modeled and shareable using existing modeling languages, such as BPMN
, as
shown at the workshop. Other modeling languages could be used as long as
they have both a standard visual representation for being included in the
“printed” DMP, much like UML, and a machine-processable representation in
XML. Such maDMP “building blocks” so to say, could then be reused in a
project’s maDMP, and published in a maDMP “directory
” for others to access.
People interested in a maDMP for their project could then:
a) Download and reuse an existing maDMP for a project that they know went well
b) Reuse only the maDMP “building blocks” for metadata validation, dataset
availability, repository compliance, etc. (modeled using BPMN
)
c) Build their own from scratch and share it to this “directory” of maDMPs
for others to reuse
*3. The code that actually executes the actions in the maDMP’s processes
should travel wit! h them (Rules 6, 7, 9)*
*
*
If possible, the small pieces of code behind every step of the modeled
workflows should be open-source and retrievable as needed by the workflow
engine as it runs the BPMN processes. Like this, vendors could fork and
adjust them to the existing APIs of their repository software or other
software that the maDMP needs to “remote-control” to execute the automation
steps specified in the modeled process. This is somewhat similar to ETL
tools, but fetching platform-specific code as needed. A commercial example
of a graphical ETL tool is Pentaho Data Integration here
— by
the way, i am not affiliated with them, only used the tool myself.
Best,
*João Rocha da Silva *
Invited Assistant Professor — Dendro
Lead Developer — Research
Data Management
Faculty of Engineering of the University of Porto, Portugal
*ORCID*: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9659-6256 *GitHub*:
https://github.com/silvae86
No dia 26/09/2018, às 12:35, ***@***.***
escreveu:
Thanks, Rob and Tomasz, for valuable feedback!
I perfectly agree with the idea and rationale behind making DMPs machine
actionable. If this is implemented in a meaningful way, it surely will
reduce the administrative burden for researchers. As you say, Rob, this way
“a complicated question can be split up into more easily answered closed
questions that together provide the information after a proper consideration
of all the options and issues”. I had a look at the Questionnaire demo of
the Data Stewardship Wizard from ELIXIR. Here, researchers are guided
through the whole lifecycle of research data. But ! without such guidance
and sensible grouping of questions, filling in a DMP form may turn into a
disengaging and frustrating duty. If you read my feedback
on the easyDMP tool, you’ll
probably understand what I mean.
Best,
Philipp
—
Full post:
https://rd-alliance.org/group/dmp-common-standards-wg/post/machine-actio…
Manage my subscriptions: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/60738
—
Full post:
https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/dmp-common-standards-wg/post/machine-a…
Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post:
https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/60738
—
Full post:
https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/dmp-common-standards-wg/post/machine-a…
Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/60738
—
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
—
Full post:
https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/dmp-common-standards-wg/post/machine-a…
Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post:
https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/60738

[Author]

Replies