Group Mailing list Archive

14 Mar 2015

DFIG at San Diego Plenary

Dear DFIG colleagues,
Here at the San Diego Plenary we had 3 sessions that were related with the Data Fabric IG.
- In the first plenary session we tried to inform people about DFIG goals and directions. For what we heard that session was very well perceived and people seem to understand the intentions and also the possible integrative power of DFIG.

12 Mar 2015

Re: [rda-wg-ig-chairs] Re: [rda-wg-ig-chairs][rda-datafabric-ig] DFIG: White Paper...

Thanks for the link to FAIRport, I wasn't aware of that at all. I do
notice Peter Wittenburg is named (along with a few others) on their home
page :)
From the FAIR data principles I see the "(meta) Data" statements as
somewhat along the lines of my suggestion, but both are probably vague
enough that it's hard to tell if they're talking about the same thing or
not. I did find Mark's presentation here:

13 Feb 2015

RDA area clustering : TAB seeks feedback over next 2 weeks

Dear DFT and DF colleagues,
We just received this proposal for WG/IG clustering from the Secretariat. It has been worked out by TAB and should now be discussed within the WG/IGs.
Take care: this clustering is not meant to force WGs/IGs to work together etc.
Please read and give comments within the next 2 weeks via the online wiki.
Best
Peter
From: herman.stehouwer=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of HermanStehouwer

20 Jan 2015

AW: [rda-datafabric-ig] DFIG Update

Hi Peter,
thank you very much for the update and the additional information. I've added the Use Case "Open Reference Data Repository for Nanoscopy" to the Wiki some weeks ago. My question is, should I adapt this UC to the new
template too, or is the current version in the Wiki fine for you?
Best regards,
Thomas.
Von: peter.wittenburg=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] Im Auftrag von Peter Wittenburg
Gesendet: Dienstag, 20. Januar 2015 09:10

20 Jan 2015

DFIG Update

Dear all,
After having had our first chairs meeting in the New Year we would like to update you all on a couple of issues.
1. We created a document answering on all the interactions via the forum and summarizing how we believe we should change the White Paper towards a new version. We will also set this document on the wiki. Please have a look, we will adapt the White Paper accordingly during the coming 2 weeks.

07 Jan 2015

Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] DF-whitepaper-v0-5.docx

Just one small point on this idea of addressing real/operational issues.
Use cases may start there but as an IG the way to move from discussion at
the conceptual level is to have the DF IG spawn a WG on some specific goal
which might be a specification that adopters may work with.
As also noted the various early RDA WGs have some adoption and take up and
that experience may provide some opportunities.
Gary Berg-Cross, Ph.D.
***@***.***

05 Jan 2015

Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] draft version white paper form DFIG

Thomas,
>I'm a fan of storing the MD directly with the object data. That makes the
handling of the whole thing much easier and all the common repositories
Thomas,
>I'm a fan of storing the MD directly with the object data. That makes the
handling of the whole thing much easier and all the common repositories
today are also working in this way: the MD is strored together with the
object data in a thing called "Digital Object" (having Fedora, DSpace in
mind).

05 Jan 2015

Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] draft version white paper form DFIG

Here are some more thoughts along the line of questions raised by Keith.
>the problem comes in dfining PID(s) for the DO and this depends on the DO
structure.
Here are some more thoughts along the line of questions raised by Keith.
>the problem comes in dfining PID(s) for the DO and this depends on the DO
structure.
DO structure, it seems to me, would be part of what metadata describes in
some useful way. Or another way of saying it is that one might try to

02 Jan 2015

Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] draft version white paper form DFIG

Ulrich.
This implied bi-directionality is a good catch.
I think that was intended, based on past work (in part by Yin Chin) and
analysis of the DFT WG was one of your proposed solutions:
>The other solution would be to use the PID record, that points to the
digital object, also as reference to the metadata object. Several PID
systems are able to setup such an additional reference. In this case the
whole triple can be referred to by this PID record very efficiently. The

18 Dec 2014

Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] draft version white paper form DFIG

On 12/18/14 9:12 AM, Peter Wittenburg wrote:
> Agree Larry.
> But as indicated DFIG should stick to the analysis and specification level.
> PS: This is a general point which is relevant for all RDA activities.
>
> We had the discussion with iRODs and also DTR. PP group is about policies in general independent of the software being used to implement them. etc.
Maybe slightly off-topic but seeing posts like

Pages