Recent Activity: Research Data Collections WG

26 Apr 2016

Re: [rda-collection-wg] Reminder: Web Conference Today - minutes

Hi,
next meeting: May 10, 09:00 EDT/15:00 CEST.
My notes (not too much...):
* 3 subtasks: definitions, models, API
* Definitions discussion - updates are already in the definitions tool
* Need to have a better structure around our discussions so others can
follow - wiki, github - too many places to look at
o Before P8: Put all work of subtasks into RDA wiki (as a current
state of the art version, also suitable for newcomers)
o Until then, different tools can be used, e.g. gitHub or Google

19 Apr 2016

Some thoughts on "Data Aggregations" terminology & concepts

There may be useful analogy to a physical sample that is collected.
You have that object at birth with an id, but over time you can add to this
and take away from it. The original ID serves a purpose but you may need
an ID for the current state
of the object at any time there has been change.
Gary Berg-Cross, Ph.D.
***@***.***
​​

*http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?GaryBergCross
*

19 Apr 2016

Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-collection-wg] Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-dft][rda-collection-wg] Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-collection-wg] Some thoughts on "Data Aggregations" terminology & concepts

I realize I am not addressing all of the concerns that have been raised,
but I wonder if a way to move forward would be something like the
definition below:
A collection is a digital object which is identified by a PID and consists
of a set of digital objects with explicitly defined relationships that are
identified in explicitly defined ways.
It seems that for the machine actionability in particular, an explicit way
of identifying objects and understanding the relationship between them may

19 Apr 2016

Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-collection-wg] Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-collection-wg] Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-dft][rda-collection-wg] Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-collection-wg] Some thoughts on "Data Aggregations" terminology & concepts

Ulrich,
U>My favorite definition for collection would actually be: A collection is
a digital object which is identified by a PID and consists of a set of
PIDs/Ids - full stop
​Simple is good but this may miss an important point which is that a
Collection has composition and a statement that it has parts (which your
have IDs for) is as important, it seems to me, to state as the IDs
themselves.
Gary Berg-Cross, Ph.D.
***@***.***
​​

19 Apr 2016

Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-collection-wg] Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-dft][rda-collection-wg] Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-collection-wg] Some thoughts on "Data Aggregations" terminology & concepts

Dear Jeremy, Jeff, Gary,
You are right, that the purpose of the collection definition of the
collection WG is to set a minimum bar to get as much specificity as
necessary in order to outline an API at the end, that is able to handle
specific queries on collections.
The question whether DOs might be identified by a formal ID, or by a
query, or by some other method, is currently not really solved in this
context, and the idea to construct a collection by some function is
rather new in the collection WG.

19 Apr 2016

Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-collection-wg] Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-dft][rda-collection-wg] Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-collection-wg] Some thoughts on "Data Aggregations" terminology & concepts

Dear Jeremy, Jeff, Gary,
You are right, that the purpose of the collection definition of the
collection WG is to set a minimum bar to get as much specificity as
necessary in order to outline an API at the end, that is able to handle
specific queries on collections.
The question whether DOs might be identified by a formal ID, or by a
query, or by some other method, is currently not really solved in this
context, and the idea to construct a collection by some function is
rather new in the collection WG.

18 Apr 2016

Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-dft][rda-collection-wg] Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-collection-wg] Some thoughts on "Data Aggregations" terminology & concepts

If I am following correctly (and please disregard if not) a key question to
formulating the definition is how digital objects are identified (and
whether they have to be). That is, they might be identified by a formal ID,
or by a query, or by some other method (including that someone might say a
collection of bits--which themselves might have no identifying features,
though they could collectively be described--make up the collection or
entity they are interested in understanding as a collected whole).

18 Apr 2016

Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-collection-wg] Some thoughts on "Data Aggregations" terminology & concepts

Keith,
In short I think the answer is yes, that collections such as generated by
queries can be parts of DO collections.
I would go back to Reagan Moore's early observation (to effect if I
understand right) that " "Digital collections implement arrangement by a
community for organizing their digital entities.."
They are then aggregations of interest defined by communities.
Now this ultra flexibility may, I have a sense of worry without having
figured this out, overload the role of digital object since it seems to

18 Apr 2016

Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-collection-wg] Some thoughts on "Data Aggregations" terminology & concepts

I was also thinking along the lines of Jacob's suggestions, but hadn't
gotten as far.
>Rather than define the collection as multiple sets (one of identifiers,
one of links, and one of metadata), why not just define it as a set of
digital objects (each of which has an identifier, some link pointing to it,
I was also thinking along the lines of Jacob's suggestions, but hadn't
gotten as far.
>Rather than define the collection as multiple sets (one of identifiers,
one of links, and one of metadata), why not just define it as a set of

18 Apr 2016

Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-collection-wg] Some thoughts on "Data Aggregations" terminology & concepts

Dear all,
since this discussion gets a bit less agile in the last days, it is
perhaps a good point in time to reflect the outcome of this discussion
in the definition I proposed.
I think we identified the mayor problems in this preliminary definition.
The suggestion I give to avoids these problems essentially goes along
the lines, Jakob made some Emails earlier (12.4.):
"... A better definition might be: A collection is a digital object
which consists of a set or a list and is named by a PID (which when

12 Apr 2016

Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-dft] Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-dft][rda-collection-wg] Re: [rda...

Reagan
Thanks again. Some of these points are pithy enough to place is some
explanations of the definitions such as PID resolution.
It will be interesting to see if you and Jacob, for example, can converge
on wording for this operational view of label/identifier actions.
Gary Berg-Cross, Ph.D.
***@***.***
​​

*http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?GaryBergCross
*
Member, Ontolog Board of Trustees

12 Apr 2016

Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-dft][rda-collection-wg] Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-collection-wg] Re: [rda-datafabri...

Hi,
it’s great to see so much activity and I’ve tried to follow all the arguments going on here. I will base my responses on a list of points I have extracted from the discussion so far (https://rd-alliance.org/group/research-data-collections-wg/wiki/mailing-... ). I hope I got everything somewhat right and complete, apologies if I missed or misstated anyone's opinion - and feel free to correct me where I'm wrong.

Pages