Thanks Jamie.
Absolutely d’accord with what you state: we need to get things into production and it is great that you in particular are very successful.
As indicated DFIG would be happy to include your points into its discussions.
best
Peter
Von: Jamie.Shiers=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] Im Auftrag von Jamie Shiers
Gesendet: Freitag, 24. Februar 2017 08:05
An: Wittenburg, Peter ; RDA Organisational Assembly ; Data Fabric IG
Betreff: [rda-oab][rda-datafabric-ig] Re: [rda-oab][rda-datafabric-ig] [rda-oab][rda-datafabric-ig] [rda-datafabric-ig] 3 DFIG items and one action
Dear Peter,
Thanks for these clarifications.
From the HEP side I would like to point out:
– In 2013 I presented a 2020 vision for long-term data preservation in HEP to the International Committee for Future Accelerators (ICFA)
– In 2016, we presented a paper at iPRES on the PRODUCTION services that CERN offers for the above
– In 2017, our DG spoke about the important of Open Data and Open Science at Davos; Data Preservation for HEP is also a Science Demonstrator in the European Open Science Cloud pilot (based on fully generic services equivalent to those offered at CERN.
My point is this: if, at the end of the day, the RDA recommendations and other outputs are not realised in production, sustainable (and used) services then they will be lost – like “tears in the rain”.
Anyone interested in the above can follow our upcoming workshop, either remotely or via the video recording that we will hopefully make: https://indico.cern.ch/event/588219/overview
I would call this being “fully engaged” (or reaping the benefits, harvesting the fruit, delivering the goods etc etc)
Onwards, now, to the next generation of challenges, such as HL-LHC, SKA etc.
Bonne journée, Jamie
On 22 Feb 2017, at 17:37, Peter Wittenburg wrote:
Hallo Jamie, all,
indeed we will continue our interactions in the DFIG realm about guidelines/ recommendations and as indicated there is probably much more around that could be put on paper. I also hope that the “charrettes” (focus area groups) we agreed upon last time will result in first agreed statements – at least in the cross-disciplinary GEDE group there was much consensus on a number of issues. Of course, the content which a group of people formulated can be debated. So come to the session.
There is a longer story behind this recommendation/guidelines section which I will not start to explain here, but it is obvious that different people have different expectations with respect to RDA, but at least in DFIG we agreed that RDA needs to “deliver” – therefore all these debates about tests, testbeds and gaps which you do not seem to be aware of. For some funders this for example means that after 4 years of work in RDA they want to know what comes next beyond the excellent results the RDA Groups delivered. When I was asked whether “we” (whoever that is in RDA) could have a paper within a month I said “yes” mentioning clearly that this can only be statements from a bunch of people. That was all clear to the people who asked for the paper, since finally they will get many recommendations from different sides and before they will come to conclusions funders will also read papers from various other people/initiatives.
As said: we will continue this discussion with the agreed scope limitations in DFIG and the next spot is P9 in Barcelona – hope to see you there and to contribute.
best
peter
—
Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/rda-organisational-assembly-data-fabri…
Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/55371