Organisational Assembly - Tokyo (Open meeting)

RDA Organisational Assembly - Open Meeting

Draft minutes

Plenary 7, Tokyo

Tuesday 1 March 2016, 14:30-16:00

 

Open meeting (14:30-16:00) - Room 201 & 202

Present: Walter Stewart, Juan Bicarregui (co-chairs), Yasushi Ogasaka (JST), Malcolm Wolski, Aaron Addison, Michael Witt, Doris Wedlich, John Wood, Carthage Smith (OECD), Tao Matsibau (OECD), Fran Berman, Yolanda Meleco, Ross Wilkinson, Mark Parsons, Kostas Repanas (A-STAR), Kay Raseroka, Kevin Ashley, Ari Asimi (Univ. Helsinki), Worfram Horstmann, Fabrizio Gagliardi, Timea Biro, Sandra Collins, Natalia Harrower, Hilary Hanahoe, Sergi Girona, Raphael Ritz, Rob Quick, Stephen Wolff.

Chair: Walter Stewart

  1. Introduction of Organisational Assembly (OA), - SLIDES Juan Bicarregui, STFC, UK and Walter Stewart, Research Data Canada, RDA OA Co-chairs, 5’
    1. OA and Organisational Advisory Board (OAB) purpose, Juan
      • Juan presented the purpose of OA and OAB. One point that came out is that the OAB members can assist with the plenaries programme via the corresponding Programme Committies. This can also be included in the Value & Engagement document. Action.
  2. The Value and Engagement of RDA OA, Amy Nurnberger (Columbia University Libraries) and Stephen Wolff (Internet2). SLIDES prepared jointly with Jamie Shiers (CERN/EIROForum IT Working Group) as the OA subgroup leader on "Value and Engagement of RDA OA", 15'
    • Amy Nurnberger presented the Value and Engagement document (see slides above). The document was lead by Jamie Shiers and then reviewed by Amy Nurnberger. The main objective of the document is to investigate how does OAB contribute to RDA and how do organisations receive benefits being members. Value for Org. members can be:
      • Act as early adopters of RDA outputs
      • Influence their organisations' work on data sharing and interoperability
      • Having a voice inside RDA and providing advice to RDA council
      • Being recognised in the RDA website
      • Be part of the Organisational Assembly
  3. Panel: Strategies for maximisng the value and return on investment in OA engagemnet? Amy Nurnberger (Columbia University Libraries) and Stephen Wolff (Internet2), 20'
    • Discussion - Where does your organisationan find value and who is engaging?
      • Michael WItt: WUSTL strategic plan: building libraries of the future. RDA aligned with our purpose. Natural output to engage with RDA. Good networking with other libriaries. RDA international. Good advice. Venue for new ideas, services and for demonstrating international impact!  Question: Can you measure the impact. Is it benefitting in terms of money, other? Michael: More to do your work better. More the social dimension. Also knowledge around Data Management plans
      • Kevin: No need to justify because someone else had done that already to get approval to participate. Difficult to quantify.
      • Stephen: Memberhip in RDA and OA: two way: influence the work in RDA but also benefit from RDA, esp. in adoption (as early adopter)
      • Malcolm: On the question "who is engaging from your organisation" there is a gap. No real idea who from a big organisation is engaging. Although I pass info around, still difficult. Hilary: There is the RDA members page in the home page with organisation and country. Malcolm: It is more important to know which WG/IGs they follow.
      • Ross: Value measured in reputation. Million or Billion question.
  4. RDA Outputs adoption stories, Aaron Adison (Washington University in St. Louis Libraries) and Kevin Ashley (UK Digital Curation Centre) - SLIDES 20'
    • Adoption stories:
      • Aaron. Received early adopter grant, US. It was presented at P5 in San Diego. Grant focused: Data Foundation and Terminology (DFT) WG for atmospheric data. The project but not the purpose. The main question was whether it would be possible to get something off the shelf from RDA and implement it in our organisation. As we were not involved at all in DFT. Report what worked and what not. Focused on atmospheric data: Data feed aggregates sent to a lot of organizations. Also from Human Machine Interface (HMI). What is the value? Not only networking, but also concrete and quantifiable. Two different metrics: Everywhere and nowhere, but also more efficiency in data sharing across the institution. The grant was given in January and final report in October in the same year. So it happened quite fast. Value back to RDA: report on usability. WG had moved so we had to find how to fit in this cycle. Also adopted our model to work and fit the requirements. Usability testing proved that our HMI was useful. Did not have time to do machine testing. My call to everyone being in the OA: You have to be commenting on the WG and other outputs. So it is important to get the comments to see if they are usable.
      • Kevin: Two way adoption is key. UK DCC: Main job is not to do research; but about research; help other people conduct research. A bit before RDA started UK DCC was working on a disciplinary metadata standards directory. First RDA meeting it was proposed to create such a directory, which we were doing! But nobody knew about it. Also it would have been difficult to sustain it on our own. And also a lot more ideas to improve it. Significantly improved. Machine-actionable interfaces that can interact automatically with other services. E.g. with DMPonline: plans to fit with funders and the questions asked. What are the standards that you will be using and interacting with others. Bringing RDA outputs into researchers workflows. I.e. link directly one field from the directory with the other field of the DMP. Not fully automated.
      • Questions/discussion:
        • Doris: Very provocative: What would one pay for it? If an option to sell it? Value in terms of dollars…
          • Aaron: Hard to place dollar value on it. Not practilcal to bring the talent in one area. Feel the same about RDA outputs: Goal never to centralize, but to bring them to domains. Much more difficult to quantify. Comes down to what is the cost of not sharing it. Nobody knows about this cost. We spent X number of dollars, very different examples.
          • Kevin: Value: Understanding very well the cost of producing a first draft. We don’t have an understanding of the PMs spent in a WG. But we have a good idea about the value. And it is a value that we cannot afford on our own. And we saved a lot of effort. Argue on methodology. 
          • Walter: Data sharing. Opportunity lost. Very hard to quantify opportunity lost. Not in a way to save or make money, but more.
          • Kevin: Enable people to produce something better that your own.
          • Aaron: What is the cost of doing a bad job? (from Ross).
          • Fran: One way is to monetize the value, medium to long term: Open Source direction? Longevity that we may see?
          • Walter: Have to note it because we are working on this already. TAB-OAB working on this .
  5. Coordination across RDA regions, Ross Wilkinson (Australia), Hilary Hanahoe (Europe) - SLIDES, Yasushi Ogasaka (Japan), Fran Berman (USA) - SLIDES 20’
    • Ross, Australia: Reflections on regional RDA: First of all there is an annual contribution in cash (to RDA SG). Contribution of effort to Secretariat, TAB and Council. Also contributions to WGs: ANDS leading DDRI WG. Crucial for us to interoperate around the globe. Serious in doing this. People in Australia working in lots of WGs. We don’t have RDA Australia. Funded only through ANDS. Talking with New Zealand. Australasian region considered. Australia is investing a lot in Research Data. So we have to be on track, not do stupid things. If you work at the international level, there is also an impact nationaly. International demonstration of value. RDA speaks with ANDS being a credible organisation. Next: 2% rule: 2% activity in Research. 98% in rest of the world. Large effort in building relationships to do research, which is international. The 2% buys us some of the 98%. Final: Live in a community with friends.
    • Hilary, Europe (see also slides): European structure is different from AU. Funded by European Commission. RDA Europe 3 project (RDA Europe 2 project to finish at the end of the month). RDA 3 will run until Feb 2017. 6 Million Euros. European plug in. Engagement with stakeholders at different levels. Align the EU activities with the Future Directions: Collaboration projects/Adoption Cases. Atlas of Knowledge (Knowledge Base). Training and webinars. Engagement through events. Re: Call for Collaboration with emphasis on the adoption of RDA outputs: First trial. Opened the call end of 2015. 25 proposals received: 7 selected. Next call: April 2016- EU only. Re. the Atlas of Knowledge: Group of experts create an Atlas. Link live. Contribute or learn. Re. Training & Webinars: Different types. And also diff topics. Tell us if you want something specific! Or contribute! Other: Engagement: Policy engagement, Industry engagement, Research/Science, National, RDA Global. Sync and Support programmes: Early Career programme, Supporting RDA European members in Japan (first trial). Synchronisation Assembly: A forum to sync among all European RDA participants in WG/IG chairs, TAB, OAB, Council, Other orgs. Also RDA EU website. For more specific EU events and news. EU also manages the global website. Preview of the new website to appear soon. Next plenary that will be  in Europe is Barcelona.
    • Yasushi, Japan: No RDA japan or RDA Asia. Low activity in Japan. What is happening in Japan: more at individual level. Heard this morning. JST, NII, etc. Other activities on data sharing and DMPs. WDS/CODATA: local meeting in Japan. SPARC Japan from NII to promote Open Access in Japan. Libaries, academic bodies. Also working on Research Data. JST: Pilot project to let the scientists in Japan register their data with DOIs. Hosting the RDA plenary: stimulate discussions in Japan. March 17 follow-up meeting in Japan by national library. And also a meeting in May to continue the discussions in Japan. Considering RDA Japan (or Asia). And if we do, how to make it sustainable. Keep thinking about this. Talk with scientists. Create and use data. Low involvement.
    • Fran, USA (see also slides). First of all, great idea to hear what’s happening in other regions. Happy to share what’s happening in US, but happier to hear from other regions. RDA US: 1200+ members. Build RDA community and levelarge RDA momentum to advance the US data community: push-pull cycle.  Top 10: California, Washington DC (not a state …), New York, Maryland, Virginia, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Texas. Community profile (see slides). Heart of activities in US: Pull-push dynamics. Adoption amplification: 14 and could fund only 4 proposals. P2, P5, P8 in the US. RDA leadership (incl. WG/IG chairs) meets one per year. Sustainability: US organization? Lightweight or Heavyweight? What is the right construct? Next plenary: Denver. Whole week of co-located events. Exciting.
  6. AoB 10’
    • Walter: End of open meeting! Having been around from the beginning of RDA, it is really a community that began to develop.
    • Kudos to Walter (last meeting)!

RDA Organisational Assembly - Open Meeting

Original agenda

Plenary 7, Tokyo

Tuesday 1 March 2016, 14:30-16:00

 

Open meeting (14:30-16:00) - Room 201 & 202

Objectives of the Open Part of the meeting:

The Organisational Assembly (OA) is the main body through which organisations can influence the work of RDA.  The OA is composed of representatives of all RDA Member Organisations.  Organisational membership gives organisations a chance to introduce real problems in data interoperability and to call for those issues to be addressed.  OA membership gives organisations a chance for early access to RDA outcomes and a pre-publication opportunity to review outcomes and provide feedback on their utility.  The OA is in the process of electing from its number a 12-member Organisational Advisory Board which meets on a regular basis between plenaries to ensure that the organisational voice is a constant in the governance of the RDA.  The open session of the Organisational Assembly at each plenary is open to representatives of any organisation interested in RDA to explore organisational membership and to gain a sense of the important work accomplished by the OA.  Please join us to learn how your organisation can make a difference and can receive real value through associations with RDA. In this meeting major emphasis will be given in the value of OA for its members and present the outcome of the OA sub-group on "Value and Engagement" followed by a panel on strategies for maximisng the value and Return on Investment in OA engagemnet. Other topics include RDA outputs adoption stories and on coordination among the different geographical regions, also areas where OA/OAB is expected to play an important role.

 

Chair: Walter Stewart

  1. Introduction of Organisational Assembly (OA), - SLIDES Juan Bicarregui, STFC, UK and Walter Stewart, Research Data Canada, RDA OA Co-chairs, 5’
    1. OA and Organisational Advisory Board (OAB) purpose, Juan
  2. The Value and Engagement of RDA OA, Amy Nurnberger (Columbia University Libraries) and Stephen Wolff (Internet2). SLIDES prepared jointly with Jamie Shiers (CERN/EIROForum IT Working Group) as the OA subgroup leader on "Value and Engagement of RDA OA", 15'
  3. Panel: Strategies for maximisng the value and return on investment in OA engagemnet? Amy Nurnberger (Columbia University Libraries) and Stephen Wolff (Internet2), 20'
  4. RDA Outputs adoption stories, Aaron Adison (Washington University in St. Louis Libraries) and Kevin Ashley (UK Digital Curation Centre) - SLIDES 20'
  5. Coordination across RDA regions, Ross Wilkinson (Australia), Hilary Hanahoe (Europe) - SLIDES, Yasushi Ogasaka (Japan), Fran Berman (USA) 20’
  6. AoB 10’