Final revisions to Implementation Guidelines prior to second review

07 Apr 2016

Hi all:
Attached are the Guidelines for discussion tomorrow. I have added the
comments from last week, including the references in the text; revised the
definitions section further, extensively revised and added references at
the end.
Later today I will send out the notes prepared by Gail and myself from the
breakout session we held at RDA P7, as well as a draft memo to the second
batch of reviewers. Simon will also send the instructions for the telcon
tomorrow.
We will discuss the final changes to the document and the second review
process, together with the identification of those reviewers.
Cheers,
Paul

  • Gail Clement's picture

    Author: Gail Clement

    Date: 07 Apr, 2016

    Thanks Paul!

    A question for our group: what preferences are there for sharing the final document for reviewers at the Force2016 conference next week?  My poster on teaching objectives based on this group’s work was accepted, and the conference is asking presenters to submit their contributions to an open access conference site via FigShare. The submission includes the group by formal name as a Contributor to the session. (This was based on a prior discussion on this list about a possible prez at Force2016)

    Any concerns if the final document that goes out to reviewers is included in the Force2016 conference site? It would be clearly labelled as the draft for review as of xx date.

    Thanks for considering!

    Gail

    Gail P. Clement  | Head of Research Services  | Caltech Library  | Mail Code 1-43  | Pasadena CA 91125-4300  | 626-395-1203  http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5494-4806 | library.caltech.edu

     

  • Gail Clement's picture

    Author: Gail Clement

    Date: 07 Apr, 2016

     

     

  • Gail Clement's picture

    Author: Gail Clement

    Date: 07 Apr, 2016

    Thanks Paul!

    A question for our group: what preferences are there for sharing the final document for reviewers at the Force2016 conference next week?  My poster on teaching objectives based on this group’s work was accepted, and the conference is asking presenters to submit their contributions to an open access conference site via FigShare. The submission includes the group by formal name as a Contributor to the session. (This was based on a prior discussion on this list about a possible prez at Force2016)

    Any concerns if the final document that goes out to reviewers is included in the Force2016 conference site? It would be clearly labelled as the draft for review as of xx date.

    Thanks for considering!

    Gail

    Gail P. Clement  | Head of Research Services  | Caltech Library  | Mail Code 1-43  | Pasadena CA 91125-4300  | 626-395-1203  http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5494-4806 | library.caltech.edu

     

  • Gail Clement's picture

    Author: Gail Clement

    Date: 07 Apr, 2016

    Thanks Paul!

    A question for our group: what preferences are there for sharing the final document for reviewers at the Force2016 conference next week?  My poster on teaching objectives based on this group’s work was accepted, and the conference is asking presenters to submit their contributions to an open access conference site via FigShare. The submission includes the group by formal name as a Contributor to the session. (This was based on a prior discussion on this list about a possible prez at Force2016)

    Any concerns if the final document that goes out to reviewers is included in the Force2016 conference site? It would be clearly labelled as the draft for review as of xx date.

    Thanks for considering!

    Gail

    Gail P. Clement  | Head of Research Services  | Caltech Library  | Mail Code 1-43  | Pasadena CA 91125-4300  | 626-395-1203  http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5494-4806 | library.caltech.edu

     

  • Gail Clement's picture

    Author: Gail Clement

    Date: 07 Apr, 2016

    Thanks Paul!

    A question for our group: what preferences are there for sharing the final document for reviewers at the Force2016 conference next week?  My poster on teaching objectives based on this group’s work was accepted, and the conference is asking presenters to submit their contributions to an open access conference site via FigShare. The submission includes the group by formal name as a Contributor to the session. (This was based on a prior discussion on this list about a possible prez at Force2016)

    Any concerns if the final document that goes out to reviewers is included in the Force2016 conference site? It would be clearly labelled as the draft for review as of xx date.

    Thanks for considering!

    Gail

    Gail P. Clement  | Head of Research Services  | Caltech Library  | Mail Code 1-43  | Pasadena CA 91125-4300  | 626-395-1203  http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5494-4806 | library.caltech.edu

     

  • Gail Clement's picture

    Author: Gail Clement

    Date: 07 Apr, 2016

    Colleagues,
    Please forgive the unintended spamming- I am very sorry! The RDA website stalled out during my posting so I apparently hit the save button a few too many times.
    Drinks on me in Denver, ok?
    ;-) Gail
    - Show quoted text -From: gperetsm=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of Repositorian
    Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 7:36 AM
    To: RDA/CODATA Legal Interoperability IG <***@***.***-groups.org>
    Subject: Re: [rda-legalinterop-ig] Final revisions to Implementation Guidelines prior to second review
    Thanks Paul!
    A question for our group: what preferences are there for sharing the final document for reviewers at the Force2016 conference next week? My poster on teaching objectives based on this group’s work was accepted, and the conference is asking presenters to submit their contributions to an open access conference site via FigShare. The submission includes the group by formal name as a Contributor to the session. (This was based on a prior discussion on this list about a possible prez at Force2016)
    Any concerns if the final document that goes out to reviewers is included in the Force2016 conference site? It would be clearly labelled as the draft for review as of xx date.
    Thanks for considering!
    Gail
    Gail P. Clement | Head of Research Services | Caltech Library | Mail Code 1-43 | Pasadena CA 91125-4300 | 626-395-1203 http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5494-4806 | library.caltech.edu
    --
    Full post: https://rd-alliance.org/group/rdacodata-legal-interoperability-ig/post/f...
    Manage my subscriptions: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/51905

  • Paul Uhlir's picture

    Author: Paul Uhlir

    Date: 07 Apr, 2016

    Thanks, Gail. While I have no objection, in principle, I think we should
    wait until after the group's telcon tomorrow and the preparation of a clean
    copy with appropriate disclaimers/instructions.
    Cheers,
    Paul.

  • Donat Agosti's picture

    Author: Donat Agosti

    Date: 08 Apr, 2016

    Paul
    Here is another global declaration to add to the introduction
    The Hague Declaration (2015)
    http://thehaguedeclaration.com/the-hague-declaration-on-knowledge-discov...
    THE HAGUE DECLARATION ON KNOWLEDGE DISCOVERY IN THE DIGITAL AGE
    Cheers
    d
    - Show quoted text -From: pfuhlir=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of puhlir
    Sent: Thursday, April 7, 2016 3:44 PM
    To: RDA/CODATA Legal Interoperability IG <***@***.***-groups.org>
    Subject: [rda-legalinterop-ig] Final revisions to Implementation Guidelines prior to second review
    Hi all:
    Attached are the Guidelines for discussion tomorrow. I have added the comments from last week, including the references in the text; revised the definitions section further, extensively revised and added references at the end.
    Later today I will send out the notes prepared by Gail and myself from the breakout session we held at RDA P7, as well as a draft memo to the second batch of reviewers. Simon will also send the instructions for the telcon tomorrow.
    We will discuss the final changes to the document and the second review process, together with the identification of those reviewers.
    Cheers,
    Paul

submit a comment