Building the social and technical bridges to enable open sharing and re-use of data
RDA EURDA USCONTACT US LOGINREGISTRATION

Sensitive Data IG TAB Review

Interest Group Title: Sensitive Data IG

Group Page: https://www.rd-alliance.org/groups/sensitive-data-interest-group

Charter: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/sensitive-data-interest-group/case-sta... (includes both revised and original Charters)

Proposers:  Kristal Spreadborough, Priyanka Pillai, Aleksandra Michalewicz, Nichola Burton, Steven McEachern, Romain DAVID, Dharma Akmon, Kristan Kang, Sarah Davidson, Frankie Stevens

Date Original Charter Received by TAB: 23 February 2021

Date Revised Charter Received by TAB: 26 October 2021

 

TAB Review of Revised Charter:

Summary:  

The revised charter addresses comments from TAB and the community really well, expanding the user scenarios and outcomes significantly and suggesting ways to broaden participation geographically.

Annotating the changes was also incredibly helpful for re-review - thanks!

I spotted one typo in the new text under section 7 (timeline) 2a) "different disciplines and regions"

 

Focus and Fit:  

(Are the Interest Group objectives aligned with the RDA mission ?  Is the scope too large for effective progress, too small for an RDA effort, or not appropriate for the RDA?  Overall, is this a worthwhile effort for the RDA to take on?  Is this an effort that adds value over and above what is currently being done within the community?)

 

 

Capacity:

(Does the initial membership list include sufficient expertise, and disciplinary and international representation?  Are the people involved in the Interest Group sufficient to make tangible progress?  What individuals or organizations are missing?) 

 

Impact and Engagement:

(Is it likely that the Interest Group will engage the intended community?  Is there evidence that the research community wants this?  Will the outcome(s) of the Interest Group foster data sharing and/or exchange?)

 

 

Recommendation:  

Charter is Sufficient __; Charter Requires Revision __; Charter is Rejected __

Charter is sufficient

 

Comments:

 

 

 

TAB Review of Original Charter:

Summary:  

This is a very pertinent topic, not least since increasing access and reuse of sensitive data is fundamental to addressing many societal challenges. The interdisciplinary nature of the group is also laudable and should produce outputs that can adopted by many communities / sectors, promoting a common language and approach to addressing sensitive data challenges. The remit of the group however is understandably very broad, especially as the topic is being addressed from domain perspectives (e.g. sensitive data in health) as well as generic terms (e.g. systems for sharing sensitive data). The charter would benefit from a clearer articulation of a few core activities to ensure the expected outcomes are achieved. A more focused timeline for the initial 12 months is also recommended to ensure the group goes beyond setup and communicating with members. 

A clearer engagement plan of missing expertise is needed and should be addressed as a priority in the first steps of the group. The authors are invited to consider the comments regarding the clarity of activities for Year 1 and the lack of engagement of disciplinary experts in the group, in a revision of their charter. 

Focus and Fit:  

 (Are the Interest Group objectives aligned with the RDA mission?  Is the scope too large for effective progress, too small for an RDA effort, or not appropriate for the RDA?  Overall, is this a worthwhile effort for the RDA to take on?  Is this an effort that adds value over and above what is currently being done within the community?)

The Interest Group objectives are in line with the RDA mission and worthwhile to pursue. The awareness of other relevant IG/WGs and plans to engage and align with them are also positive. I recommend a clearer definition of activities and workplan to focus activities and ensure objectives are met. For example:

  1. Define / characterize the sensitive data space by developing some form of matrix / typology that compares the types of sensitive data coming from different sectors and disciplines and the relative levels / scales of sensitivity to allow comparison. Ideally this would happen in the first 6-12 months and could be used to help guide other outputs and guidelines
  2. Develop a framework that brings together ethical/cultural aspects with the technical concerns, ensuring that both dimensions of sensitivity are addressed.
  3. Develop best practice guidelines on handling sensitive data to enable wider sharing and reduce risk of re-identification
  4. Examine and recommend technical solutions for sharing certain types of sensitive data
  5. Catalogue / collect best practice examples of consent models
  6. Provide guidance on decoupling sensitive data from its metadata (e.g. existence of records) that could potentially be more openly shared. 

 

Capacity:

(Does the initial membership list include sufficient expertise, and disciplinary and international representation?  Are the people involved in the Interest Group sufficient to make tangible progress?  What individuals or organizations are missing?)

The interest and initial membership of the group is sufficient. As noted, many members and proposed chairs come from Australia. Work has already been undertaken to broaden this out and plans to engage related IG/WG should consolidate that. More engagement of members from government authorities to bring in examples of political, diplomatic or military data would be worthwhile. 

The initial membership of the group could be heavily improved, and be broadened from both a geographic and expertise point of view. The authors recognise the issue at the leadership level, however, more efforts are needed to include experts at least from the disciplines mentioned in the charter. 

 

Impact and Engagement:

(Is it likely that the Interest Group will engage the intended community?  Is there evidence that the research community wants this?  Will the outcome(s) of the Interest Group foster data sharing and/or exchange?)

The plans for engaging relevant communities are strong and the stakeholders involved are known for collaboration so there are no concerns on that front. If successful, the group outputs will definitely foster increased data sharing for an important category of data.

 

 

 

 

Recommendation:  

Charter is Sufficient __; Charter Requires Revision _X_; Charter is Rejected __

Charter Requires Revision

 

 

Additional Comments:

Overall this is a worthwhile topic and strong charter. It covers many angles though so being more precise on initial focus and activities will help tighten up and plan work effectively.

 

 



  • 366 reads