Data Fabric IG : TAB review Final

    You are here

Proposers:  Peter Wittenburg, Peter Berg Cross, Keith Jefferey

Date Received by TAB:

Date Review Completed:  9 Sept 2014

TAB Reviewers: Beth Plale, Jamie Shiers with comments from other TAB members


TAB recommends that the IG charter be approved, but conveys its concern about openness. It encourages the group leaders to pay particular attention, given the potential high impact of this work, to continuously conveying openness, and embrace inclusiveness particularly of newer WGs.

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?)

This IG pretty well self-organized out of shared concern amongst several of the earliest working groups on how their efforts relate to one another.   The notion of an IG is the right framework to allow this defining activity to continue.   It benefits the members of the individual working groups, and benefits RDA as a whole.    The scope is broadly defined, as it should be for an interest group. 

TAB reviewers and commentors like that the IG isn't proposing a single Data Fabric, but recognises that there may be many fabrics and also likes the fact that the IG isn't proposing a single architecture.  It further notes that getting interoperation between different fabric components that are structured around different ways of partitioning the problem space is more easily said than done.

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 membership draws largely from the earliest working groups.  TAB would like to see eventual involvement in the IG that includes later WGs but this is not a limitation of state at startup, simply a desired eventual state. 

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 IG has a small weakness in that it describes its purpose in terms of current state, when in fact the involved WGs are approaching end of life.   What role will it play 9 months from now? 

Recommendation:  Case Statement is Sufficient _X_; Case Statement Requires Revision __; Comments: