[Andy Turner]

I suggest you narrow a general definition by using filters, so I think I agree:
Adopt the CASRAI general research data definition.
Make it clear that you are dealing (at least initially) with digital objects (as per the RDA/CASRAI definition).
Then:
a) For some things you are further just dealing with those that are the basis of conclusions in research publications.
b) For other things, you are dealing with data that has been brought into the research process, but has not yet become part of the foundation of some conclusion in a research publication.
Just beware that “digital” to some means “made of the hand”, rather than being information coded in binary and stored on computational infrastructure. Not that this is an issue if you adopt the definitions as they are, though the digital object definition could do with a bit of tidying up (removing the stray quotation mark – unless that has already been done).
Best wishes,
Andy
http://www.geog.leeds.ac.uk/people/a.turner/index.html
From: simon=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of Simon Hodson
Sent: 25 August 2015 14:10
To: Bob Chen; RDA/CODATA Legal Interoperability IG
Cc: Paul Uhlir; chrishmorris; Enrique Alonso García; Jean Bernard Minster; Andy Turner; Herman Stehouwer; Gail Clement; Donat Agosti; Lisa Neidert
Subject: Re: [rda-legalinterop-ig] Re: [rda-legalinterop-ig] EU´s definition of research data…
Dear all,
I was not sure whether Paul was agreeing with me or not, but what Bob says is in line with the point I was trying to make.
1) is a general definition which we need to acknowledge.
2) is a set of criteria by which we limit it. First, digital only. Then my points 2a) and 2b). It is to these types of data (i.e. used for research or created for research) that allows us to recommend specific practices, including public domain dedication. Other types of data are outside our purview.
I agree that Bob’s point 3 should be made somewhere.
Best wishes,
Simon.
___________________________
NEW! CODATA International News and Discussion List: http://lists.codata.org/mailman/listinfo/codata-international_lists.coda…
Data Science Journal: http://datascience.codata.org/
Geoffrey Boulton, ‘Open Data and the Future of Science’: http://www.codata.org/news/43/62/Geoffrey-Boulton-ANDS-Webinar-Open-Data…
___________________________
Dr Simon Hodson | Executive Director CODATA | http://www.codata.org
E-Mail: ***@***.*** | Twitter: @simonhodson99 | Skype: simonhodson99
Blog: http://www.codata.org/blog
Diary: http://bit.ly/simonhodson99-calendar
Tel (Office): +3! 3 1 45 25 04 96 | Tel (Cell): +33 6 86 30 42 59
CODATA (ICSU Committee on Data for Science and Technology), 5 rue Auguste Vacquerie, 75016 Paris, FRANCE
On 25 Aug 2015, at 15:01, Bob Chen wrote:
I think we have general agreement that:
1) We should use an existing definition of “research data” and not create our own.
2) We should then state how we think the draft guidelines apply given this definition, including any exclusions or “gray” areas we can identify.
I would suggest further that:
3) We welcome other communities in these gray or excluded areas to look at the guidelines and make suggestions to clarify issues or extend the guidelines, or to just use/borrow what they need for their own data types or situations.
Cheers, Bob
*****
Dr. Robert S. Chen
Director, Center for International Earth Science Information Network
(CIESIN), The Earth Institute, Columbia University
Manager, NASA Socioeconomic Data and Applic! ations Center (SEDAC)
P.O. Box 1000, 61 Route 9W, Palisades, NY 10964 USA
tel. +1 845-365-8952; fax +1 845-365-8922
e-mail: ***@***.***
CIESIN web site: http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu
SEDAC web site: http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu
On Tue, 25 Aug 2015, puhlir wrote:
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 14:39:58 +0200
From: puhlir

To: Simon Hodson ,
RDA/CODATA Legal Interoperability IG
Cc: chrishmorris ,
Enrique Alonso García ,
Jean Bernard Minster ,
agdturner ,
Herman Stehouwer ,
Gail Clement ,
Donat Agosti , Lisa Neidert

Subject: [rda-legalinterop-ig] Re: [rda-legalinterop-ig] EU´s definition of
research data plus addtl comments [rda…
Hi all:
I’m opposed to an Alice in Wonderland approach to defining “research data”. There are other existing
definitions that we can point to and that other groups have thought about at length. We should use an
existing definition, such as the CASRAI one, which is greatly preferable to another one we invent.
I also believe that we need to expressly exclude physical objects (samples), even though they are basic
research inputs. Digital data have public good characteristics, while physical samples do not. Since
physical objects can be depleted, among other key differences, our Principles and indeed the whole concept
of “interoperability”, legal or otherwise, is basically moot as far as they are concerned. Physical
samples are properly the topic of another set of Principles and Guidelines, except to the extent the
characteristics of physical samples have been digitized as data and depicted virtually . But then they are
not different from any other digital data.
Cheers,
Paul
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 7:04 AM, Simon Hodson wrote:
Dear all,
This has been a very interesting discussion, thanks to all.
Pragmatically, for the implementation guidelines for legal interoperability, I think we need to do
two things.
1) Reference a general definition of research data. This should indicate that research data can be
anything that a researcher uses as data. We need to add that physical objects can be included but
that it is the communicability of digital data that has really change d the practice of research and
the attendant principles of openness and sharing.
2) Stress that for the purpose of the principles and implementation guidelines on legal
interoperability we are *only* concerned with digital data. Furthermore, I think we are concerned
with further sub-catagories of digital data:
a) digital data that *has been* used for resea! rch, and has been made available by some
means as the evidential underpinning of the research conclusions.
b) data that has been collected/created (generally with public money) and made available
*for the purposes* of research (or at least with research use as an expressly recognised
collateral use).
We are not concerned with digital data that exists and *could be* used for research but for which
research was not the first or an attendant reason for its collection (e.g. FraceBook or Twitter
data). In my view such data is jut data. It is not research data *until* it is used for research.
This is what I meant on a recent call when I said something to the effect that *research* data is in
the eye of the beholder.
I have not spent time wordsmithing these points, but I hope it is clear what I mean and that
someth! ing like this can be used to clarify our definitions.
Best wishes,
Simon.
___________________________
NEW! CODATA International News and Discussion
List: http://lists.codata.org/mailman/listinfo/codata-international_lists.coda…
Data Science Journal: http://datascience.codata.org/
Geoffrey Boulton, ‘Open Data and the Future ofScience’: http://www.codata.org/news/43/62/Geoffrey-Boulton-ANDS-Webinar-Open-Data…
nce
___________________________
Dr Simon Hodson | Executive Director CODATA | http://www.codata.org
E-Mail: ***@***.*** | Twitter: @simonhodson99 | Skype: simonhodson99
Blog: http://www.codata.org/blog
Diary: http://bit.ly/simonhodson99-calendar
Tel (Office): +33 1 45 25 04 96 | Tel (Cell): +33 6 86 30 42 59
CODATA (ICSU Committee on Data for Science and Technology), 5 rue Auguste Vacquerie, 75016 Paris,
FRANCE
On 21 Aug 2015, at 14:15, chrishmorris wrote:
The most useful question is not “what does the term research data really mean?” The most
useful question is “What data is in scope of the recommendations on interoperability of
terms for access to research data?”.
It seems to me that there are two fundamental goals here, firstly reproduction! and
verification of research results, and secondly reuse of research data.
For reproduction, the data concerned is any data that informed the conclusions of
published research. All such data should be accessible to reviewers before publication,
and readers after publication.
For the second, if a researcher records experimental data, then the whole dataset should
preferably be shared in due course, not just the parts that gave rise to published
conclusions.
It is a little more complicated if a researcher negotiates access to existing data.
! ;These are the cases where a dataset that was not originally research data becomes
research data. In some cases the researcher might be able to negotiate terms on which
the dataset is opened to the whole research community, but often this is not a realistic
goal.
In all these cases, legal interopability is an issue.
Regards,
Chris
From: Enrique Alonso García [mailto:***@***.***-estado.es]
Sent: 21 August 2015 11:13
To: ***@***.***.! edu; Morris, Chris (STFC,DL,SC); ***@***.***;
***@***.***; ***@***.***; ***@***.***;
***@***.***-groups.org; Simon Hodson
Cc: ***@***.***; ***@***.***; ***@***.***
Subject: RE: EU´s definition of research data plus addtl comments [rda-legalinterop-ig]
Variant definitions of research data
Hi you all,
Only yesterday I had some time to read carefully the extended exchange of emails on this
issue. I am not surprised that this debate is going on. I had the suspicion since 3 years ago
that the RDA did not really know what its Alliance was all about. Actually a month ago in the
RDA meeting in Barcelona, talking to Peter Wittenburg about whether only data, data
expressions (scientific articles, biochem formulas -from nature, not synthesized or
created-GMOs-,.. et al, in/through which the data are referred to.., as well as software, web
services… that are processes etc), I was also surprised to get as his response that he did not
know, and that we should raise the issue in the RDA plennaries because it is not really being
addressed yet??!!
[see also two substantive Qs I raised to delineate scope of our principles, on software and
services, the same email as the one on public domain, which lead us, under Bob´s rec., to say
in the intro that the 2 latest are not included at all for ! the sake of our Ps]
The debate is very similar to the one we had in the CBD context about what the hell are
genetic resources, whether the resources themselves or the information (e.g. sequenced DNA
that can be set abroad with an email from the country of origin, while the resource remains
untouched) or knowledge embedded in them and/or obtained from them (e.g. causal relationship
to pre-knowledge such as traditional knowledge); it was, and still is, a debate that the
Nagoya Protocol, 20 years after genetic resources were defined in the CBD, has not yet been
solved and in which for the first time I realized the complexity that digitizing and other
technologies (e.g. algorithms expressing whales´ vocalization) imply per se because of the
“copybility” potential that they introduced [Actually, there was an ad hoc think tank meeting
to define non-commercial uses of genetic resources which raised this issue upfront- but that
also decided not to addre! ss this issue either, at Museum Koenig in Bonn, Germany on 17-19
November 2008, called by the Smithsonian,, in which I was commissioned to prepare the main
info doc -so I had included discussing it]
In any case I have no clear answer at all.
This email is to remark:
1.- That very possibly we might not be able to solve that on time (ambiguity could be our
premise, with an introductory paragraph acknowledging that nobody really knows for sure -since
there is no final authoritative definition- what research data is all about).
2.- Since somebody asked if EU´s H2020 has a definition, I add the following crossed emails
that I had with Gail just after one of our telcos 3 weeks ago (as if we were intuitively
guessing that it would be unavoidable to have such a debate pretty soon: and it happened just
the following week).
I asked her what was her opinion about the “official” EU H2020 definition for the sake of open
access, and! her response convinced me that this def was not at all workable and she referred
me to the ongoing work by Christine Borgman because they are also of relevance for the ongoing
debate and I think we all should share it and gail probably forgot to raise them (or simply
add them) to the ongoing fully open debate.
I add these elements
1.-First email (my comment to Gail):
How do you feel about the RD defnition in EU´s H2020?
‘Research data’ refers to information, in particular facts or numbers, collected to be
examined and considered and as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or calculation. In a
research context, examples of data include statistics, results of experiments, measurements,
observations resulting from fieldwork, survey results, interview recordings and images. The
focus is on research data that is available in digital form.
2.- Gail´s response: The concern with definitions such as this is that they presume a certaingenre of data (e.g., quantitative/numeric) which suggests a skew toward physical scientific
research. But it does not take much to encounter digital data that does not fit: photographic
(natural sciences; medical; remote sensing); images (geologic maps, cross sections, deep sea
core photos); textual (digital humanities); etc.
Does a corpus of Spanish literature available for text-mining to study linguistic development
fit within the category below? Or what about digital audio of animal calls in the wild? If
RDA wants to become as relevant and ubiquitous as possible, I believe we must caution against
presuming the interests of scholars concerned with digital data.
Best regards
3.- Third email with references to C.B research on the issue [Bernard, you are right there is
research on what the heck research data is]
De: Gail Clement [***@***.***] Enviado el: domingo, 09 de ag! osto de 2015
15:38
Para: Enrique Alonso García
Asunto: Big Data, Little Data, No Data | The MIT Press
Dear Enrique,
UCLA Professor Christine Borgman keynoted RDA Amsterdam last fall.
Her latest work on Research Data is: https://mitpress.mit.edu/big-data
All best, Gail
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
De: chris.morris=***@***.***-groups.org [chris.morris=***@***.***-groups.org] En nombre
de chrishmorris [***@***.***]
Enviado el: miércoles, 19 de agosto de 2015 10:20
Para: ***@***.***; ***@***.***; ***@***.***;
***@***.***; ***@***.***-groups.org
CC: ***@***.***; ***@***.***
Asunto: Re: [rda-legalinterop-ig] Variant definitions of research data
HI,
It is useful to discuss policies for preserving and sharing physical object of research
importance. In the life sciences we usually call them samples.
But this isn’t the same discussion as about data. Data can be copied without loss, and copying
data is usually cheap. This is a key argument for open data.
For samples, there are many other considerations. Some study techniques are destructive, and
even techniques that are planned to be non-destructive involve risk. For this reason alone
some access restriction! s are appropriate, e.g. to precious hominid fossils. Some samples are
hazardous, e.g. blood samples from Ebola patients. Some samples have unknown and changing
privacy implications – how much can you find out about me from 0.5ml3 of my cerebrospinal
fluid? So the range of law involved is much more than IP law – even within Europe the legal
definition of biological hazard is far from uniform.
Finishing a task involves bounding it. Surely it is useful to produce legal interoperability
guidelines about digital data. Once that is done, if anyone wants to convene a workgroup about
physical samples of research importance, then good luck to you.
Regards,
Chris
From: A.G.D.Turner=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org]
On Behalf Of agdturner
Sent: 19 August 2015 08:46
To: Herman Stehouwer; puhlir; Repositorian; ***@***.***-groups.org
Cc: Donat Agosti; MsDrData
Subject: Re: [rda-legalinterop-ig] Variant definitions of research data
I have just noticed that the source for the CASRAI Research object definition
is RDA: http://smw-rda.esc.rzg.mpg.de/index.php/Main_Page
I appreciate that in many cases the RDA will concern itself with such digital objects, but the
importance of physical data in some academic studies should not be underestimated. I think the
RDA should explicitly concern itself with samples (and indeed entire artefacts and all the
dirt they have accumulated) and specimens used in research. BTW – a practical way
of categorising such physical research data is by the conditions in which they are stored
(so! metimes they are not, they are just located in situ). Additionally though, some research
data objects may be physical bit/byte storage entities – and that edge case is also important,
and may complicate definitions. Notwithstanding that most physical research data will have
digital object type profiles and that over time, the digital object profiles may persist for
longer.
HTH
Andy
http://www.geog.leeds.ac.uk/people/a.turner/index.html
—– Reply message —–
From: “agdturner”
To: “Herman Stehouwer” , “puhlir”
,
“Repositorian” , “***@***.***-groups.org”

Cc: “Donat Agosti” , “MsDrData”

Subject: [rda-legalinterop-ig] ! Variant definitions of research data
Date: Wed, Aug 19, 2015 08:08
FWIW I like the CASRAI Research Data definition. “Digital” kind of meaning of the fingers a
useful term, but is used out of context of computers while others regard it in the realm of
codified bits/bytes. The CASRAI definition for “Digital data” is currently not very helpful in
this context, but the definition of “Digital object” is more pertinent to this discussion as
it has been mentioned and does refer to bits/bytes:
http://dictionary.casrai.org/Digital_object
A digital object is editable, interactive, accessible and modifiable by means of digital
objects other than the one governing its behaviour, and is distributed over information
infrastructures. It is a machine-independent data structure consisting of one or more elements
in digital form that can be parsed by different information systems; the structure helps to
enable interoperability amo! ng diverse information systems in the Internet.” A digital object
is composed of structured sequence of bits/bytes. As an object it is named. The bit sequence
realizing the object can be identified and accessed by a unique and persistent identifier or
by use of referencing attributes describing its properties. SYNONYM. Digital entity
Andy
http://www.geog.leeds.ac.uk/people/a.turner/index.html
—– Reply message —–
From: “Herman Stehouwer”
To: “puhlir”
, “Repositorian” , “RDA/CODATA
Legal Interoperability IG”
Cc: “Donat Agosti” , “MsDrData”
, “Andy Turner”

Subject: [rda-legalinterop-ig] Variant definitions of research data
Date: Wed, Aug 19, 2015 07:44
Dear all,
two quick rema! rks (I do try to follow your discussions, but usually I have nothing to add!).
1) The DFT group explicitly limits itself to the domain of registered, digital, data. So it is
a bit odd to use their definitions as an argument to limit yourself, as I thought the
discussion here was broader.
2) Informally RDA defines research data as “data of interest to researchers”. Which is a bit
of a cop-out, but there you go.
Cheers,
Herman
On 18/08/15 23:54, puhlir wrote:
Sorry to come to this conversation late and thanks for getting the ball rolling
(or the definition gelling). I agree that we should try to use any definition that
the RDA DFT WG develops for “Research data” and I am surprised that this wasn’t
the first term they addressed. If they do not in the near term, we can suggest
using the CASR! AI formulation, although it is quite long, or some other long-term
definition that is from a reputable source. I think we should resist making one
up, however.
Cheers,
Paul
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 5:25 PM, Repositorian wrote:
On the question of whether RDA has its own RDM glossary containing a definition of
research data, the answer is “Sort of yes”. Here is what I’ve surfaced so far:
· The Data Foundations and Terminology (DFT) Working Group of RDA has in
their remit the job of devising definitions for use across RDA
· Their released deliverables to date comprise a set of documents available
online athttps://rd-alliance.org/group/data-foundation-and-terminology-wg/outcome…
-dft-wg
· Of particular relevance to our discussion is RDA Data Foundation and
Terminology DFT 3:Snapshot of DFT Core Terms, online at
https://rd-alliance.org/system/files/DFT3%20-%20Snapshot%20of%20core%20t…
o They identify core terms and core concepts, using ‘snapshots’ to fix and represent a
term/concept that may be differently understood across RDA or may be evolving and still
fluid
o They have defined only those 10 core terms which have shown to find rough
consensus: neither “data” nor “research data” are not among those 10 core terms
o “Data object” is not a core term in the eyes of this WG but it does have a
‘placeholder’ in the Appendix of Additional Terms that have been discussed. The term
“Data object! ” is associated with the following “indication of meaning”: a type of
Digital Object containing processible data/information/knowledge. “Digital Object” is a
core term and is defined as:
§ 2.2.1 Digital Object (DO)
§ A. Definition
§ A digital object (DO) is represented by a bitstream, is referenced and
identified by a persistent identifier and has properties being characterized by
metadata.
Thus it appears for our purposes that analog (non-digital) objects fall outside the
scope of our Principles and Guidelines.
It also appears from Data Foundation and Terminology (DFT) WG webpage that they are
aware of the newly introduced CASRAI glossary. A posting to that page on 8-17-2015
reports:
Announcing a new transdisciplinary Glossary for research data management
Research Data Canada (RDC) in partnership with the international Consortia Advancing
S! tandards in Research Administration Information (CASRAI)
is pleased to announce the launch of a PILOT for a new interactive Glossary containing
500+ draft terms and definitions to support work in the field of research data
management.
The glossary is publicly available under a Creative Commons Attribution Only license
(CC-BY) at
http://dictionary.casrai.org/Category:Research_Data_Domain
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
From: Donat Agosti [mailto:***@***.***]
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 1:46 PM
To: MsDrData
; agdturner ; RDA/CODATA Legal
Interoperability IG
Cc: Gail Clement
Subject! : RE: [rda-legalinterop-ig] Variant definitions of research data
Does RDA have a definition of research data? What about US NSF or Horizon 2020/EU
research? I am sure, Paul through his work at the National Academy has a source(s)? How
does research data relate to research results that ought to be open in the US? Though
Research data is not mentioned in the memo data is included in research results
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ostp_publ…
cheers
donat
From: lisan=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf
Of MsDrData
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 10:32 PM
To: agdturner ; RDA/CODATA Legal Interoperability IG

Cc: Repositorian
Subject: Re: [rda-legalinterop-ig] Variant definitions of research data
The res! earch data definition is better from my standpoint and incorporates all the
examples I included. And, it covers the other more intentional data collection efforts.
-Lisa
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:56 PM, agdturner wrote:
Just to point out that the CASRAI glossary also has a definition for
research data that might be useful:
http://dictionary.casrai.org/Research_data
Data that are used as primary sources to support technical or scientific
enquiry, research, scholarship, or artistic activity, and that are used as
evidence in the research process and/or are commonly accepted in the
research community as necessary to validate research findings and results.
All other digital and non-digital content have the potential of becoming
research data. Research data may be experimental data, observational data,
operational data, third party data, public sector data, monitoring data,
processed data, or repurposed data.
Andy
http://www.geog.leeds.ac.uk/people/a.turner/index.html
From: Gclement=***@***.***-groups.org
[mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of Repositorian
Sent: 18 August 2015 18:23
To: ‘RDA/CODATA Legal Interoperability IG’
Subject: [rda-legalinterop-ig] Variant definitions of research data
Hello RDA Colleagues,
There seems to be a proliferation of definitions across our domain, including this
one from CASRAI as part of their research data glossary initiative.
http://dictionary.casrai.org/Data
CASRAI just put out a call for reviews of their glossary and the one for data
looks pretty good.
Does this look useful to you? Does it align with the RDA research data
terminology work?
Data
Facts, measurements, recordings, records, or observations about the world
collected by scientists and others, with a minimum of contextual interpretation.
Data may be in any format or medium taking the form of writings, notes, numbers,
symbols, text, images, films, video, sound recordings, pictorial reproductions,
drawings, designs or other graphical representations, procedural manuals, forms,
diagrams, work flow charts, equipment descriptions, data files, data processing
algorithms, or statistical records
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://www.rd-alliance.org/group/rdacodata-legal-interoperability-ig/po…
ata.html
Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post:
https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/49569
—
_______________________________________________
Lisa Neidert Population Studies Center
Data Scientist &! nbsp; Institute for Social Research
734-763-2203(P) 426 Thompson, P.O. Box 1248
734-763-1428(F) Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1248
***@***.*** &n! bsp; ??? ???http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu
Twitter: @msdrdata Skype: MsDrData
—
Full post:https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/rdacodata-legal-interoperability-ig/po…
ata.html
Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/49569
—
Full post:https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/rdacodata-legal-interoperability-ig/po…
ata.html
Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/49569
—
Dr. ir. Herman Stehouwer Max Planck Computing and Data Facility (MPCDF)
RDA Secretariat
***@***.*** 0031-619258815
Skype: herman.stehouwer.mpi
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
El texto de este correo es confidencial y exclusivamente está dirigido a su destinatario. Si
se ha enviado a una dirección errónea rogamos elimine el mismo y, en su caso, los documentos
adjuntos, y nos lo comunique urgentemente. This message is intented only for the use of the
addresse and contain confidential information. If you are not the intented recipient,
dissemination of this documentation is prohibited. If you have received this communication in
error, please, ! erase all copies of the message and its attachments and notify us immediately.
Antes de imprimir este correo electrónico, piense bien si es necesario hacerlo: El
medioambiente es cosa de todos.
—
Full post:https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/rdacodata-legal-interoperability-ig/po…
ch-data-plus-addtl-comment-0
Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/49619
—
Full post:https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/rdacodata-legal-interoperability-ig/po…
ch-data-plus-addtl-comment-0
Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/49619

Discussion