Group Mailing list Archive

11 Apr 2016

Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-collection-wg] Some thoughts on "Data Aggregations" terminology & concepts

Hi Tobias, Gary and others,
in principle each function, that generates (new) collections, could be
used. For example from a given collection one could build a new
collection by requiring restrictions like for example time constraints
on the generation of the DOs it contains. Or one can build a kind of
power collection, the collection of all sub collections.
Particularly interesting generation rules come with the possibity of
following the links given in the collection, either by the PIDs in the

10 Apr 2016

Some thoughts on "Data Aggregations" terminology & concepts

The various types of data aggregation and what we call them has been a topic in several RDA groups.  "Data set/dataset" or "Digital Collection" and "data series" are a few of the frequently used terms.  In the DFT WG snapshot document we had an initial definition of  "Digital Collection" as:

A digital collection is an aggregation which contains DOs and DEs. The collection is identified by a PID and described by metadata.

Note: A digital collection is a (complex) DO.

17 Mar 2016

REMINDER: National Data Service Consortium Workshop - April 4-6, 2016

All, just wanted to bring to everyone’s attention the next U.S. National Data Service workshop coming up in April. One of the aims of this workshop will be to highlight a number of the U.S. software/tools efforts that would be components of a National Data Service.
Kenton McHenry, Ph.D.
Senior Research Scientist, Adjunct Assistant Professor of Computer Science
Deputy Director of the Scientific Software & Applications Division
National Center for Supercomputing Applications
Click here to see this online
[National Data Service]

03 Mar 2016

Data Fabric and PIT updates

Dear DF and PIT,
I understand that there have been some questions during one of the Data
Fabric session at P7 today on the status and future of the PIT
developments. Since PIT is considered to be part of the overall Data
Fabric approach, I would like to take this opportunity to give a few
essential updates here that shed some light on the more recent
activities since the end of the WG lifetime:
- The PIT API and demonstrator are available as an RDA recommendation
and I am quite happy to see that there are a couple of adoption projects

23 Feb 2016

WG: RDA Plenary 7 - 1 March IG Data Fabric, IG National Data Services Schedule Change

Dear all,
there will be a change in the program on Tuesday 1. March
The two data fabric related sessions will be exchanged – see below.
Von: Hilary Hanahoe [mailto:***@***.***]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. Februar 2016 09:53
An: Wittenburg, Peter; ***@***.***; ***@***.***; Amir Aryani; Adrian Burton; Kevin Ashley (DCC)
Cc: Parsons, Mark Alan; ***@***.***; Timea Biro

08 Feb 2016

AW: [rda-datafabric-ig] R: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms

Thanks Stefano and Keith,
Is the stuff you are talking about Keith written down somewhere? How to move ahead?
The FAIR folks are suggesting to agree on a formal language to represent metadata etc.
It seems that my old CLARIN people describe categories (concepts) with help of SKOS and they use this “component” approach with a registry of components (sub-schemas) allowing everyone to re-use these components or adapt them to their needs. Of course RDF can or is being created for whatever purposes.

03 Feb 2016

Re: Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms

ZHU, Yunqiang Ph.d Professor
Director, Department for Geo-data Science and Sharing
Deputy Director,State Key Lab. of Resources and Environmental Information System
Institute of Geographical Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences
诸云强 博士 研究员
资源与环境信息系统国家重点实验室 副主任
地球数据科学与共享研究室 主任
北京朝阳区大屯路甲11号 100101
From: Gary
Date: 2016-02-02 12:29
To: YunqiangZhu; Data Fabric IG

02 Feb 2016

Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] [rda-datafabric-ig] AW: [rda-datafabric-ig] dfig-terms

I agree completely with this 'define for working and later refine' approach. K
Sent from my Sony Xperia™ smartphone
---- Alan Blatecky wrote ----
I think building a joint vocabulary is urgent as well. However, if we aren’t careful, we could find ourselves caught up in endless discussions trying to get precise definitions (that is, "the perfect is the enemy of the good”). We need to get rough consensus so we can spend time on issues other than definitions.
On Feb 2, 2016, at 10:24 AM, Peter Wittenburg <***@***.***> wrote: