There is no such content in this group
Posts
05
January
2015
Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] draft version white paper form DFIG
Thomas, >I'm a fan of storing the MD directly with the object data. That makes the handling of the whole thing much easier and all the common repositories Thomas, >I'm a fan of storing the MD directly with the object data. That makes the handling of the whole thing much easier and all the common repositories today are also working in this way: the MD is strored together with the object data in a thing called "Digital Object" (having Fedora, DSpace in mind).0 | Add new comment
05
January
2015
Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] draft version white paper form DFIG
Here are some more thoughts along the line of questions raised by Keith. >the problem comes in dfining PID(s) for the DO and this depends on the DO structure. Here are some more thoughts along the line of questions raised by Keith. >the problem comes in dfining PID(s) for the DO and this depends on the DO structure. DO structure, it seems to me, would be part of what metadata describes in some useful way. Or another way of saying it is that one might try to1 | Add new comment
02
January
2015
Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] draft version white paper form DFIG
Ulrich. This implied bi-directionality is a good catch. I think that was intended, based on past work (in part by Yin Chin) and analysis of the DFT WG was one of your proposed solutions: >The other solution would be to use the PID record, that points to the digital object, also as reference to the metadata object. Several PID systems are able to setup such an additional reference. In this case the whole triple can be referred to by this PID record very efficiently. The13 | Add new comment
18
December
2014
Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] draft version white paper form DFIG
by Raphael Ritz
On 12/18/14 9:12 AM, Peter Wittenburg wrote: > Agree Larry. > But as indicated DFIG should stick to the analysis and specification level. > PS: This is a general point which is relevant for all RDA activities. > > We had the discussion with iRODs and also DTR. PP group is about policies in general independent of the software being used to implement them. etc. Maybe slightly off-topic but seeing posts like1 | Add new comment
18
December
2014
DF-whitepaper-v0-5.docx
Thanks Michael, I looked at your extensions and made a few comments on the comments. Let me add two points in this email.2 | Add new comment
17
December
2014
co-chairing data fabric
Dear Larry, all, Larry you raised the issue of who is going to co-chair the Data Fabric IG. Until now I saw two volunteers: Rob from the US side and myself from the EU side. In the mean time I received an email from Yunqiang ZHU from the Chinese Academy (large geo institute) saying clearly that he would like to join the co-chairing group. I think that this is a great opportunity to involve the active Chinese experts and beyond in the work which we are doing. I am very much in favour of having Yunqiang Zhu on board. Let me ask the group whether there are other opinions.6 | Add new comment
08
December
2014
Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] draft version white paper form DFIG
Yes, the paper is advancing the topic by providing some framework vision. The Use Case section needs to be filled in by appropriate groups and the last section: Planning (12 months – from P5 to P7) might add some of the more recent information about trusted repositories which seems like another area that DF might help advance after the BoF at P5. Gary Berg-Cross, Ph.D. ***@***.***10 | Add new comment
04
December
2014
draft version white paper form DFIG
Dear all, Here is a first draft version of the white paper which we want to circulate outside of the editing team. All side information you can find in the DFIG group wiki: https://rd-alliance.org/groups/data-fabric-ig/wiki/data-fabric-ig-docume... Please comment before Christmas in this thread so that we can work on a first real version 1.X during the Christmas/Newyears days. Best Rob & Peter8 | Add new comment
12
November
2014
Preparing data for use by (different) models
One thing that we didn't highlight in the discussion of DF is the onerous time scientists have to devote to preparing data for input to a3 | Add new comment
12
November
2014
Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] Registries of services
I guess the response to Larry's original concern on trust and Keith's follow up critique of the Re3data metadata attributes is that this is as well as we have done now with some open response items like documenting certification. There may be several areas of DF where there is practice that may be judged "best currently " but not as good as we would like. In that case outlining the issues and deficiencies and pointing to an improvement path may be a valuable service for the IG. Gary Berg-Cross, Ph.D.0 | Add new comment