There is no such content in this group
Posts
12
November
2014
RE: [rda-datafabric-ig] RE: [rda-datafabric-ig] Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] Re: [rda...
Ah ok Rebecca. Peter From: rkoskela=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] On Behalf Of rkoskela Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 3:06 PM To: ***@***.***-groups.org Subject: Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] RE: [rda-datafabric-ig] Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] Re: [rda... Peter, I wanted to address your comment "perhaps DataONE" with respect to lists of0 | Add new comment
12
November
2014
RE: [rda-datafabric-ig] Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] Re: [rda...
Let me just add that I also agree with what is said. - We need to define a set of attributes that contains information for humans but also information for machines. Trust is mostly about the first (human information) but not only - EUDAT for example runs automatic processes about availability of services and presents it as graphics etc. This requires for example that in the attribute set you find a machine readable statement which services are offered and statements how to contact these services.1 | Add new comment
11
November
2014
RE: [rda-datafabric-ig] Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] Registries of..
Keith, you articulate several important points, and the notion of trust added by John Henry is also important. Trust is also key in the initial semantic web layer cake.0 | Add new comment
10
November
2014
Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] Registries of...
Hi DFIG, I mostly agree with Keith on this. The decision to trust a given resource can only be made by the end user. Our job should be to anticipate what kinds of information or attributes we need to supply to a typical end user so the user can decide to trust the resource or not. If we reach consensus about what collection of information or attributes is deemed acceptable input into these trust decisions, we can then say what a resource should do to be trustworthy. After evaluating a trustworthy resource, end users can then decide if they choose to trust it or not.1 | Add new comment
10
November
2014
Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] Registries of services
Larry, I see what you mean. But this is a general question, isn't it? The metadata people, for example, are talking about directories and standards and so they might have a similar question about trusting what is pointed to from the registry. Is there a similar issue for a data type registry? Gary Berg-Cross, Ph.D. ***@***.*** http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?GaryBergCross SOCoP Executive Secretary2 | Add new comment
10
November
2014
Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] Registries of services
Larry >the important aspect of repositories appearing in any given registry will be why they are in the registry and/or what attributes the registry Larry >the important aspect of repositories appearing in any given registry will be why they are in the registry and/or what attributes the registry provides for each repository. An agreed upon vocabulary for those attributes, assuming it doesn’t exist already (does it, to any degree?), would be a significant step.3 | Add new comment
10
November
2014
Registries of services
Dear all, I made a quick comparison between Re3data and GOCDB. I have attached the very short 2 page document, but the conclusion is also below ;) Cheers, Herman == Conclusion: The DF discussion needs to lead to requirements for such a registry of repositories and based on that needs to come to a specification. Then a critical comparison would be required to see whether an existing solution can be adopted and adapted. It seems to me that the re3data approach is very much suited for their purposes of having a web-site10 | Add new comment
06
November
2014
China Expert Joining the gang
Dear all, just to update you on two aspects: - Rob and I are currently drafting the very first draft version of the White Paper and of course we hope that we cover the essences of the discussions. If not you will comment. - I just heard that Yunqiang ZHU from an institute of the Chinese Academy of Science will join our work which I think is very good. From a visit lat year I know that they are doing excellent science/data infrastructure work. Peter1 | Add new comment
31
October
2014
DF discussion/NIST WG meeting
Greetings, Ditto to positive comments, and great to see this discussion that’s taking place, sparked in part by NDS. There’s a lot important work to do! **Matt, thank you for the reminder/inviatation to join the NDS mailing (and help ;) RE: upcoming NIST meeting. I proposed several meeting objectives last week, and have received some feedback from Keith..(thanks Keith!). I/we'll parse through the recent messages on this list too, and can see what might be added/modified.0 | Add new comment
31
October
2014
Re: [rda-datafabric-ig] Architecture or Not?
This discussion thread will provide input to our DF White Paper and as Larry noted some of us will be meeting at NIST (John Henry's turf) in a few weeks. I also made some remarks at the tail end of the NDS meeting in response to the question. One thing I thought important is that we have an IG and thus provide a venue for discussion of ideas that we hope will clarify what some here are calling the Landscape, perhaps to avoid the unloaded term Architecture. To me both landscape, architecture as well as system gesture4 | Add new comment