International Materials Resource Registries WG - TAB Review
You are here
Working Group Title: International Materials Resource Registries (Case Statement)
Proposers: Laura Bartolo and Jim Warren
Date Received by TAB: April 5, 2016
Date Review Completed: May 17, 2016
TAB Reviewers: Larry Lannom and Wenbo Chu
Completeness of Case Statement:
(Does it include the six requisite components: (1) WG Charter; (2) Value Proposition: (3) Engagement with Existing Work in the Area; (4) Work Plan; (5) Adoption Plan; (6) Initial Membership?): Yes _X_; No __; Comments:
Focus and Fit:
(Are the Working Group objectives and deliverables 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?)
Yes, the objectives and deliverables are clearly aligned to the RDA
mission. The scope, while ambitious in its goal of pulling together a distributed
international community, is right on target with the scope of the
RDA. It clearly adds value.
Work Plan, Deliverables, and Outcomes:
(Are there measurable, practical deliverables and outcomes? Can the proposed work, outcomes/deliverables, and Work Plan described in the Case Statement be accomplished in 12-18 months?)
The WG will have measurable and practical deliverables. It will not be easy to come to agreement on the appropriate metadata, processes, and so on in the 12-18 month timeframe, but it is certainly worth the effort and the constrained time frame will likely focus the discussion on essential aspects. The schedule is challenging but feasable since the team is clearly motivated to gather relevant expertise and to do the job.
(Does the initial membership list include sufficient expertise, and disciplinary and international representation? Are the right people involved in the Working Group to adopt and implement? What individuals or organizations are missing?)
Yes, as far as we can tell without having great domain expertise the
right people and organizations are involved. The initial representation seems well balanced regionally, which we hope can be maintained as additional people join the effort. We have one specific comment which is that
the list of invited core members includes a representative of NoMaD/EUDAT who does
not appear on the list of individuals who have agreed to be on the WG.
We hope that this group joins in due course.
Impact and Engagement:
(Is it likely that the outcome(s) of the Working Group will be taken up by the intended community? Is there evidence that the research community wants this? Will the outcome(s) of the Working Group foster data sharing and/or exchange?)
It does seem likely that a successful outcome will be taken up by the intended community, which appears well represented here. The inclusion of NIST, a clear leader in this area, is an indication of the likely quality of the effort. The outcome is directly focused on data sharing and exchange.
Case Statement is Sufficient _X_; Case Statement Requires Revision __; Case Statement is Rejected __
Comments: No additional comments.
<if conditional, state revisions … e.g., TAB recommends that the case statement be conditionally approved subject to the following change to the WG Case Statement:>