Data Management Plans Meeting Dec 18 2014
Chris Brown, Jisc Cathy Pink, University of Bath Catherine Grout, Jisc Tito Castillo, University College London Meriel Patrick, University of Oxford Thomas Vestdam, Elsevier Inc David Baker, CASRAI Sheri Belisle, CASRAI
Call to order Welcome to new members Review action items from last meeting Use Cases Review submitted Discuss gaps in current scope Refining profile from agreed use cases Update: Monthly posting of meeting minutes AOB
Previous Minutes DMP Draft Charter/Work Plan Draft Profile Use Case Spreadsheets
Submit completed template for use cases. Action owner: Use case owners with outstanding templates Completed by: Jan 23 Contact David Carr with regard to his use case Action owner: Anna Completed by: Jan 20 Complete new version of Data Profile with comments integrated; add data from new templates Action owner: David/Sheri Completed by: Jan 28 Meeting David, Chris, Anna – reschedule Action owner: Sheri Completed by: Jan 12
Meeting came to order at 1:05 p.m. GMT, David Baker chaired in Anna’s absence.
No comments on the agenda.
Agenda Item 2 – Welcome
Welcome to Meriel, new member from University of Oxford. Research Council representation in the group now, Catherine and Garry.
Agenda Item 3 – Last Meeting Actions
Most use case updates were submitted and added to profile. Carry forward remaining submissions to new year. Action: Those who own use cases and have not submitted templates should do so.
David Carr task will be picked up with Anna in the new year. Carry forward to today’s actions. Action: Anna to contact David Carr will regard to use cases.
Call between David, Chris, and Anna postponed. If needed will be reconvened in the new year.
Agenda Item 4 – Use Cases
Comments from spreadsheets moved into profile. Each will be looked at and may need addressing by the working group.
The last ‘potential’ use case has related pdf in the GFolder/related blog post – this one will be moved into the numbered section. Potential use cases – these relate more to using DMP as part of process, rather than the info in the DMP so are out of the scope of the current project. Also wanted to focus on “owned” use cases. None have been prioritised yet either.
Some use cases treat DMP as static while others point to a more fluid planning process. Should dynamic use cases be fleshed out? DMP has an active life cycle with static states in its cycle. Static moments are when exchanges happen, everything else is fluid. Use cases could be characterised along that line. At the beginning of a project, all information may not be available, so some data is estimated and reviewed/corrected later on. Line between static and fluid will be fuzzy for that reason.
Suggested that this group may need a hack session (like OrgID) with the use case owners to focus on use cases. This will be scheduled early in the new year.
Profile will be cleaned up with comments integrated to aid the conversation. Use case section needs a little more clarity as this format, with multiple use cases, is new for CASRAI. Some agenda points will be better addressed once the profile has been cleaned up. (ie: Scope gaps).
The profile should satisfy the use cases, also maybe identify any use case that’s causing difficulty. Group is satisfied with the use cases, no obvious gaps, areas covered but maybe level of detail needs looking at; no or low researcher representation so are we missing pieces because of that? Set of use cases is representative of the group, that question should be addressed to the wider group.
CASRAI constraint is group size – needs to be manageable; gaps can be addressed during review that adds unlimited number of people to the discussion – colleagues, researchers etc. They can review, poke holes, find ways to improve. Also another is an Interest Group at the RDA called Active Data Management Plans. Coming from different (but helpful) perspective. Co-projects at CASRAI could create semi-formal connection points to keep track of the other’s work.
Once use cases sorted, should look to other groups for input. Both inside and outside CASRAI. Connect with Chairs at intervals to compare notes. Dissemination should also encourage comment and input.
DMP discussion is a result of poor management/planning by researchers. DMP needs to dovetail into project management, to be sure it doesn’t interfere. Many researchers new to DMP so input might be limited. Structured conversation needed. Due to differences in funding and disciplines and various forms and formats for reporting, input would be varied. Some aren’t sure how DMP will help them, why its so detailed, in other cases its small and easy. Might be difficult to get useful feedback until the group has something comprehensive to take to them.
Keep in mind scope. In DMP many opportunities for investment and resources. CASRAI solving a subset of the problem but it isn’t in all spaces. Not in scope to improve researchers awareness and good practice in project mgmt. and DMP. Crucial but not a deliverable – the deliverable is focussed on diminishing the admin burden on duplication of info. Also in terms of better metadata practices; better harmonised. If the driver is better awareness etc for researchers, that’s not part of the scope of the group. It would require different plans and resources.
Reality on the ground for researchers, despite the focus on DMP by the funders, there’s little of that passed to researchers as an important focus. Its not working the way funders oversee researchers. Researchers should contribute to the rationale for DMPs – it can’t be just for the funders. Utility/benefit to the researcher needs to be addressed. Needs to be presented properly to the researchers to help them understand the benefit.
Some use cases already have components that could be shown to a researcher as being directly beneficial. Others where benefit is not direct but can be shown to help administrators better support researchers. When you ask researchers to do more, there’s a need to show that its to their benefit to spend the time on it. Language of the document may need to be adjusted for this; for example, the word “justify” can be a problem.
Suggest during the hackfest that use case owners bring a researcher perspective by proxy. Try to bring forward which use cases will clearly benefit researchers directly and flesh them out. This may also add information elements.
Profile has structural section and definitions section, as well as background. When first part is complete, framing language will be edited before going public and can address any language issues.
Agenda Item 5 – Minutes Posting
Update on minutes posting. For work transparency and progress reporting we want a dissemination schedule that matches the cycle and cadence of the working groups. Challenged by resource need, so when a group produces meeting notes/discussion – this is the best document to publish. Its not a complete transcript any more; its a generic summary of the substance of the meeting. When the draft summary is posted, please review it to ensure things are captured correctly, an absence of comments will indicate consent.
No AOB. Adjourned at 2:00 p.m. GMT.