Dlm-wg-repositories - October 2015 Meeting

From CASRAI

Thursday, October 15, 9am to 10am (Eastern)

Present

  • David Baker
  • Alex Ball
  • Mike Taylor
  • Rebecca Lawrence
  • Sunje DT

Materials

Agenda

  1. Introductions to new members
  2. Walk-through and Discussion: CASRAI Agreement Sprints
  3. Assigning WG Roles
  4. BioMedBridges workshop plan
  5. Next Steps
Input references

Discussion

  • Sprints: new structure presented (3 months) and agreed
    • important that WG communicates regularly, at least monthly
    • Feedback from group: lets test it in practice!
  • Workshop planning: Alex, Rebecca and Sünje to get together for detailed plans; Rebecca to circulate details of the meeting including to Mike to see if he could present back on the NISO project at that meeting (http://www.biomedbridges.eu/workshop-better-metrics-measuring-data-quality)
  • ALL to post links into this pad that are obvious omissions to the list of documentation item links at http://casrai.org/Dlm-wg-repositories_-_July_2015_Meeting - ALL to review between now and the next meeting and also circulate to this WG mailing list
  • All information will get added to the group web presence right away and marked as DRAFT, rather than waiting for it to be edited/agreed first.
  • DB will plan logisitcs of the sprint in the next week or so; will provide specific plan for this sprint with dates and then get sign-off from the group on the schedule.
  • Meetings will then be scheduled and monthly updates circulated to all including the IG.

Roles for this sprint

  • WG Chair -- Alex
  • WG Scribe -- Rebecca (notes in meetings); David, with Chair and Point Person(s) (blog posts)
  • WG Point Person(s) -- TBD (depends on question set)
  • WG Facilitator/Coordinator -- CASRAI Secretariat (David)
  • WG Modeler -- CASRAI Secretariat (Paul Kiel)

Additional input references While broader in scope than just data quality, repository certification standards require repositories to perform certain checks on the submitted data. These are phrased broadly, so the standards may be more appropriately considered background reading than as input references.