DSA-WDS collaboration - Françoise Genova Vice-Chair of WDS Scientific Commitee Thanks to the WDS IPO and to Mary

DSA-WDS collaboration

      Françoise Genova
         Vice-Chair of
    WDS Scientific Commitee
Thanks to the WDS IPO and to Mary
             Vardigan

ICSU World Data System
            ‘ICSU’s long-term vision is of
            a world where excellence in
            science is effectively translated
            into policy making and socio-
            economic development. In such
            a world, universal and
            equitable access to scientific
            data and information is a
            reality …’

WDS Scientific
Committee
2012–2015
                                                2.29
• Bernard Minster (Chair, USA)
• Michael Diepenbroek (Germany)
• Françoise Genova (France)
• Claudia Emerson (Canada)               WDS-SC Members
• Sandra Harrison (UK)                   and WDS-IPO Staff
• Wim Hugo (South Africa)
• Jane Hunter (Australia)
• Vasily Kopylov (Russian Fed.)
• Guoqing Li (China)
• Ruth Neilan (USA)
• Lesley Rickards (UK)
• Ryosuke Shibasaki (Japan)
• Ariel Troisi (Argentina)
• Howard Moore (Ex officio, ICSU)
• Yasuhiro Murayama (Ex officio, NICT)

A community of excellence
• Membership certification by the Scientifc
  Committee
• Potential members apply through a short
  letter of intent
• The SC decides whether their activities are
  relevant to the WDS
• The applicant fills a form with its answers to
  the membership criteria

Criteria
•   WDS general requirements and policies
•   Organisational framework
•   Management of data, products and services
•   Technical infrastructure

• WDS deals with ‘data centres’ and ‘data services’
• Questions linked to the organisational framework
  and to how the scientific relevance is ensured

Organizational framework
16. The facility has defined: (a) the scope of the data and/or product (services) it
offers; (b) its responsibility for the long-term preservation its data, products and
services; (c) its target user communities and their needs; (d) the rights of its users
to access and use data; and (e) processes for responding to changing scientific
requirements and to evolving technologies
17. The organizational form is adequate for the facility in terms of funding,
sufficient numbers of qualified staff, organizational structure and long-term
planning
18. Expertise of the host organisation offers local oversight (scientists, data
specialists) of international repute
19. Maintenance of a continuity plan in the event of a host institution shift of
interests or reaction to substantial changes
20. Facility is committed to formal, periodic review and assessment to ensure
responsiveness to scientific and technological developments and evolving
requirements

WDS Implementation
Membership types
            Data curation and data analysis services.
Regular     (Individual data centres, data services)

Network     Networks of Regular Members, umbrella
            organizations (IODE, IVOA…)

            Do not deal directly with data collection,
Partner     curation, and distribution, but contribute
            support to WDS

            Organizations interested in the WDS
Associate   endeavour

WDS Implementation

WDS Membership (07/2014)
• 56    Regular Members
• 10    Network Members
• 3     Partner Members
• 17    Associate Members

DSA/WDS collaboration within RDA
• DSA and WDS are two ‘basic’ certification frameworks
• DSA began in social science and humanities, WDS in
  natural and physical sciences but both expanding in
  scope/ WDS members are data centres AND services
• They collaborate in the framework of the RDA/WDS
  Certification IG and Repository Audit and Certification
  WG
• RDA framework allows wider membership
• IG led by Ingrid Dillo and Michael Diepenbroak
• Certification WG: compare and align the certification
  frameworks

WG members
–   Lesley Rickards (UK, PSMSL, WDS-SC) [Co-chair]
–   Mary Vardigan (USA, ICPSR, DSA Board) [Co-chair]
–   Kevin Ashley (UK, Digital Curation Centre)
–   Michael Diepenbroek (Germany, Pangaea, WDS-SC)
–   Ingrid Dillo (The Netherlands, DANS, DSA Board)
–   Françoise Genova (France, CDS, WDS-SC)
–   Hervé L’Hours (UK, UK Data Archive, DSA Board)
–   Guoqing Li (China, CEODE, WDS-SC)
–   Jean-Bernard Minster (USA, UCSD, Chair of WDS Scientific Committee)
–   Paul Trilsbeek (The Netherlands, MPI for Psycholinguistics, DSA Board)
–   Eleni Panagou, Ph.D. Candidate in Web Engineering, Democritus
    University of Thrace, Greece [RDA Early Career Researcher]

Working Group Goals
• Develop common catalog of criteria for basic
  repository assessment
• Develop common procedures for assessment
• Implement a shared testbed for assessment
• Ultimately, create a shared framework for
  certification that includes other standards as
  well

Our Work So Far
• Began virtual meetings in the spring to map
  DSA and WDS criteria to each other
• Officially recognized as an RDA working group
  in May 2014
• Considered an “example for a non-technical
  group” -- RDA is about building bridges
• Important potential ‘sociological’ impact
• In August created a summary mapping with
  draft common requirements

Procedures for Mapping
• Created Google spreadsheet with several sheets to
  have all information in one place
• Mapped the DSA to the WDS, and the WDS to the
  DSA
• Held lengthy discussions on each guideline,
  attempting to separate WDS focus on membership
  and services
• Group members noted areas of agreement, partial
  agreement, and gaps on each side and
  documented rationale

General Findings
• Lists have similarities and differences
• DSA guidelines more concise; WDS has multi-
  part criteria
• DSA focus on data management, not
  organizational stability
• WDS certification includes membership in the
  WDS and certification of services, not in scope
  for the DSA
• Overall, working together has been great

Mapping Summary
• Shows mappings along with notes on level of the
  match (good match, partial, gap, etc.) for 17
  criteria
• Reconciles the two standards with suggested
  common language for requirements
• Assigns a concept to each common requirement,
  e.g., Discovery, Appraisal, Continuity of Access
• Assigns ISO/TRAC label(s): Organizational
  Infrastructure, Digital Object Management,
  Technology

From today meeting at RDA P4
• A detailed overview of the proposed matching
• The matching provides suggestions to improve the two
  frameworks (suggests improved wording, detects
  redundancies, suggests additional interesting aspects,
  etc)
• One very interesting point is to identify the type of
  activity of the candidate and to adjust required
  compliance level to the type of activity for some of the
  criteria (e.g., specific expertise and guidance required
  when data curation is performed) – i.e. check that the
  answers are globally adequate to the role
• Some membership criteria will remain different

Other collaboration tracks
• Bottom-up: common members!
• Expands the basis of DSA and WDS cf CDS
• Better aligned certification frameworks would
  facilitate cross-membership