Page tree
Contents

Meeting details:

  • Date: 8 October 2014
  • Venue: Video/teleconference
  • Meeting started: 12:00PM
  • Meeting ended: 1:15 PM
  • Meeting Chair: Nigel Ward

Attendees:

  1. Dave Connell (AAD)
  2. Daniela Nastasie (UniSA)
  3. Jingbo Wang (NCI)
  4. Marianne Browne 
  5. Neil Godfrey (CDU)
  6. Nigel Ward (QUT)
  7. Siddeswara Guru (TERN)
  8. Adrian Burton (ANDS)
  9. Gerry Ryder (ANDS)
  10. Liz Woods (ANDS)
  11. Cel Pilapil (ANDS)

Apologies:

Anne Stevenson (CSIRO), Conal Tuohy (VeRSI), Gavan McCarthy (UNIMELB), Irina Bastrakova (GA), Peter Walsh (UTas), Steve Androulakis (Monash), Simon Porter (UNIMELB)

Agenda:

  1. Welcome - Nigel Ward
  2. Status of action items – Nigel Ward/ Cel Pilapil
  3. Discussion of RIF-CS change proposal and briefing papers (ANDS, RAB members)
  4. Other business - Nigel Ward/Adrian Burton
  5. Date and time of next meeting

 

D I S C U S S I O N :

A. Status of action items from previous meeting

No

Action

Responsible

Status/Comments

1

Re-write proposal to only include items 2 & 3

ANDS

Completed.  Updated paper available here > http://community.ands.org.au/viewtopic.php?f=151&t=3431

Discussion:

In the previous RAB meeting, the proposal to use the location element to support direct-download URL or the use of relatedInfo element to directly access the dataset using the related service was approved by RAB. A new paper to define what open access is and

2

ANDS to write a new paper around 'open access'’

ANDS

Completed.  Discussion paper available here > http://community.ands.org.au/viewtopic.php?f=151&t=3411

3

Get statistics or data re: usage of ‘isSupportedBy’ relation type  (collection-service relation) in Research Data Australia

ANDS

There are only 11 collections with related services and the relationship type is ‘isSupportedBy’. 

Discussion:

The relationship between these 11 collections and the related services are consistent with the current recommendation to use ‘isSupportedBy’ relationship to support the services over data proposal, which was approved by RAB in the previous meeting.

4

schedule the next meeting, if necessary

Cel, ANDS

Completed.  8th October at 12:00pm AEDT

 

 

B. RIF-CS Schema recommended changes:

1.     ‘open access’ definition and accessRights element vocabulary (discussed by Gerry Ryder)

This proposal aims to:

  • enable providers to better describe the ‘openness’ of the object being described
  • support the following facets:
    • License type:  eg CC-BY
    • Access rights: eg  Public or Conditional with qualification for Online or Offline access
  • From a schema perspective this proposal proposes:
    • Addition of the following accessRights type vocabulary terms (registryObject/collection/rights/accessRights@type)
      • onlinePublic
      • onlineConditional
      • offlinePublic
      • onlineConditional

Discussion:

  • Gerry presented to the RAB the proposed vocabulary representing the different aspects of ‘open access’
    • onlinePublic:  the digital collection can be freely accessed via the internet.  
    • onlineConditional:  access to the digital collection via the internet but with some conditions or restrictions.
    • offlinePublic: the collection is not available online but can be accessed without any condition – freely available offline.
    • offlineConditional: the collection is not available online and can be accessed with some conditions or restrictions
  • She then went on to point out that these vocabulary terms are suggested and not mandatory, thus, fully backwards compatible.
  • Nigel went around the table to ask each RAB member present to provide their comment on the proposal
  • Daniela raised her preference to use online and offline as separate attributes or properties.
  • Gerry then clarified that the intention was to be able to use the vocabulary terms to describe the states of the dataset being ‘open’ instead of rolling everything up into one element called ‘open access’.    This is also consistent with NISO’s approach to not use ‘open access’ but rather provide metadata to describe ‘open access’
  • Adrian then pointed out that the idea of ‘open access in support of or in the context of RIF-CS, is that you use attributes that clearly describes a factual metadata property such as format, licence or access regime.  He continued on by saying that having an ‘umbrella’ term would be more problematic in the future, hence, the proposed vocabulary terms.
  • Daniela still thought that separating online and offline would be a good option to describe ‘open access’.   ‘online’ and ‘offline’ can be an attribute of location element.  If a dataset is restricted by geographic situation, having these as attributes would be a lot useful.  Also, according to Daniela, this will be consistent with the use and definition of ‘open’ as provided by Horizon 2020 in the context of ‘open research data’.  When we say  ‘open’, it means the data is electronically available as ‘open’ and when we say ‘restricted’, it covers conditions such as embargoed, geographically restricted or offline.
  • Nigel then added that one question that would be probably helpful in either option is ‘How will these facets be used in RDA’.
  • Adrian then agreed that having ‘online’/’offline’ as a property of attribute or location element is acceptable and something ANDS can consider in its implementation, however, calling it or using ‘open’ and ‘restricted’ may be open to misinterpretation.  We can probably replaced ‘open’ with ‘public’ as the licence may have some restrictions such as non-commercial licence, etc.
  • Nigel reiterated that whether we use ‘open’ or ‘public’ there is still a need to clearly define what they mean.  Same goes for ‘online’, ‘offline’ and ‘restricted’. 
  • Neil then commented that although there are many variations to ‘open access’, the idea is to not make it complicated, especially to the users of Research Data Australia, to which Nigel also agreed.
  • Jingbo, on the other hand, said that the proposal seems to be compatible with what NCI aims to do.  What would be important for them is to know who accessed the data and be able to technically promote popular data.   It is also assumed that the licence element will be able to provide more information regarding any access conditions and that users will read it first before access to data is granted, similar to how a licence terms are accepted and agreed to when we use a software.
  • Hearing these comments from the members, Nigel suggested that:
    • ANDS, with the help of Daniela, draft another version of the paper to include Daniela’s proposal as option 2.
  • Marianne, who just joined the meeting, shared her thoughts about this proposal.  According to her, the location element is currently being used in different ways – we use it to record email address, the landing page, etc.   She asked where ‘online’ and ‘offline’ fit into the location element.  To her, from a practical point of view, a researcher should be able to tick the right button in RDA in order to search for the records he/she is after.  This should be clear and simple.
  • Daniela then clarified that we could add ‘online’ and ‘offline’ as a type in the location element.  accessRights will then be used to indicate ‘public’ and ‘restricted’.  The idea is that ‘open access’ should only be used for online, freely available datasets.  She said there is no issue using ‘public’ instead of ‘open’ if everyone thinks it is less contentious, however, we have to define and be very clear about what it means.
  • Gerry said she was happy to have two options in the proposal and let the RAB decide what option to implement.  Due to other commitment, Gerry had to leave the meeting at this point.
  • From ANDS point of view, Adrian was supportive of having the split options from Daniela reviewed and presented to the RAB.  ANDS can build a facet in RDA for whatever option RAB will agree on.

 Decision:  Further discussion required for this proposal

 Actions:

  • Draft a new version of the paper with the suggested proposal from Daniela– Gerry to work with Daniela on this
  • Clarify what terms to use and provide clear definition of those terms

2.     Addition of ‘gcmd’ subject type (discussed by Siddeswara Guru)

This proposal aims to:

  • Provide an option to use ‘gcmd’ as a subject  type and display that as a ‘gcmd’ instead of ‘local’
  • From a schema perspective this proposal proposes:
    • Add gcmd in the subject type vocabulary, schema structure not changed.

Discussion:

  • Guru presented the proposal to add ‘gcmd’ as new type in the subject element.
    • RDA’s only recognised vocabulary is ANZSRC (SEO or FOR); type = anzsrc-for or anzsrc-seo
    • Although users can add ‘GCMD’ as a type when adding a record, this always defaulted to ‘local’ when viewed in RDA.
    • GCMD is a widely-used  vocabulary, particularly by the earth sciences community.  It is a science discovery vocabulary by NASA. 
    • It is envisaged that it would be easier to find data if records are properly described
    • gmcd is an optional type to support related publication

 

Decision:  RAB endorsed this proposal.

C.    Other Business:  None.

D.    Date and time of next meeting:

  • Next meeting to be scheduled either on the 22nd, 23rd or 24th of October.  The week after that is eResearch.

Action:

  • Cel to send a doodle poll and send the meeting invite based on most members’ availability.

ACTIONS:

No

Action

Responsible

Status/Comments

1

Draft a new version of the paper with the suggested proposal from Daniela

Gerry/Daniela

 

2

Clarify what terms to use and provide clear definition of those terms

ANDS

 

3

Send a doodle poll and send the meeting invite based on most members’ availability.

Cel