James, Bryan,
I'll not add a comment inline as I'm getting lost. I will say that our vision
for the system as a whole involved a centralised discovery service serving
discovery metadata harvested from the data centres. The view and download
services would link directly back to the data centres (run from the data
centres themselves) serving data directly from them. I saw this system serving
the data to other outlets, whatever they may be, but never saw data from other
outlets being available via the NERC discovery portal.
........
Cheers,
Jonathan
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of James Doughty
Sent: 27 September 2010 11:55
To: Bryan Lawrence
Cc: [email protected]; Thorley, Mark R; Sam Pepler
Subject: Re: [ndg-technical] SIS Information Architecture - Business Processes
and People
Bryan
Likewise
James
On 27 September 2010 11:07, Bryan Lawrence
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi James
See inline.
> The main debating point is the 'centralised administrative function'.
> We all know that there is already a NERC Data Management Coordinator
> that has been in place for 7+ years. Perhaps what we're recognising
> is that this role is a key *people* component of the IA but given
> all the other 'pulls' on this role, the IA has not yet found the
> gravity to get more specific focus from this role. It was clear back
> in 2004 that the DMC needed support and this was accepted by NERC at
> that time. The NDG MSI spend some funds on improving the management
> information available from the DDS but I'm not sure whether this
> capability is being used to any great effect. There have been some
> issues in sorting out what is a real search on the DDS and what is a
> visit from our friends at Google. The NDG MSI recommended that
> marketing and communication should be funded and improved....
>
> We're suggesting that some sort of central help (not at DMC level) is
> likely to be necessary to do some/all of the above (and probably
> more) from a Single Face of NERC point of view. In order to do
> effective marketing and branding you have to know what's going on
> and what is planned.
I don't doubt we need governance, and more joined up working, but I
suspect what is being proposed is fighting battles from the last war.
What i see now is a relatively joined up response, and it certainly
needs ongoing governance - what I don't see is how a central *admin*
person for this activity will help. What will they do day to day?
It might be we agree on some tasks that need doing in a coordinated way,
but I don't yet understand your vision for this role. Is it really just
about marketing and branding?
> > But what is the reference number? Grant numbers wont apply to
> > everything, and there is *NO* number which covers what is done in
> > all centres ... but each data centre could and should be
> > reposnsible for project descriptions and a URI scheme.
>
> We know that there is no number that covers everything - some will
> have something others won't. There may be two or more numbers (Grant
> Number, Project Number...) or a number accompanied by a type.
Ok, this is different from what I had understood. I think this is ok ...
but better would be a URI to a project description, and the NERC data
centres should maintain those as well (it's patently obvious we need to
do it from existing experience, and it should join up with EOF).
I think we now agree on this but the devil may be in the detail - some RCs
definitely want to have searchable project codes in their discovery metadata.
> > > 2. Projects producing data should have the option of making their
> > > metadata (discovery *et al*) and data services available to the
> > > 'Single Face of NERC'.
Yes, but I think your answers below have me wondering what you really
mean.
The information is going to have to go *via* the data centres, even if
projects provide their own discovery documents (which is unlikely).
So we are saying that all data that appears via the Single Face of NERC can
only get their via a NERC Data Centre?
> > > - Those projects not wanting to make their metadata and
> > > services
> > > available to the 'single face of NERC' should provide a
> > > documented rationale
> > > behind this decision.
> > > - Those projects that do want to make their metadata and
> > > services available to the 'single face of NERC' should provide
> > > documented estimated
> > > timings, volumetrics etc to the administrative function
> > > supporting the 'single face of NERC'.
> >
> > timings of what? volumes of what? this has traditoinally involved
> > some investigation by data centre staff rather than expecting to
> > be told what we need ...
>
> Sticking with timings - we're referring to when components of the
> data (metadata, data services) are likely to become available to the
> 'Single Face of NERC' (not the Data Centres - that's their bag).
Can't see how they get to the "Single Face" except via the data centres.
What do you wman?
Is there an instance where data could appear via the Single Face of NERC
without going through a Data Centre? My guess is that you're going to say No.
Same question as above really.
> Inevitably this will have to involve Data Centre staff as the data
> will become available via the data centre. Whether its the Data
> Centre staff or the Data Providers (probably best to be the former)
> doing the communicating, we feel that there is a need for more
> central coordination.
Of what? Exactly?
Of information coming out of this process. By following the existing process,
discovery metadata and related data services could (in theory and practice)
just appear in the DDS (which is fine). My question is how would anyone know
that this had happened and if it's a particularly important service how can we
promote its recent (or predicted - hence timings) appearance. Once it has
appeared, what do we want to know about it - number of accesses, downloads,
citations? How will such information be communicated up, down and across to
demonstrate the value of the IA and the dataset? Do we care as once its there
its there? Do we want the community to recommend improvements? How many
accesses are there directly through the Data Centre as oppose to through the
Single Face of NERC? To me this role would be a resource to help answer some of
these questions (and many more) to support better investment decisions in the
future.
> > ... but there is no need to invoke a centralised admin function.
>
> A centralised function already exists, albeit not administrative, so
> it's not a massive leap so give that function some support (even if
> it were on a short/medium timescale) to bring this together working
> with the Data Centres (as recommended and accepted by NERC in 2004).
To do what? Exactly? I don't know what this function would be.
Perhaps the current DMC should be brought into this debate - I'm pretty sure
they aren't on this mailing list. I'm not going to second guess what all the
functions could be and certainly not in isolation. I've referred to a few above
and a few below - extrapolate that to 6 Data Centres and you might get at least
a part time role.
> > > 3. The point made in 2 infers that there is a need for human
> > > intervention as the decisions are likely to be subjective. Thus
> > > an administration role seems to be required that would oversee
> > > the population of the 'single face of NERC', they would also
> > > check that metadata is supplied as and when expected.
> >
> > Yes ... that would be business as usual if it were done by the data
> > centres, and I can't imagine any centralised solution that would
> > have the relevant expertise to do it.
>
> Ignoring the expertise side as I agree that there is no point in
> having an administrator who is a informatics expert. If you can
> demonstrate how the Single Face of NERC is going to promote its
> capabilities and requirements to the community it intends to serve
> (as recommended in the NDG MSI Final Report) via 6+ Data Centres
> without some sort of central coordination then great.
Not sure we are agreeing here at all. Maybe we need some centralised
informatics, maybe we don't, but I don't see what the admin role would
do.
OK - so what you're saying (if I understand this correctly) is that your
informatics experts are actually performing some administrative task in this
process - checking that metadata arrives when it should?; checking that the
information in the appropriate fields makes sense?; checking that url
references work?; checking that contact details are up to date? etc. Perhaps
there is some scope to take some of this administrative burden away from these
experts?
Bryan
---
Bryan Lawrence
Director of Environmental Archival and Associated Research
(NCAS/British Atmospheric Data Centre and NCEO/NERC NEODC)
STFC, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
Phone +44 1235 445012; Fax ... 5848;
Web: home.badc.rl.ac.uk/lawrence<http://home.badc.rl.ac.uk/lawrence>
--
James Doughty
Director
Diass Limited
07985 443973
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
--
This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC
is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents
of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless
it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to
NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system.
_______________________________________________
NDG-technical mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ncas.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/ndg-technical
