Part of International Data Week, Thursday 26 October 2023
Good afternoon or good evening depending where in the world you’re joining from online of course because we’ve got our online participants today too welcome to this session today which is all about mapping the landscape of digital research tools so this is a fairly new working group it’s been going for around
Seven months now but we’re really just starting to get into our next deliverable so it’s a really good time to host this session today the objectives of this session are that we would like to introduce you as newcomers to the work that has been done
So far and then we’re going to start a landscape review so we’re actually going to start the really exciting part of this group which is to map different types of tools to the research data life cycle and we’ll come to that and explain what that will look like
Shortly before I move on I just want to say um welcome to you all thank you for being here and also a huge thanks to the co-chairs um we have Adam vmore on online um Emanuel I don’t think can make it but we also have three of the
Co-chairs in person so I just want to shout you out if you can give them a a wave so in order we have Francis Crawley we have Rory mcneel and we have H Lim re so I think heim’s at the front and I think you might you might join a
Group I don’t know uh shortly but we’re all going to try to present today and share a bit about this group I should also just introduce myself so for those who don’t know me my name is Connie CLA I’m not a co-chair of this group but I’m
Actually a facilitator so that might be if you’re familiar with the RDA a bit of a New Concept for you and I’ll try to explain a bit about that shortly but I can also chat in the break if you want to know what my role is in more
Detail a few Logistics before we begin about this working group um so you might I don’t know if if some of you are members you might have received an email yesterday but uh I’ll also try to share a link to the slides and hopefully you’ll have access to the collaborative
Notes so let me know if you don’t have access shortly when you when you get access to these slides there are some important links here that might help you so we’ve got information about the working group we also have a shared Google folder where we store all of our documentation
And information about our deliverables that you can access um I’ve got a link to the collaborative notes um and I always show this in all of our working group sessions information about the research data alliances guiding principles the code of conduct um and also this guidance that we have on AI
Tool usage I won’t go into that now that’s just for your interest in information so I think we’re um in good time so um I’m just going through this welcome and housekeeping now so we’re we’re doing well then we’ll have very very short um lightning presentations
Just about about the group so we’ll take you through the background and description of the group The aims and objectives it’s quite a broad and ambitious topic uh so I’m sure you’ll have questions about it Fran uh and Rory will be delivering this um Rory will share a bit about the
Deliverables what we would like to achieve and what we’ve done so far and heing we’ll talk a bit about the working group progress and the next steps and then hopefully we’ll have quite an amount of time hopefully 40 minutes also to go into breakouts so you’re already
In your nice groups now and this is where you can start thinking about different types of tools and how we might map those to the research data life cycle there’ll be some time where you can report back so when we get to that breakout exercise and I’ll explain it in
More detail I’d like you to also think about the challenges that you face doing this is it an easy task um what can we consider as a working group going forward to make this easier for us to do and then we’ll wrap up at the end and hopefully you’ll have enjoyed the
Session but in the collaborative notes I just want to say we will also have we’ve got three questions at the end for feedback so we would like to also encourage you to go to that at the end and provide us feedback if you have any I also just want to very briefly mention
That this is like I say a facilitated working group and it’s quite different from others within the RDA so at the beginning of this year the research data Alliance entered into a public private partnership model you’ll see that I’ve linked the framework here and you can read more
About that online um and that really means that as part of the research data Reliance strategic plan we feel it’s important to not work in a silo but also to engage with the private sector so we have two working groups that are facilitated for the next 12 to 18 months
Um by Oracle for research just like with everything else associated with the RDA the outputs are created by the community for the community and they are owned by the RDA so they’re all openly available um at the end of the process the idea with this um collaboration with the private sector is
That it really gives the RDA an opportunity to inject Prof professional And Timely facilitation efforts to support this global volunteer effort we really appreciate that the RDA Community have other jobs they’re otherwise busy and they don’t always have the time to commit to interest groups and working
Groups so I hope that this facilitation does actually support some of that okay so I’m now going to hand over to Francis who’s going to talk to you a bit about the background and description of the working group thank you Francis thank you turn it
On okay thank you very much yeah good um thank you Connie thanks so much I I just want to start by saying I think on behalf of the co-chairs as well um really a warm welcome to everyone here and uh especially uh we have to begin I
Think with a really huge thank you to Connie because Connie is the one who put us on the rails and keeps us on the rails and keeps this group moving and really does a fantastic job in getting us going it’s I find it for myself a very challenging topic that we have not
An easy topic to deal with and uh I think you also see that when we’re in our groups today it won’t be easy so this is a way we have to find find together a way forward in this but I think it’s also something very worthwhile what we saw is that there’s a
Large amount of tools quite various tools out there that we use for managing and sharing data um in our research environments and so what we and as you can say it’s overwhelming and I think overwhelming is a good description of it here so we’re looking at the research
Data life cycle and we’re trying to categorize um different research tools based on their features their functionalities and how they inter operate so so we want to look at those and try to come up with some categorizations in that area and then we’ll try to use the tools and see how
The tools are used across life cycle or the tools that are used across life cycle are not always interoperable and it seems to lead to siloed working and inefficient data management and sharing so the aim of the working group is to categorize different types of research tools and map those research
Tools to different research data life cycles based on their features and functionalities it’s a huge sentence it’s a complex complex sentence there’s a lot going on in there and you’ll see too I think in the working group today that it’s not so easy so our objectives
Are the creation of a research data life cycle model and then a crosswalk to existing um data life cycle models and the identification categorization and mapping of different types of research tools and to in order to come up with a kind of categor categorization scheme so the creation of a preliminary structural
Framework for an online Open Access map of the digital research tool landscape I think what we’re coming to and you will help us to decide today but I think what we’re coming to understand is we’re not going to map all of the different digital tools that are out
There but we’re going to try to understand what the most important features are of them and how we can categorize them according to the um data research life cycle is that correct Connie thank you fris thanks very much I think I give to Rory now please thanks Francis hi morning everyone uh welcome
For me as well and uh this probably going to sound like like a broken record but I’m we’re going to embarrass Connie here I just like to say what Francis said about Connie being an amazing um leader I know you don’t like the word of
This group is is true and for those of you who haven’t been involved in working groups before they’re pretty different from interest groups because the working groups you actually have to do work so I hope everybody’s up for doing some work this morning but the good news about
This working group is it is very well organized and that’s thanks to Connie um yes yeah yes thank you that’s thank you very much it’s unnecessary thank you not necessary but well deserved um so yes so I’m going to talk briefly about the deliveries and uh and and and methodology so there’s
Three deliverables in this group and I realize some of you have already been involved and and thank you obviously for your ongoing contributions so far but for those who aren’t this is an overview and perhaps just a reminder for those who have been involved as well so the
First deliverable uh was the creation of a research data life cycle model and crosswalk to existing models so we looked at there were dozens hundreds of these life cycle models and everybody is familiar with them uh but we thought at the end of the day it would be useful to
Look at them and come up with one which is which otherwise we would have been um confused I think one which is which we can use as kind of a benchmark for ourselves and it’s certainly not Reinventing the wheel and it’s not rocket science it’ll be very familiar to
To most of them most of you but it uh it has um uh it has again familiar uh familiar phases so those are the phases that we’ve that we’ve Chosen and uh you can I think if you click on that you can see in some of the detail about
What how we characterized each of those phases next slide please so yeah what were the tasks associated with deliverable one um so how did we do it we conducted a landscape review as I said of of other life cycles um we tried to identify common stages of the uh of
Each phase um and then we supported each stage of the of the research life cycle with with terminology and the way we did this was exactly how we’re going to do it today you’ll see that we’re working groups and people uh kind of investigated what was out there and then
Came up with h with the model with a with a with the with the phases and the description for each phase so that’s where we we are at the moment so today we’re on working on deliverable 2 and we’ve had one other session where we started to kind of
Experimentally work on deliverable 2 so deliverable 2 is called identification categorization and mapping of different types of research tools for each phase so a categorization schema um so what’s a tool this is a Francis had a long definition so tools enable researchers to perform one or more operations
Typically on data and often with data as the output tools are usually intended for use by humans in this context we are explicitly excluding physical instruments so um again it’s it’s not specific tools we’re trying to look at but types of tools but to do that we’re looking at specific tools and then
Coming up with a typology so and what we’re trying to do is to describe categorize and map types of research tools to each phase in the life cycle and just before we move on MAR I just want to add that that uh definition of a tool might be um you know might feel
Different to different people we actually I should uh give an acknowledgement to the Global open research Commons uh interest and working group because that’s where that definition has actually come from so we’re trying to build upon that as well yeah maybe I’ll just make a brief
Comment on that I don’t know it’s really really unfortunate but as we speak there’s another session going on the global open research Commons Group which is they are just finishing their work and in fact they’ve uh the global open research Commons is a fantastic uh initiative and I if you don’t know about
It I recommend that you you can’t leave our session now but afterward where you try to find out what they’re doing they they’ve come up no one’s close the doors close the doors uh um uh they’ve come up with a model for a global open research Commons which has various elements and
One of the elements in the model is tools and services so what we’re doing now it hopefully will take forward build on but also take forward what they’ve come up with in terms of categorizing tools and services so the the two groups are linked yes so what so this is that was
Deliverable 2 what are the tasks associated with deliverable 2 identification categorization and mapping of different types of of research tools a Cate categorization schema so first to conduct a landscape this is what we’ll be doing today conduct a landscape review uh and look at different types of tools uh secondly
Describe categorize and map the different types of tools to each research life cycle uh and then thirdly to try to going Beyond a bit assess features functionality and interoperability of different types of research tools so that’s that’s where we are today and we’re there there I think uh
I’ve forgotten 10 or 11 phases and we’ve already done one phase so we’re going to try to to knock off I think four or five phases today uh and um so that’s we’re kind of at the early stage of this deliverable too and then the the third deliverable is a creation of a
Preliminary structural framework for an online Open Access map of the digital research to a landscape so to take what we’ve done and then to turn it into something a bit like what the global open research Commons group has done something which is both visually and uh
And and a Nar both a visual and a narrative form is is Meaningful um so it needs to be some of these we don’t know how this what form it’s going to take but this thing whatever it is that we come up with needs to be navigable uh it needs to be
Searchable uh it least it needs to be living and dynamic and allow for ongoing curation uh and we’re also going to provide some recommendations for for how that ongoing sustainability uh could be achieved so as you as you can probably appreciate a lot of work uh is coming up
Over the next um six six or so months um but yes I hope that doesn’t put you off joining the group it’s a very exciting time so yeah so where are so where are we um the as I said the landscape review deliverable one was completed in October
Um we’re now in um categorizing in in the second phase so as I’ve just described what we’re doing collecting examples describing the features uh and then we’ll uh go on to to map those to the different phases in the life cycle and that’s that’s really the work of the
Next couple of months which in many ways is the I think is the guts of what we’re doing so these few months are the really the key part of of whether we’re going to come up with something which is useful or not uh and then as I said
After that it’s a matter of of turning what we come up with into something which can be visualized and also also described in ways which are meaningful and understandable to people who weren’t involved in the uh in the process um yeah so that’s uh let me pass over thank
You very much heing thank you Rory hell everyone I thank you all of you for coming this early morning on especially Austrian holidays I been talking you through the two deliverables we’ve been working on recently the first one the first of these is the creation of a research data
Life cycle model with which we have connected to existing models much of this work has already been completed we have already conducted a landscape review to research and consult existing models which we then used to identify common actions Within These research data life cycles to integrate into our own life cycle model
Finally we developed proprietary terminology to support the definitions of each action within this model which we refer to as the stages of the model the second of these is to identify categorize and map different research tools with the aim of creating a categorization schema much of this work is ongoing with
Step one actually happening during today’s session much as with our first deliverable we’ll be starting with a landscape review to better understand the different types of research tools used this will be conducted by a workshop later in this session in November we will then seek to describe categorize
And map the application of these research tools within the novel research data life cycle model we we created in deliverable one finally we will then assess their features functionality and interoperability to generate a new categorization schema now I will hand you over to con who will be talking you through the breakout
Activity that we’ll be using to conduct this landscape review thank thank you helim so um you’ve been taken through a couple of times now on the working group uh updates and progress does anybody just before we move on to the breakout have any questions that they would like to
Ask we have uh about a minute or so if not we can maybe chat about it in the in the breakouts I’ll come around and you can ask anything okay so um inperson online the instructions for the next 40 minutes I see that you’ve already started to create groups which is great
We did say we wanted WR around three to five people but if your group is bigger it’s that’s also okay whatever you feel comfortable with um I’m going to come around the room and just make sure that you’ve all been allocated a stage of the research data life cycle so the
Co-chairs have identify five stages collect process analyze store and preserve and the idea is for the next 40 minutes for you to discuss and um you should have access through the collaborative notes to a Google sheet that we’ve set up I’ll come around and and make sure and hopefully the
Co-chairs can do the same make sure that you’ve got access to the collaborative notes so at least one person in the group will need a laptop and what we would like you to do is just discuss different types of tools that you think are relevant to that
Stage so for example if it was planning it might be data stewardship Wizard or DMP online or you know those kinds of tools that you might use uh for planning research so don’t worry if you don’t think it’s accurate or if it covers many stages or if you’re not sure if it’s a
Tool or if it’s disciplinary it doesn’t matter at this stage all we really want to do is collect information about the different tools so even if you think of the name of the tool and provide a link that would be really useful so I’ll just show you what the um Google gole sheet
Looks like so as you can see we’re asking you to provide the name of the tool a link of the tool if you know the name of the tool provider that would be useful what type of tool is this is it a repository is it an archive like you
Know we just try to describe these tools as best as you possibly can um if you can identify if it’s open or closed source that would be useful and then I think really I think it’s column F there tool C tool characteristics so we’re at
The stage where we don’t know yet how we might want to categorize or describe the features and functionalities at this stage so if there’s anything that you might want to note about that tool useful features why it’s important for that stage that’s where you can write it
In that box and I’m hoping Google Sheets is going to be useful because I know it can jump about a bit when everybody starts to use it so I’m hoping it’s going to be um clear so that’s that’s that does anybody have any questions about that
Activity okay I’ll take it as that’s all clear and I’ll come around but if you would like to get into groups any any groups that don’t have a stage um I will allocate you on shortly so off we go and I’ll make sure the online participants are also uh knowing what they’re doing
Okay e so the last point is possible f well hello yeah it worked okay everybody thank you so much um for participating in that exercise um if I can have your attention we’re now just going to report back so um if I can ask you to introduce
Yourself um as a reporter and um the stage of the research data life cycle you’re working on I think we’ll start with collect collect group collect who’s collect right I I’ll bring the mic down who’s reporting back hi my name is rammon uh we are the collect group and we got 45 entries
Roughly um they stretch from online surveys to to certain apis to web applications citizen science animal movement web scraping crowdsourcing and a few other types of categories um some are certainly really overlapping in terms of their um ways of working on what they seek to achieve
Let’s say survey tools but some are open some are proprietary and then there’s always a bit of a blend what these tools also do or these solution offerings provide in terms of just collecting data or whether they stretch into storing and analytical territories um so the boundaries aren’t
Clear um earlier we had a bit of a struggle which is just fine but just to call it out at this stage that the definition is useful but also somewhat limited and that um a tool that is not physical um can mean many different things and so is it just let’s say some
Sort of a mechanism that converts one signal into another signal or data or are we also talking about sources in a way um sources of data are these tools too uh and I don’t mean just repositories but there are many different sources that people would deem tools so that’s just something to be
Aware of at this stage I believe and um I guess anyone with certain domain knowledge and experience could just hop on and contribute to that list because it probably becomes quite useful thank you thank you very much anything to add anyone any questions for the collect
Group Connie I just wanted to say I didn’t think we I don’t think we budgeted for this um it was five EUR per tool we were going to give to the groups this is quite a few tools this is really nice this is very very helpful to us
Thank you very much yeah I hope we have the money at the end here I think you said you were going to pay Francis um Pro process process group thank you Tessa hi um so we first started with um debating what exactly is processing um because it can mean many
Things uh and then we went on uh thinking of um what um tool types we could have so not specific um tools themselves so we came up with electronic lab notebooks anonymization metadata uh data cleaning tools um and once we’ve gotten um some of those tool types we then went on by
Looking for specific um specific tools themselves um and some of the um the the comments that we had is that um very often they’re very discipline specific and we were missing somebody from the social sciences so that’s a gap that that we have there um but nevertheless
We thought that it was a very interesting exercise how it was how it was built up um and other than that that also institutes often have their own tools that they’re making and they’re often not very willing to share that uh with other institutes so that’s also something that we should take into
Account and I think those were the most important parts but um I leave it to my um other colleagues right yeah thank you so much Tessa and this group does anybody have any questions about the process tools or that report back just to say Connie I think it’s
Very important that we don’t miss the social sorry I don’t want to get hung up on definitions but the process and analyze sort of categories I wonder how you separate them or how to best think about them because sometimes you transform data and that’s an a straightforward thing sometimes you
Analyze it and Meanwhile your transform it of the pro processing and analyzing and missing data utation whatever it is that you do how do you separate them out maybe um to make that more clear so that sort of typology becomes a lot more useful um and tools often reach cross
Boundaries but what these boundaries are might be a useful exercise at some point absolutely and I think that maybe looking looking back on these tall examples might help us to refine those definitions and it’s probably going to be an iterative process going back to that first deliverable um over again but
Thank you so much Tessa and thank you for those comments over to the analyze group hey so um we had a lot of discussion and did not actually put down a single tool in the spreadsheet um because we had a lot of discussion about what analysis tools are um like the um
Like the previous group we we were kind of having a lot of discussion about the level of granularity and how you know different disciplines have very granular analysis tools that they use and whether you would be mapping those tools or whether you would just be saying GitHub
Is a repository for a ton of stuff um we also had a discussion about how some communities are less interested in free and open source Alternatives um some there is some commercial software that is extremely well suited to the needs of a specific community and there is a lot of
Dedicated support to to using those commercial uh tools and therefore there’s no interested in in fre open source Alternatives so just thinking about that level as well um and then uh Marcus and myself both mentioned mapping exercises that had already been undertaken um that can be used uh and
Maybe sorted through by this community uh of existing list of tools that we could maybe be populating the list um I think that was everything did I miss something thank you Lou and I think it was is it the J Rost and 101 Innovations 101 innovations that you’ve sent to me before
Those okay if you want to link them in there then we can definitely revisit them if that’s good thank you any questions about the an analysis stage or tools okay move on then so we’ve got two groups working on store we’ve got the inperson group first of all so we’ll go
To them and then we’ll go to those online so I don’t know who can report back from this group there on oh okay um so we discussed about first the meaning of storage what does that mean for us um and the different characteristics um for storage then uh
We shared our own tools and then we came up um with the idea on okay we have a lot of institutional stor Solutions but does it make sense to share them because normally they closed access only for the uh University or the um the Institute themselves um yes and then we discussed
About that and uh then we also listed some um uh repositories which are open or open Solutions uh for storage yeah yeah but we came up with the idea okay maybe for storage it’s closed access and uh it’s hard to have there so many tools thank you Daniela does anybody
Have any questions um about the storage report back could we please go to the um online participants so that they can share their report back on storage yeah Connie can you hear me yeah hello bear withs online we’re trying to show the screen so everybody can see
You hello hi Rich we can’t see you but we can hear you well I can soon turn me Telly on that’s okay just a second there you go hello everybody I think the problems oh yeah here we can see you and your cat Yep this is
Research cat Betty who likes to join in so we go okay uh I’ll just quickly share my screen because I think this is uh this is a quick way of showing what we’re doing uh so uh Adam and I sort of took the line about looking at generalized tools that can be applied
Into managing um managing data and then we highlighted a couple and there’s a load more to do here of um repositories so for example example Oracle open data repository uh Mandalay has another one and so on but also the other thing um we should ride on the back of the gawk working group
And have a look at what they’re doing in their tools and services and perhaps um make sure that we cross reference to them um as another strand another string to our bow if you like um and also not just consider in databases and data management Tools in that sense but graph
Tools so I put in the w3c web standards rdf graphing tools as as an area for example but there’s a lot to consider and I’ve we’ve just given ad I just put together some real basic examples but we can build on this thank you so much Rich
Um does anybody in the room have any questions for the online group yet James it’s not a question for the online group but also when we’re looking at storage most of the actual Hardware providers will have software layers on top of it which provide lots of tools to
Do it so I think um if we’re missing out the kind of the underlying hardware and the St and the the tools then we’re having a very partial picture of what we have in storage so for instance for most of our I mean essentially our file system storage tools based on the the
Old gpfs standard um but you have object storage tools and various things which are absolutely uh essential for this so I don’t know if they I don’t know if those are in scope uh for this exercise or not but it it look a bit odd for anyone from a kind of a hardware
Background to to not include them right I’ve made a note there thank you just just so that we consider it later on in the in the meetings all right yeah thanks so much rich thank you cheers to the to the final group um now um so this is on preserve yeah Andre thank
You so we went through and gathered a few tools but more importantly what we started talking about were um a couple things one we had a decent discussion about interoperability and how one how are we going to Define interoperability and we came up with basically three different ways these tools could be
Interoperable they can be interoperable within the stage do any of the preserved tools work well together can they be strung together with tools from other life cycle stages so uh I think R you were calling that horizontal and vertical in interoperability and then finally um are there other tools that
Are making interoperability possible like interop interoperability facilitation tools metadata mapping tools data exchange and integration tools and then the other point that we brought up that I believe collect also brought up is that so many organizations are making bespoke tools they may be pulling in things but maybe they’ve been
Doing it for such a long time that the standards and the um tools didn’t exist so they have something that’s been around for 25 years that has you know they’ve managed to make work for themselves and how do we um how do we make sure that that sort of work is
Being captured Within These categorizations thank you that’s really important and I don’t think that I have answer for that how we can capture that we’re just going to have to probably work with in the time we’ve got what we actually can access but I think that I’m really quite uh impressed with the
Amount of different tools and the feedback that we’ve received in this session so it’s it’s more than exceeded my expectations so I Echo francis’s comments at the beginning so thank you all very much for being so engaged especially at the last day of the plenary and after the bar hopping I’m
Very very impressed um I’m now going to be having two Ms maybe I should go back to the okay um so I just want to say thank you again for that exercise and I hope that you found it useful and maybe this working group is uh large ambitious and
Ambiguous so I hope it’s starting to try like seem logical to you now I think we’re going to start uh being able to work on these tools next and start to think about the characteristics and the interoperability and try to categorize them so that’s really great I just want
To um share some next steps with you and before we leave the room I’d also like you to think about providing some feedback on on the group as well so um the next steps will be we have our next working group meeting not too short actually away so it’s uh quite soon on
The Thursday the 9th of November so I’d like to encourage anybody here that is available and would like to join to participate in the group I think we’ll be discussing how we can really take on all of this information um and expand this landscape review to the additional
Stages that we’ve not yet visited maybe think about those definitions again um and how these tools span multiple stages um and how stages have uh the same the same tools I think we’ll we’ll have to struggle with that next we might well think about identification of criteria so that’s one
Of the ideas that this group has come up with so inclusion and exclusion criteria for different stages or different tools what makes that tool applicable to that particular stage and I really liked actually um The Preserve group’s ideas for those three different levels of interoperability and how we can look at
Tools um in that way so I have uh link to the working group web page in these slide so um on all of our uh on our web page all of our meetings are documented so you can always read the meeting notes um you can see the presentation slides and you can
Look at the deliverables so this actual um Google sheet will be available on there if you want to revisit that uh in the future so this is a plug really um as we start this work we would welcome you on board to help us with that exercise so I
Don’t know if you are RDA members already if you’re familiar with the process but it’s very easy obviously it’s free to join the RDA um and then from there you can join this group from the web page and if you want to ask me uh any questions about that uh feel free
To do so I don’t know why but I’ve noticed that all the bullet points here are numbered 111 in this presentation and I I really don’t know why I apologize I apologize for that I think we must have been really tired when putting these slides together and tired when reviewing
Them because I’ve not noticed so um um the coachers have actually put together three questions so for the remaining time for the remaining 10 minutes if you can go to the collaborative notes you can do this by adding your name or you can do it anonymously we would like you to just
Provide us a bit of feedback so what gaps um do you see in your scholarly work so I’m I’m sure you’re from different backgrounds um and different institutions and do different roles what gaps do you see in your work um that generally you think that this working
Group might be able to address so what do you think is useful um about what we’re trying to achieve and we’ve already got deliverables outlined but we’re always open to suggestions from the community and the group on how we might be able to tackle some of these issues so what
Methodologies or mechanisms do you think the working group could could use do you think what we’re proposing to do is feasible and um do you have any further ideas um and what do you think and we’ve said here principal outputs but I think what does a categorization schema look
Like because obviously we’re working in Google Sheets and we’re collecting all this information but what we would like to do is try to make this visually appealing and easy to navigate so I don’t know if you have any ideas for how you think this group could achieve that
So I think in the final sort of uh five minutes I just want to allow you some time for reflection um and if you can add notes uh into our document that would be really useful thank you and you’re also free to yeah ask any questions at this point too
Question thanks so much Connie so I just want to say as a co-chair and honey this session was great so thank you very much uh all them all is really good I think it’s really really good I was unsure about this I was unsure about breaking into groups and doing it this
Way Annie and Rory and aim and Adam but um they thought we should and I think they’re right and I think it was really really a good exercise also I think it was nice to do something different than sit in the room and listen to slides and
Every once in a while answer or ask a question or so I thought that was really great you’re all signed up you’re all members of our working group now we need you very much you have a lot of wisdom a lot of understanding a lot of experience in the
Room so please do what Connie say sign up and give us some feedback now and help us to to work better as we go forward so thank you thank you Francis does anybody else have any questions about um the working group and what we’ve proposed okay somebody somebody has
Something oh sh will you refer to the questions there or not yet no you can ask any questions now for for me the biggest challenge is really to spread the the knowledge about what tools are existing so and finding them so maybe the output could be something
Lively such as schema.org or so that you can really it it has to live because it changes every day the the landscape so it’s has to be something very Lively so Dynamic that’s the challenge for me but but but to your question for for myself as well for myself anyway let’s say um
There are so many tools out there and as you say every day there’s another thousand or something coming online so we it cannot be just a listing of tools you know according to collection or analysis or processing or something that’s an impossibility that’s not interesting nobody would be interesting
So so how can we let’s say create a kind of accessibility those those tools kind of categorization of those tools that does help people with their researches does help create the the access that we want I think that’s the question we have Rory let me just uh yeah I think thank
Thanks I can’t see who I answer asked the question but yeah I mean following on that point I think we have already a current example of that which is the gork the gork model which is being launched in the other room this morning and we’re already trying to continue
To take what they’ve done and to build on it a bit um so like the gorg model how is that going to be sustainable I think that’s I think these are complimentary and uh because that’s also a very Lively space so in thinking about what we what we whatever form of D
Dynamism and sustainability we come up with I think we should and the gork mod I think the gork is going to continue as an interest group we should include them in that discussion and there maybe the RDA can provide a different kind of a model we can come up
With a different kind of sustainability model that could be a contribution as well which is a little bit different from a list a little bit different from schema.org and involves the RDA being involved in the in the continuing evolution of these things I don’t have any specific uh constructs in mind but I
Think that would be something we should we might consider so I’d like to say that this meeting has really helped everything click into place for me which is good good but one thing to add we can be building upon the gork but also I now can see a path to
Build upon the research data framework um where we can take the categorizations that we’ve developed and map them into the topics and subtopics um within that and that would be uh fantastic um so I agree I agree because that was that was always is trying to
Find that was the intention of trying to see how we could build upon and by the way Andrea is from the National Institute of Standards and technology so Andrea is representing nist here today and is one of the members um so that’s that’s great to hear so let’s let’s try
To harness that now let’s try to build upon the N research data framework and the gawk work and any other existing maps that we have access to um but to yeah I’m glad it’s helped yeah I’m glad it’s helped um that’s wonderful we have five minutes left and I don’t want I’m
Probably in between you and coffee now but um we can we can W wrap up if there are no further questions thank you for leaving feedback thank you for your engagement um and again thank you all uh thanks to the co-chairs and the members that turn
Up every month and keep this group going I’m very very appreciative of that so enjoy the rest of the day thank you okay