WBConfCall 2019.04.18-Agenda and Minutes

From WormBaseWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search


Progress Report

  • Send to Paul by Monday

Help Desk

  • All issues have been addressed. Thank you!!!

NIH Trustworthy Data Repositories workshop

  • Chris attended last week (April 8th and 9th)
  • Focus on Core Trust Seal certification (https://www.coretrustseal.org/)
  • As FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) applies to data, TRUST (Transparency, Responsibility, User community, Sustainability, Technology) applies to data repositories
  • Core Trust Seal Basic Guidance
  • Core Trust Seal Extended Guidance
  • Slides reviewing the requirements
  • 16 (+1) requirements
    • Context (R0)
    • Organizational Infrastructure
      • (R1) Mission/Scope
      • (R2) Licenses
      • (R3) Continuity of access
      • (R4) Confidentiality/Ethics
      • (R5) Organizational infrastructure
        • "The repository has adequate funding and sufficient numbers of qualified staff managed through a clear system of governance to effectively carry out the mission."
      • (R6) Expert guidance
    • Digital Object Management
      • (R7) Data integrity and authenticity
        • Adequate tracking of data and metadata provenance and changes (deposited data vs. disseminated data)
      • (R8) Appraisal
        • "The repository accepts data and metadata based on defined criteria to ensure relevance and understandability for data users."
      • (R9) Documented storage procedures
      • (R10) Preservation plan
      • (R11) Data quality
      • (R12) Workflows
      • (R13) Data discovery and identification
      • (R14) Data reuse
      • (R15) Technical infrastructure
        • "The repository functions on well-supported operating systems and other core infrastructural software and is using hardware and software technologies appropriate to the services it provides to its Designated Community."
      • (R16) Security
  • Application process
    • Self assessment reviewed by two volunteer reviewers from Core Trust Seal reviewer pool
    • Self assessment (and subsequent review) applies a level-of-compliance score from 0-4 for each requirement
      • 0 : Not applicable
      • 1 : The repository has not considered this yet
      • 2 : The repository has a theoretical concept
      • 3 : The repository is in the implementation phase
      • 4 : The guideline has been fully implemented in the repository
    • Scores of 3 or 4 for each requirement in order to be accepted
  • Examples of accepted certification applications
  • UniProt just applied
    • Said it took 2-3 months calendar time (not full time effort; essentially only one person); already had most of the requested documentation
  • Costs
    • 1,000 Euros application fee; lasts three years
    • Covers 5 rounds of review (most accepted after 2 or 3 rounds of review)
  • Benefits?
  • May want for Alliance more than for WormBase at this point
  • NOT yet a requirement being imposed by funding agencies like the NIH/NHGRI
    • NIH and NIH program officers want input from repositories; is this a good idea?



  • Does Elixir require this (or other) certification?
  • Currently restricted to Europe
  • Could be a criteria for deciding if a repository is "core" or not

Alliance Grant application

  • Paul S will communicate with grant reviewers and send around feedback to group

Trustworthy Data Repositories workshop follow up

  • Chris will work out an organizational scheme to asses how much work is already done and how much more work would be required
  • Once we assess how much work is required, we will make a determination about committing to applying for certification
  • Consensus appears to be that this would be worth doing