Difference between revisions of "WBConfCall 2019.04.18-Agenda and Minutes"
From WormBaseWiki
Jump to navigationJump to searchm |
m (→Minutes) |
||
| (19 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
= Agenda = | = Agenda = | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Progress Report == | ||
| + | * Send to Paul by Monday | ||
== Help Desk == | == Help Desk == | ||
| − | * | + | * All issues have been addressed. Thank you!!! |
== NIH Trustworthy Data Repositories workshop == | == NIH Trustworthy Data Repositories workshop == | ||
| Line 8: | Line 11: | ||
* Focus on Core Trust Seal certification (https://www.coretrustseal.org/) | * 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 | * As FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) applies to data, TRUST (Transparency, Responsibility, User community, Sustainability, Technology) applies to data repositories | ||
| + | * [https://www.coretrustseal.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Core_Trustworthy_Data_Repositories_Requirements_01_00.pdf Core Trust Seal Basic Guidance] | ||
| + | * [https://www.coretrustseal.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/20180629-CTS-Extended-Guidance-v1.1.pdf Core Trust Seal Extended Guidance] | ||
| + | * [https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1iLU19pahy_wk_v0tEByCohG9lzO9Q-6aQhMYjJ6-INI/edit?usp=sharing Slides reviewing the requirements] | ||
* 16 (+1) 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 | * Examples of accepted certification applications | ||
** [https://www.coretrustseal.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/wwPDB-CTS-Certification-2017-2019.pdf wwPDB] | ** [https://www.coretrustseal.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/wwPDB-CTS-Certification-2017-2019.pdf wwPDB] | ||
| Line 17: | Line 55: | ||
* Costs | * Costs | ||
** 1,000 Euros application fee; lasts three years | ** 1,000 Euros application fee; lasts three years | ||
| − | ** Covers | + | ** Covers 5 rounds of review (most accepted after 2 or 3 rounds of review) |
* Benefits? | * Benefits? | ||
** Potential discounts from Amazon or Google for having certification | ** Potential discounts from Amazon or Google for having certification | ||
| Line 27: | Line 65: | ||
** Improved documentation of plans and workflows | ** Improved documentation of plans and workflows | ||
** Improved transparency for our users | ** Improved transparency for our users | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
* May want for Alliance more than for WormBase at this point | * May want for Alliance more than for WormBase at this point | ||
* NOT yet a requirement being imposed by funding agencies like the NIH/NHGRI | * 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? | ||
= Minutes = | = Minutes = | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Elixir == | ||
| + | * 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 | ||
Latest revision as of 17:09, 18 April 2019
Contents
Agenda
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
- (R7) Data integrity and authenticity
- 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?
- Potential discounts from Amazon or Google for having certification
- STRIDES (Science and Technology Research Infrastructure for Discovery, Experimentation, and Sustainability) Initiative
- Will help researchers implement cloud services
- Already have Alliance as a test case
- Strength on future grant applications and/or renewals
- Collaborators may be more inclined to share data and/or resources
- Improved documentation of plans and workflows
- Improved transparency for our users
- Potential discounts from Amazon or Google for having certification
- 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?
Minutes
Elixir
- 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
