Margaret O’Brien (SBC) and Don Henshaw (AND)

The Information Management Committee (IMC) meeting at Estes Park was attended by over 50 site information managers and guests, and as usual, was the event at which we mark progress. The IMC continued its dialog on its own governance, as well as its interactions in network and community processes and project development models which suit both IMC and network CI needs. Our product-oriented working groups have been very productive over the past year, yielding results that both further integrate information management into network science, and enhance site functionality. The “Units Dictionary” group plans to launch its web services in 2010, allowing sites either to retrieve measurement units or to implement the dictionary and registry locally. Parts of our “Controlled Vocabulary” are already in place for dynamic searches in the network data catalog, and activities are now centered on the relationship of an LTER vocabulary to other efforts concerned with keyword and vocabulary modeling. The GIS working group has developed recommendations for spatial data to be reviewed by the IMC, and was given a post-ASM meeting award to complete their Google maps application, “LTERmaps.” See the contributions from those groups elsewhere in this issue.

Two new working groups were also established at the ASM, both of which highlight site-functionality and network partnerships. The “EML Metrics” working group is a community-wide collaboration of information managers and ecoinformatics programmers spearheaded by the LTER. Its goal is to create metrics and reporting tools for EML datasets to assure integrity and quality for automated ingestion by systems such as the NIS. A second group, “Network Web Services,” will focus on the functionality of LNO databases and the exchange of content between central databases and sites’ IM systems - functionality which is a key part of the LNO operational plan. The web services group will make recommendations which directly benefit site activities, including population of local web sites from network databases, providing standardized content for EML metadata, and streamlined contributions from sites to the network.

Since the September ASM, IMExec has been busy conducting bi-monthly meetings via videoconferencing (VTC). These meetings have largely been devoted to planning IMC activities such as the monthly virtual water cooler sessions, considering future production workshop and training workshop possibilities, coordination of site activities, and most recently, reviewing the draft LTER Network Office (LNO) Operational Plan. Once accepted, the Operational Plan will govern activities at LNO for the next 6 years, including development of the Network Information System (NIS), and is highly relevant to site information management efforts.

IMExec has considered the coordination of cross-site activities should additional funding be provided to sites. Funding could be directed toward improving the quality and availability of EML metadata and data or improving network-wide standardization to facilitate increasing use of site data in synthesis projects. IMExec has outlined activities that might better enable dynamic loading of site data into Network architecture or promote standardization of data and conformance to best practices including:

• Improvements in completeness and accuracy of metadata
• Evaluation and improvement of linkages between metadata and data
• Evaluation and improvement of data quality
• Automating EML generation for new data types (e.g. GIS, non-tabular, or non-LTER data)
• Development of software tools or stylesheets to improve the usefulness of EML to LTER sites and end-users
• Adoption of emerging Network standards (e.g. keyword, attribute, or taxonomy vocabularies)
• Initiatives promoting or improving standardization and integration with LNO developments (e.g. refinement or expansion of current best practices for EML)
• Exploring dataset annotation with emerging semantic tools

There may be an advantage to co-development of approaches among sites and it is likely that workshops will be necessary to develop standardized approaches and best practices. The NIS Advisory Committee (NISAC) has proposed that taskforces of mostly LTER personnel be assembled to work out required standards and best practices, and efforts might be combined with IM production workshops or other synthesis working groups. IMExec will be discussing potential workshops to best prepare sites for participation in the NIS at the annual IMExec meeting in February. With this in mind we will be exploring necessary metrics for evaluating site EML and consider more advanced tools for validation of site data and metadata. We will also be examining the NIS framework and development timeline as outlined in the Operational Plan to help guide our future planning. This is a challenging, busy and exciting time for all site information managers and the IMExec Committee. The IMC co-chairs have been successful in sharing the workload and stay in close communication, and we look forward to upcoming workshops and new opportunities for improving and better integrating our site and network information systems.

Information Management Committee (IMC) Meeting September 2009

The discussion of governance focused on decisions made by and communications between committees and boards across the LTER organization framework. A figure developed by the IMC GWG over the last year was shown an aid to facilitate discussion. Some current roles and practices were discussed:

• LNO recommends when working groups or sites have needs for resources and implementation that they contact NISAC as a way to approach the EB.
• Some NIS modules are developed by sites, while some are a whole network effort (PASTA); NISAC could play a larger role in reviewing and coordinating this.
• We need to be aware as we move from informal to semi-formal to formal in our practices, the strengths inherent to the informal/semiformal and that exploring similarities and differences make for stronger products
• A critical mass of sites may be useful for vetting
• Science working group projects go through an approval process with the EB, while LNO holds funds for the IMC, but how are projects funded? For now projects may be funded outside the IM. It would be useful for IMexec to have an annual budget so they can plan accordingly.
• Form of affiliation for projects may be useful to have, each with its’ own criteria, a designation as to their relationship with LTER
  • LTER affiliated
  • LTER Endorsed

  and if part of LTER they have a designation as to their development when related to NIS, ie

  • NIS core, in production
  • NIS core, in development
  • NIS core, proposed
  • NIS module, in production
  • NIS module, in development
  • NIS module, proposed

The following link is to a diagram that was used as the basis for an initial discussion.

http://databits.lternet.edu/sites/databits.lternet.edu/files/IMC_gov.pdf

Please note that this diagram may be missing elements as the types of decisions and who makes them was not discussed in detail at the meeting or at any time by larger groups of information managers. However a need was identified to improve procedures for knowing who needs to be making decisions. Alternate models may need to be explored.

We focused on how IMC and IMexec interfaces with NISAC and the EB, as well as the LNO to facilitate and support progress on potential NIS modules, standards, and other projects related to IM. NISAC is well positioned to broker communication between IMexec and EB. The work of the controlled vocabulary working group was used as an example to explore not just who, but how decisions are made regarding the design, development, testing, support and adoption of IM or science driven CI “products”. Working groups that have an idea or design for a product should speak with NISAC early on to get people thinking about how products can be developed to fit within a coordinated CI LTER NIS framework. This correspondence can happen in the form of a short report including the current status of the effort, useful ways it may be implemented, and some technical specifications. NISAC can use this information to propose how such tools may be incorporated into other projects. It was recognized that we have moved from developing tools, standards, and best practices in informal ways, to using semi-formal consensus to advance efforts, and now may need more formal steps. During the design and development phase of any project NISAC may work closely with IMC, working groups, IMexec and LNO. At the point when resources are assigned from LNO a more formal process should be followed between NISAC and the EB.

We also discussed the partnership between IMC and LNO and how LNO resources are commonly available when LNO staff are serving as active participants and developers on working groups. In 2004, NISAC developed some requirements for potential NIS modules. It was recommended that this document should be revised. In addition, since 2004 network governance has changed so that EB now would now assign resources through LNO. This arrangement, however, means that technical proposals are not vetted through a group with the appropriate expertise. This procedure needs to be revised to handle proposals in a more informed way so the scope and ramifications of the project as well as its coordination with the larger network framework is taken into account. This may mean that in addition to the traditional flow of information from NISAC to EB that EB will ask for a review or advice from NISAC on issues relating to NIS and data. In addition there was wide agreement that potential NIS modules and other projects related to IM standards, protocols, best practices, and controls should address in written form a set of topics including but not limited to design, prototyping, testing, maintenance, update, site-level enactment, training, etc.

John Porter, VCR/LTER

During the one-day 2009 LTER Information Managers Meeting, there was a working session on the creation of a controlled vocabulary for use in providing a more consistent keywording for LTER documents. Past analyses had indicated that LTER were highly esoteric, with over half the keywords used only a single time (http://intranet.lternet.edu/archives/documents/Newsletters/DataBits/06sp...).

The working group presented a draft science keyword list derived using the following procedure:
Inigo San Gil and Duane Costa assembled list of LTER EML keywords from the LTER Metacat, that list was then cross-linked to the NBII Thesaurus (http://thesaurus.nbii.gov), the Global Change Master Directory (GCMD) keywords (http://globalchange.nasa.gov/Resources/valids/ ) and words recently used by Metacat searches. Based on ANSI/NISO Z39.19-2005 (Guidelines for the Construction, Format, and Management of Monolingual Controlled Vocabularies) standard, words on the list were changed to preferred forms and a list of synonyms created. Specific place names and taxonomic names were removed, because they can be handled more succinctly in other parts of EML documents, or in alternative keyword lists.

Keywords were then selected from the list based on two criteria. Any word that was used in the NBII and GCMD word lists was automatically included, and any word that was used by two or more different LTER sites was included. This draft list was then circulated to LTER Information Managers who suggested additions and deletions. A SurveyMonkey survey was used to get “votes” for or against specific words and changes were made to the list based on the results of the survey.

The final list has 640 keywords, with an additional 148 synonyms (including the non-preferred forms of words used in the list). Thirty-one percent (201) of the keywords were also found in the NBII Thesaurus and 21 words were found in the GCMD keyword list.

Following the report, discussions focused on several issues. The first was what steps needed to be taken to make the final list an “official” LTER list. The sense was that such a step needed to be taken by the LTER Executive Board (EB) and the working group was charged with preparing a proposal to the EB for adoption and on procedures for managing the list.

There was also substantial discussion of other efforts (e.g., SONET, Semtools) that might be leveraged. The group discussed the need to develop tools such as autocomplete keywording tools (similar to the one implemented by Duane Costa on the LTER Metacat to suggest search words) that could be deployed at sites to help in document creation, and semi-automated tools that could analyze document content and suggest words (i.e., semantic annotation).

Also discussed was leveraging the keyword list by creating hierarchical polytaxonomys which link keywords to more general concepts, and Barbara Benson reported on preliminary steps along these lines. Additionally, the group suggested that augmentation of the synonym list, so that a wider array of word-forms could be linked to the preferred list, was desirable. There was also discussion of some innovative ways the word list could be used, such as identifying “unfindable” datasets that had no keywords drawn from the preferred list.

Presentations and notes from the working group, along with the list can be found at: http://intranet.lternet.edu/im/node/489.

John Porter VCR/LTER

http://www.nature.com/news/specials/datasharing/index.html

In September 2009 the prestigious journal "Nature" published a special issue on data sharing that shows that ecology is not the only discipline to be addressing this topic.

For the opening editorial, the title tells it all: "Data's shameful neglect." The editorial makes the forceful point that "Research cannot flourish if data are not preserved and made accessible. All concerned must act accordingly." Ecology is not alone in having growing pains. The editor notes across science: "All but a handful of disciplines still lack the technical, institutional and cultural frameworks required to support such open data access." The editorial calls for funding support, and new roles for agencies and the scientific community in managing data. This will require new efforts to educate scientists - as the article concludes: "data management should be woven into every course in science, as one of the foundations of knowledge."

This is followed by a feature article on "Data sharing: Empty archives," which addresses the challenges that have confronted efforts to create archives of shared data. The article includes discussion of the new "DataOne" project being headed by Bill Michener.

The feature is then followed by two opinion pieces derived from international workshops on "Prepublication data sharing" which provides recommendations and a rationale for sharing data even prior to publication, and "Post-publication sharing of data and tools" which advocates creating a "research commons" to help overcome proprietary and licensing issues.

Thanks to Margaret O'Brien and James Brunt for bringing the issue to my attention.

Karen S. Baker (PAL/CCE)

P. Heidor and H.Tibbo, 2007. Identifying Best Practices and Skills for Workforce Development in Data Curation. American Society of Information Science and Technology ASIST (http://www.asis.org/Conferences/AM07/panels/41.html)

What’s in a name?

This good read allows us to consider the role of the information manager together with those of data curator and data repository director. A panel at the American Society of Information Science and Technology (ASIS&T) annual conference in 2007 explored a topic that represents an elaboration on one facet of the LTER information manager’s work with datasets supporting research activities, namely, the role of data curator of a data repository. As the emphasis on data access, integration, and interoperability continues to grow, so do expectations for those in the role of information manager. It seems useful to review the panel abstract as it represents an emergent awareness that informs standards-making, requirements-setting, and assessment-enabling efforts. The recent proposal preparation document reminds us that “One of the recognized strengths and pioneering aspects of the LTER network relates to information management and technology”. For LTER, the pioneers, in creating both a place and expectations for a new role, named this role ‘data management’. We might reflect upon how in the 21st century LTER broadened the data management role to that of information management while other communities are beginning to articulate the need for data curators. One might say, it’s all to do with the web-of-repositories (Baker and Yarmey, 2009; Baker and Millerand, in press).

Panel Abstract:

The nature of science and scholarship is being transformed by the ability to collect and integrate vast quantities of information. Some sciences such as ecology and environmental science are inherently integrative, requiring the combination of information of many types from many sources in order to answer more complex questions than previously possible. This new information and the information management tools designed to deal with this volume of data will help us make informed decisions that will impact human health and prosperity. To enable this cross-scale, interdisciplinary integration for the coming generations of scholars, data must be managed to facilitate interoperability, preservation, and sharing. We define this discipline of “data curation” as the practice of collection, annotation, conditioning and preservation of data for both current and future use. Government and industry have recognized both the opportunities and challenges and have called for improved data curation. Current data curation challenges can be grouped into two classes: underdeveloped data curation practice and shortages of skilled data curators. In this panel we will explore methods to maximize our opportunities and the impact of data on scholarly work. This discussion will be lead by panelists informed by government studies, successful practice and curriculum development projects. The primary questions to be addressed are: what are the required skills for data curation, who should learn these skills, how do these individuals fit into the social fabric of science and who pays for this new work?