Research Data Alliance Brokering Governance and Use Cases
Explore the governance and use cases of the Research Data Alliance, focusing on brokering governance led by organizations such as SAEON, DIRISA, and ICSU-WDS. Discover how these initiatives drive interoperability, community standards, and data sharing across various domains and disciplines.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
You are allowed to download the files provided on this website for personal or commercial use, subject to the condition that they are used lawfully. All files are the property of their respective owners.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
The RESEARCH DATA ALLIANCE WG: Brokering Governance Wim Hugo ICSU-WDS/ SAEON
Use Cases GEO BON Meta-data interoperability Input: ISO 19115, EML, NetCDF, SOS Output: Darwin Core, Darwin Core + ICSU-WDS Meta-data interoperability Input: ISO 19115, FGDC, EML, NetCDF, SOS, Dublin Core but needs to grow beyond Output: Darwin Core, Darwin Core + DIRISA/ SAEON Meta-data interoperability Input: ISO 19115, FGDC, DDI, EML, NetCDF, SOS, Dublin Core*, Darwin Core Output: DataCite +, Dublin Core, ISO 19115, Darwin Core + Data Service Interoperability WMS, KML, SOS, GeoRSS, NetCDF, Darwin Core +
Governance Use Cases: GEO BON Multiple global initiatives and infrastructures of which GEO BON is in part an aggregator Almost all government/ grant funded with an open source grounding Governance style: community-adopted standards TDWG, OGC Business model Free services Membership
Governance Use Cases: ICSU-WDS Membership-based participation Governance likely to be community-driven and not WDS-driven Governance style: community-adopted standards Across many domains and disciplines Can provide guidance but not substance Business model Member contributions in kind hosting brokering services
Governance Use Cases: SAEON/ DIRISA National participation Governance likely to be funder-driven Governance style: community-adopted standards Across many domains and disciplines Can provide guidance and recommend policies Business model Grant-funded and will involve a local brokering instance Brokering services free to government-funded researchers
Governance Use Cases: DIRISA/ SAEON Participation from government-funded research and initiatives Governance envisaged as RDA-style community engagement Community-adopted standards Across many domains and disciplines Can provide guidance but not substance Business model Membership on behalf of community Free services
What is required? Use Case Commonalities Machine-readable, automated engagement with a brokering service (SLA, contracting, ) Services to execute transactions (depends on business model) Services to provide provenance information and annotated citations PIDs for brokering actions
Considerations: SLA/ Transaction Output Licensing Options Input/ Source Options End User Status Execution Options Business Model Identifier Options Support Options
Use Case Variations End User Status Registered/ Not Registered Funded/ Not Funded Business Model Free/ Premium/ Pay per Use/ Membership Identifier Options Combinatory/ New PID Support Options None/ Best Effort/ Response Time Commitment Execution Options Provider/ Broker/ Client Input/ Source Options Output License Options Combination/ Computed
The RESEARCH DATA ALLIANCE IG: Brokering Wim Hugo ICSU-WDS/ SAEON Michael Diepenbroek - PANGAEA
Proposed New Working Group Brokering Framework Or Brokering and Mediation Registry
Diversity Familiar to All Multiple service protocols Multiple content standards for data and meta-data Multiple vocabularies and ontologies Multiple brokering approaches/technologies for mediation exist which are largely incompatible Project-driven limitations leads to lack of sustainability, loss of expertise, code, and infrastructure
Vision and Mission Vision To describe, develop, test, and implement a Brokering Framework that allows publication, discovery, and invocation of brokering and mediation components in a standardised manner. Mission Community consensus on the way in which brokering and mediation components are described, discovered, and invoked, based on real use cases Brokering Framework leading to a formal service and content standard. The formalisation of the standard is an external process and may involve participants in the working group, but is not a task for the working group; Demonstrating the value of the framework by developing, testing, and commissioning a reference implementation of a brokering and mediation registry.
Address the Need Define a description schema for services, vocabularies, ontologies, content standards, and mediation components that allow services and clients to be matched. Establish a prototype registry based on the above. Describe a collection of mediation components that can interoperate through well-defined existing interface specifications and applicable standards to support implementation of a universal mediation capability, and populate the registry with a base set of these. Define a test bed environment for testing interoperability of mediation alternatives leading to recommendations for application areas. The focus will be on meta-data and data brokering across data systems that address different disciplines and scopes.
Value Proposition: Common Implementation Architecture Cite Curate Bind Data Data Visualise Publish www Analysis Mediation www Process Meta- Data Meta-Data Assess/ Rate Discovery Find
Mediation Functions to be Supported Discovery and access including harvesting and synchronous distribution Content transformation for both meta-data and data Content enhancement and Linked Open Data enablement through vocabularies and ontologies Application to popular protocols and service definitions
Who are the End Users? RDI Implementations Portal Builders Data Centres/ Repositories Science Publishers Service Providers Ontology and Vocabulary Services
Methods Contributions from members in respect of current working components and use cases, through regular working group meetings. Such meetings will be held every 2 months, and aligned with RDA Plenary Meetings. In-kind development contributions. Provisionally, this will include work to be done by DIRISA.
Practical Outcomes Confirmation of the elements of a brokering framework: component description standard, registry specifications A community consensus, achieved via RDA working group efforts, to develop and publish a brokering and mediation component description standard that can be used as the basis of a registry of such components. Community consensus on the capabilities (service methods) of a registry: allowing discovery and description of a brokering and mediation component. A shortlist of important components that are currently operational will be obtained with community assistance, and populated in the registry. Testing the registry in the context of real-life applications
Work Plan: Main Tasks Confirm use cases and examples of brokering mediation, with a view to classifying them and developing a data model for description of components. Develop content and service standards for a registry of brokering and mediation components. Create and populate a registry of mediation options that allow components to be shared and improved. Create a test environment to examine existing and future capabilities. Test and evaluate. Consider governance of the registry and the test environment in collaboration with the Brokering Governance Working Group.
Existing Work ESSI Lab EarthCube OpenAire panFMP SAEON/ DIRISA
Some Practical Questions Open framework allows one or more implementations/ instances based on the framework. How do we describe a broker or mediator? Metadata Capabilities Software and Deployment Platform Do we need formal registries based on the framework? How do we match objects and brokers? Crowdsourcing? Do we need metrics/ qualification for brokers and mediators? Does our registry support services? Automated registration and editing Discovery/ Capabilities
Participants Michael Diepenbroek (PANGAEA) Wim Hugo (SAEON, WDS-SC) Stefano Nativi (ESSI Lab) Jay Pearlman (EarthCube) Paolo Manghi (OpenAIRE) Uwe Schindler (PANGAEA, Apache Software Foundation) Health Life Sciences Humanities including social sciences
