Minutes (Version 0.1 of 2011-10-23 13:51)

Agenda:

1 Welcome, introduction, and purpose of the meeting: Towards a GEOSS Citation Standard and a GEO Label (9:00 - 9:30)

2 Summary of status of Activity 2.1: GEOSS Data Citation Standard (9:30 - 10:00)
Version 1.0; Comments from Reviewers; Comments from ExCOM. presentation .

3 Summary of status of Activity 2.2: GEO Label (10:00 - 10:30)
EGIDA, GEOViqua, ST-09-02. presentation

4 International discussion of Data Citation: a review (11:00 - 11:45)
ICSU CODATA; WRCP; ESIP; DataCite, Creative Commons, ... presentation

5 A review of labeling and certification (11:45 - 12:30)
presentation Plag ; presentation Bye presentation GEOVIGVA

6 Draft Version 2.0 of the GEOSS Data Citation Standard Version (14:00 - 15:00)

7 Linkage of GEO Label to Data Citation (15:00 - 15:30)

8 A GEO Label concept (15:30 - 16:00)

9 Implementation of a GEO Label: Selfassessment versus external assessment (16:30 - 17:30)

10 Schedule and actions (17:30 - 18:00)

Notes:

1 Welcome, introduction, and purpose of the meeting: Towards a GEOSS Citation Standard and a GEO Label (9:00 - 9:30)

Concerning the agenda, Joan Maso asked whether his presentation was included. Hans-Peter Plag confirmed that the presentation should be given under item 5.

Hans-Peter Plag reviewed the purpose of the meeting:

• Review the status of two main activities of ST-09-02, which also have a high priority for the STC. These activities are derived from the STC Road Map, which was endorsed by the GEO Plenary.
• Align these activities with other relevant initiatives inside and outside of GEO.
Make progress to tangible results this year.
• Agree on who is going to do what and when.

2 Summary of status of Activity 2.1: GEOSS Data Citation Standard (9:30 - 10:00)

Douglas Cripe commented on the interaction with the ExCom and emphasized that the ExCom needs to see documents in a timely manner. At the 22nd meeting, the ExCom had seen the draft for the first time. He pointed out that it is difficult to draw attention to specific parts in the document during the meeting. To the ExCom members, it was not sufficiently clear that all other alternatives were considered.

At STC-16 (September 12-13, 2011, Salzburg), the STC agreed to write a letter to the ExCom to clarify the situation. Stuart Marsh reported on the letter to be written. He pointed out that the next version of the Citation Standard need not be a version 2 but rather a summary of what is going on and how ST-09-02 has taken into account all on-going activities. This new version could be part of the STC report to the Plenary, or it could be a separate plenary paper. Douglas Cripe supported this approach. He cautioned to aim in the letter for more latitude to introduce the standard in the report, and he pointed out that if there is a document that is referenced in the report then it should be annexed to the report. Stuart Marsh clarified that Stuart Minchin is writing a statement on what data citation means. Douglas Cripe agreed that this could work if v2.0 of the standard is not part of the written report. The report should make a reference to the standard, and provide more details.

Hans-Peter Plag commented that the next version will include more details as part of the standard. The general opinion in those organizations working on data citation is that a standard should be tested as soon as possible because it is expected that a test would reveal issues not considered current. Stuart Marsh agreed on the importance of a test drive.

Douglas Cripe agreed to check what could, and could not be, asked of the Plenary. In any case, it would be good to present where the work stand. He has to check whether a test drive of the standard could be done.

Action Item ST2-M3-1: Douglas Cripe will check whether there is a possibility to do a "test drive" of the GEOSS Data Citation Standard and whether such a test drive would require authorization from the GEO Plenary. Responsible: Douglas Cripe, Deadline: 2011-10-20.

3 Summary of status of Activity 2.2: GEO Label (10:00 - 10:30)

Douglas Cripe expressed concerns about the coordination of Eurostars with GEOVIQUA and EGIDA. Hans-Peter Plag explained that both partners of both projects were members of the EuroStars proposal team, thus ensuring a high level of coordination between the projects.

In the ensuing discussion, Hans-Peter Plag referred to the GEO Committee meetings that took place in the previous three days, and he expressed his opinion that the future of GEO was rather unclear due to the fact that the current director was in a lame-duck situation and the future management structure for the GEO Works Plan was unclear. The possible situation of the proposed new structure not being accepted by the Plenary would leave GEO with weakened Committees, while, if the new structure was accepted, a lot of time would have to be spent on making this structure work.

Douglas Cripe responded to these comments and stated that the current Director should not be considered as a negative. He emphasized that the Work Plan contents were not under discussion and well defined.

Hans-Peter Plag added that the participation on the Committee meetings was extremely low and considered this as a possible indicator of a growing disengagement.

Stuart Marsh agreed that the numbers were low, and he confirmed that there had been a lot of discussion concerning the process of developing the new management structure, about the director, and GEO's future. However, his feeling was that organizations sometimes go through bumpy rides but come out well. He also emphasized that there were no issues with the Work Plan contents, but the issue could be how to manage the new Work Plan with the old structure, in case the new structure would not be accepted. Joan Maso agreed on the statements of principles for the new management. In his opinion, the new Boards should have open membership, not solely restricted to task leads. It was mentioned that the STC comments will be forwarded to the GEO Secretariat.

4 International discussion of Data Citation: a review (11:00 - 11:45)

In the discussion, there was consensus that the ESIP draft provides a good starting point for the development of V2.0. The issues identified by CODATA also should be considered.

5 A review of labeling and certification (11:45 - 12:30)

Joan Maso emphasized that the GEO Plenary will need a specific proposal. Hans-Peter Plag agreed to this but would like to see a position paper that could be made available for the 2012 Work Plan meeting.

Bente Lilja Bye gave an overview of other labels and the approach taken by going through a number of examples, see presentation .

Joan Maso summarized the approach taken by GeoViqua, see presentation . He showed several options for the graphical representation of the label. He introduced a questionnaire to be used to get feedback on various label options.

Veronica Guidetti commented that only the providers can do a quality report, while users can express their rating. Therefore, the GEO portal should have an environment allowing users to provide comments. She sees the need for someone from GEO to control/edit this. The label could be link to a certificate, which would lead to entering the commercial world. The label should also provide information on what data have been used for so far.

Ian McCallum suggested to do the first survey without introducing the graphical examples. Veronica Guidetti disagreed and stated that the survey should propose the graphics and ask for feedback on these.

Hans-Peter Plag pointed out that there are ISO standard relevant to data quality, and one aspect would be to ensure that data quality has been ensured and assessed consistent with these standards. He agreed that expressed user feedback would have to be part of the label, which should be designed to handle many responses.

Veronica Guidetti informed that ESA is compliant with relevant ISO Standards, but the picture gets more complex for higher level products.

Hans-Peter Plag commented that the GEO label has to be designed for far more than ESA and other space agencies and also cover in situ and airborne data.

Joan Maso stated that if one asks a user "Do you want quality?", one normally gets the answer "Yes," but users often do not understand how quality information is provided. He uses Enterprise Architect to construct use cases that illustrate the value of the GEO label under several assumptions. This software is free for GEO members. Hans-Peter Plag suggested that similar sketches should be developed for each of the goal alternatives he listed in his presentation, focused on GEOSS and with a global view.

6 Draft Version 2.0 of the GEOSS Data Citation Standard Version (14:00 - 15:00)

Mark Parsons was pleased to see that the V1.0 of the GEOSS Data Citation Standard adopted the ESIP guidelines and recommended that the next version would take into account the further development of these guidelines. He was extremely interested in the testing that would result from the implementation of the standard in GEOSS. He reported that he might get support for the development of tools from a NSF EGER project, and offered cooperation for the implementation in GEOSS.

7 Linkage of GEO Label to Data Citation (15:00 - 15:30)

Ian McCallum asked whether there was an intention to force people, who want to use a product to use the label. Hans-Peter Plag explained that using the label for citation could be part of the license, which could state that data are free, as long as they are cited correctly.

Bente Lilja Bye pointed out that there is an increasing request for the identification data sources. Therefore, the label needs to be a label that providers use, too, which would provide access to the source through the label.

There was consensus that the linkage needs to be explored in more depth in both direction. Bringing the two issues together might strengthen both, and an explicit linkage might also stimulate more data sharing.

8 A GEO Label concept (15:30 - 16:00)

9 Implementation of a GEO Label: Selfassessment versus external assessment (16:30 - 17:30)

Ian McCallum in basically agreed with ruling out the self-assessment option, but saw the need to discuss this with the STC because STC members might disagree. For him, user assessment would be an essential part of the label.

10 Schedule and actions (17:30 - 18:00)

• Draft: 7 October 2011
• To be send to ST-09-02, GEOViqua, EGIDA, QE4EO, ...
• Deadline for feedback: 1 November 2011

Action Item ST2-M3-2: Ian McCallum will compile a draft GEO label deliverable for EGIDA summarizing the work done so far and send this draft for review to EGIDA, GeoViqua, and ST-09-02. Responsible: Ian McCallum, Deadline: 2011-10-20.

Concerning the questionnaire, the following time line was agreed:

• Finalization of questionnaire: 14 October 2011
• Questionnaire published: 15 November
• Close of questionnaire on 20 December

Action Item ST2-M3-3: Joan Maso will report back to ST-09-02 on the development of the GEO label questionnaire. Responsible: Joan Maso, Deadline: 2011-10-20.

Minutes prepared by Hans-Peter Plag