[Go-essp-tech] Access control for data with different QC Level

[Karl Taylor]

Hi all,

We clearly need to get clarification/guidance from the modeling groups.  
I must say, however, that I'm guessing that the DOI assignment will 
cover data published  in 99% of the research articles.  The other 1% of 
the data is still of considerable research value (just as all the CMIP3 
data was valuable, even without DOI's).   This "other" data should *not* 
be excluded from research (and journal publication).  Given that there 
seem to be limits to what can be accommodated in the "replicated" subset 
(which is what is destined for DOI assignment), I see no reason to 
modify what I said earlier other than:

We should add a line to the terms of use that when data is used in a 
research publication, the user must follow the rules for citation and 
acknowledgment that will be found on our website.  One of these rules 
will be that if a DOI has been assigned to the data, then it must be cited.

We will have to get the modeling groups to agree to this, but, like 
Balaji, I think they will be in favor.

Best regards,
Karl

On 7/20/10 10:00 AM, V. Balaji wrote:
> Karl, I must disagree. I think the principle that the modeling centers
> deserve acknowledgment from users of the data in the form of a citation
> has to be a bedrock requirement, and I thought the WGCM leadership
> understood and agreed.
>
> I agree that the WGCM may not have a position on QC and versioning per
> se, but they are necessary steps for a robust citation system, as the
> Michael et al document shows. The WGCM must take a stand on citations.
> If they do the rest follows.
>
> I apologize if I am being hasty and misunderstood your remark, as
> I'm rushing off to the next damn thing... (It's one of those "one
> damn thing after another" days...)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Karl Taylor writes:
>
>    
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Hold the presses please!
>>
>> My understanding is that WGCM expects *all* output registered with ESG to be
>> made available to anyone who signs the terms of use, as soon as the output is
>> available (with perhaps a requirement that model documentation also be in
>> place).  There are no requirements for QC or replication placed on the
>> output.  [There aren't even any expectations that "versioning" be
>> implemented, although I think they will be pleased if it is.]  This is a
>> simple requirement, which should be easy for us to meet.
>>
>> It would, of course, be helpful for us to include information to users
>> concerning what QC checks have been performed, but that is not part of the
>> requirement, as I understand it.
>>
>> I'll try to respond in more detail later today.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Karl
>>
>> On 7/20/10 9:05 AM, Bryan Lawrence wrote:
>>      
>>> Hi Balaji
>>>
>>> On Tuesday 20 July 2010 16:39:26 V. Balaji wrote:
>>>
>>>        
>>>> Bryan, overall I agree with you both about the content of the tokens
>>>> and the machinery for delivering and using tokens.
>>>>
>>>> Small clarification, when you say
>>>>
>>>> Bryan Lawrence writes:
>>>>
>>>>          
>>>>> However, as it stands, we can't give a DOI to output which is not
>>>>> replicated, but people will need to use it. I *do* think it's ok to
>>>>> restrict this to modellers (despite Martin's point about what PCMDI
>>>>> are advertising). I think most of the non-modelling community will
>>>>> be happy with the replicated data ...
>>>>>
>>>>>            
>>>> Is "modellers" supposed to mean IPCC-WG1? I think so.
>>>>
>>>>          
>>> Yes!  Sorry, lazy language.
>>>
>>> Bryan
>>>
>>>        
>