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

Thu Jul 22 04:46:09 MDT 2010

Hello Karl, Balaji,

I'd like to second the "rather soon" request by Balaji. We have
completed our first test ingestion of some of the CMIP5 RCP experiment
output from MOHC and they are keen that we should be in a position to
publish it by the end of September. I don't think there would be any
problem in delaying official publication until final agreement of terms
of use in October, but it would be a pity to hold publication of this
data much beyond then. I also think it would be very good from a
political perspective to make the WCRP meeting responsible for the final
wording, if this is possible.

Regards,
Martin

-----Original Message-----
From: go-essp-tech-bounces at ucar.edu on behalf of V. Balaji
Sent: Thu 22/07/2010 02:27
To: Karl Taylor
Cc: Cinquini, Luca (3880); go-essp-tech at ucar.edu
Subject: Re: [Go-essp-tech] Access control for data with different QC
Level

Karl, this sounds fine. If the WGCM can stipulate that peer-reviewed
publications based on any data in the archive acknowledge and cite the
data source, then I think we can all live with some of the data
being cited without DOIs (thus rendering it "grey literature", to
use Bryan's terminology).

Do you think we can get the "terms of use" run by the WGCM leadership
rather soon (i.e before Exeter?)

Thanks,

Karl Taylor writes:

> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>

-- 

V. Balaji                               Office:  +1-609-452-6516
Head, Modeling Systems Group, GFDL      Home:    +1-212-253-6662
Princeton University                    Email: v.balaji at noaa.gov
_______________________________________________
GO-ESSP-TECH mailing list
GO-ESSP-TECH at ucar.edu
http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/go-essp-tech

-- 
Scanned by iCritical.