What Scientists Want: The Final Chapter

Here it is — the final installment of the requirements we are submitting for the DCXL add-in  “Requirements” are the capabilities we want the proposed add-in to have, based on discussions with scientists and other stakeholders.  For more information, read my three previous posts (here, here, and here) and check out the new Requirements page for more details about each of the proposed the requirements.

Requirement 5:    Deposit into a repository

When folks here at CDL and over at Microsoft Research first started talking about this project, the overarching goal was to facilitate data archiving.  They had a vision of archiving data using a tool already familiar to scientists: Excel.  This requirement is all about archiving data for the long-term.  We want users of the add-in to essentially click a button and be able to submit their data to a data repository. This particular requirement has a lot of challenges associated with it, and the details are still very much in flux (see details on the Requirements tab of this site).  However at the root of the simple statement “Deposit into a repository” is the gist of this entire project: not only manage the data better, but share it so others now and well into the future can use it.

night deposit box at bank

Wouldn't it be great to have direct deposit for your data? From Flickr by Jim (jaytay)

Tagged , , , ,

2 thoughts on “What Scientists Want: The Final Chapter

  1. Ben Walther says:

    Here’s an issue that I recently encountered that might be worthy grist for this blog: A PI is hard at work on a large collaborative grant and comes up with a data management plan. Although the PI sends the plan to the collaborators multiple times for comment and input, absolutely nobody contributes and the poor PI is left to create it alone. How do we get everyone on board for creating the plan in the first place? Threats? Cookies? A fundamental shift in people’s opinions about DMPs?

    • cstrasser says:

      I think the fundamental shift about which you speak will happen when DMPs are an important component of the merit review. It’s tough to know when that shift will take place, but it would be terrible to have a proposal with a crappy DMP in the hopper when it occurs. So I suppose that counts as a threat?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: