Category Archives: Data Sharing

Embargoing the Term “Embargoes” Indefinitely

I’m two months into a position that lends part of its time to overseeing Dash, a Data Publication platform for the University of California. On my first day I was told that a big priority for Dash was to build out an embargo feature. Coming to the California Digital Library (CDL) from PLOS, an OA publisher with an OA Data Policy, I couldn’t understand why I would be leading endeavors to embargo data and not open it up- so I met this embargo directive with apprehension.

I began to acquaint myself with the campuses and a couple of weeks ago while at UCSF I presented the prototype for what this “embargo” feature would look like and I questioned why researchers wanted to close data on an open data platform. This is where it gets fun.

“Our researchers really just want a feature to keep their data private while their associated paper is under peer review. We see this frequently when people submit to PLOS”.

Yes, I had contributed to my own conflict.

While I laughed about how I was previously the person at PLOS convincing UC researchers to make their data public- I recognized that this would be an easy issue to clarify. And here we are.

Embargoes imply a negative connotation in the open community and I ask that moving forward we do not use this phrase to talk about keeping data private until an associated manuscript has been accepted. Let us call this “Private for Peer Review” or “Timed Release”, with a “Peer Review URL” that is available for sharing data during the peer review process as Dryad does.

  • Embargoes imply that data are being held private for reasons other than the peer review process.
  • Embargoes are not appropriate if you have a funder, publisher, or other mandate to open up your data.
  • Embargoes are not appropriate for sensitive data, as these data should not be held in a public repository (embargoed) unless this were through a data access committee and the repository had proper security.
  • Embargoes are not appropriate for open Data Publications.

To embargo your data for longer than the peer review process (or for other reasons) is to shield your data from being used, built off of, or validated. This is contrary to “Open” as a strategy to further scientific findings and scholarly communications.

Dash is implementing features that will allow researchers to choose, in line with what we believe is reasonable for peer review and revisions, a publication date up to six months after submission. If researchers choose to use this feature, they will be given a Peer Review URL that can be shared to download the data until the data are public. It is important to note though that while the data may be private during this time, the DOI for the data and associated metadata will be public and should be used for citation. These features will be for the use of Peer Review; we do not believe that data should be held private for a period of time on an open data publication platform for other reasons.

Opening up data, publishing data, and giving credit to data are all important in emphasizing that data are a credible and necessary piece of scholarly work. Dash and other repositories will allow for data to be private through peer review (with the intent to have data be public and accessible in the close future). However, my hope is that as the data revolution evolves, incentives to open up data sooner will become apparent. The first step is to check our vocab and limit the use of the term “embargo” to cases where data are being held private without an open data intention.

Tagged , , ,

Describing the Research Process

We at UC3 are constantly developing new tools and resources to help researchers manage their data. However, while working on projects like our RDM guide for researchers, we’ve noticed that researchers, librarians, and people working in the broader digital curation space often talk about the research process in very different ways.

To help bridge this gap, we are conducting an informal survey to understand the terms researchers use when talking about the various stages of a research project.

If you are a researcher and can spare about 5 minutes, we would greatly appreciate it if you would click the link below to participate in our survey.

http://survey.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_a97IJAEMwR7ifRP

Thank you.

Data Publication: Sharing, Crediting, and Re-Using Research Data

In the most basic terms- Data Publishing is the process of making research data publicly available for re-use. But even in this simple statement there are many misconceptions about what Data Publications are and why they are necessary for the future of scholarly communications.

Let’s break down a commonly accepted definition of “research data publishing”. A Data Publication has three core features: 1 – data that are publicly accessible and are preserved for an indefinite amount of time, 2 – descriptive information about the data (metadata), and 3 –  a citation for the data (giving credit to the data). Why are these elements essential? These three features make research data reusable and reproducible- the goal of a Data Publication.

Data are publicly accessible and preserved indefinitely

There are many ways for researchers to make their data publicly available, be it within Supporting Information files of a journal article or within an institutional, field specific, or general repository. For a true Data Publication, data should be submitted to a stable repository that can ensure data will be available and stored for an indefinite amount of time. There are over a thousand repositories registered with re3data and many publishers have repository guides to help with field specific guidance. When data are not suitable for public deposition, i.e. when data contain sensitive information, data should still be stored in a preserved and compliant space. While this restriction is a more difficult hurdle to jump over in advocating for data publishing and data preservation, it is important to ensure these data are not violating ethical requirements,  nor are they locked up in a filing cabinet and eventually thrown out. Preservation of data is a necessity for the future.

Data are described (data have metadata)

Data without proper documentation or descriptive metadata are about as useful as research without data. If a Data Publication is a citable piece of scholarly work, it should contain information that it allow it to be a useful and valued piece of scholarly work. Documentation and metadata range from information regarding software used for analysis to who funded the work. While these examples serve separate purposes (one for re-use and the other for credit), it is important that all information about the creation of the dataset (who, where, how, related publications) are available.

Data are citable and credible

We’ve established that datasets are essential to research output and are an important piece of scholarly work- and they should receive the same benefits. Data need to have a persistent identifier (a stable link) that can be referenced. While many repositories use a DataCite DOI to fulfill this, some field-specific repositories use accession numbers (i.e. NCBI repositories) that can be referenced within a URL. This is one of the reasons data need to be available in a stable repository. It’s a bit difficult to reference and credit data that are on your hard drive!

If it’s so clear- why are there barriers?

Data publishing has become more widely accepted in the last ten years, with new standards from funders and publishers and a growth in stable repositories. However, there’s still work to be done and more questions to be answered before we reach mass adoption. Let’s start that conversation (you can be the questioner and I’ll be the advocate):

Organizing and submitting data are time intensive and in turn, costly

Trying to replicate a data set from scratch takes much more time (and money) than publishing your data (see robotics example here). Taking the time to search your old computer files or get in touch with your last institution to get your data is more complicated than publishing your data. Having your paper retracted because your data are called into question and you can’t share your data or don’t have it would take more time, money, and hit to your reputation than proactively publishing your datasets.

As an important side note: Data Publications do not need to be linked to a journal publication. While it may take extra time to submit a Data Publication in proper form, if used as an intermediate step in the research process you can reduce time later, get credit, and benefit the research community in the meantime.

What’s the incentive?

Credit. Next question?

But beyond credit for a citable piece of work, publishing data as a common practice will shift focus from publications being an end point in the research cycle to a starting point and this shift is crucial for transparency and reproducibility in published works. Incentives will become clear once Data Citations become common practice within the publisher and research community, and resources are available for researchers to know how (and have the time/funds) to submit Data Publications.

Too few resources for understanding Data Publishing

Many great papers have been posted and published in the last ten years about what a Data Publication is; however, less resources have been made available to the research community on how to integrate Data Publishing into the research life cycle and how to organize data to even be suitable for a Data Publication. Data Management Plans, courses on research data management, and pressure from various funder and publisher policies will help, but there’s a serious need for education on data planning/organization (including metadata and format requirements) as well as awareness of data publishing platforms and their benefits. This is a call to the community to release these materials and engage in the Research Data Management (RDM) community to get as many of these conversations going. The more resources, answers, and guidance that institutions can provide to researchers, the less the “it takes too much time and money” argument will arise, the easier it will be to achieve the incentive, and the further we will push the boundaries of transparency in scholarly communications.

There’s no better time than now to re-evaluate what resources are available for research output. If we strive for re-use and reproducibility of research data within the community, then now is the time to increase awareness and adoption of Data Publication.

For more information about research data organizations, machine actionable Data Management Plans, or Data Publication platforms, please utilize UC3 resources or get in touch at uc3@ucop.edu.

Ensuring access to critical research data

For the last two months, UC3 have been working with the teams at Data.gov, Data Refuge, Internet Archive, and Code For Science (creators of the Dat Project) to aggregate the government data.

Data that spans the globe

There are currently volunteers across the country working to discover and preserve publicly funded research, especially climate data, from being deleted or lost from the public record. The largest initiative is called Data Refuge and is led by librarians and scientists. They are holding events across the UC campuses and the US that you should attend and help out in person, and are organizing the library community to band together to curate the data and ensure it’s preserved and accessible.

Our initiative builds on this and is looking to build a corpus of government data and corresponding metadata.  We are focusing on public research data, especially those at risk of disappearing. The initiative was nicknamed “Svalbard” by Max Ogden of the Dat project, after the Svalbard Global Seed Vault in the Arctic.  As of today, our friends at Code for Science have released 38GB of metadata, over 30 million hashes and URLs of research data files.

The Svalbard Global Seed Vault in the Arctic

To aid in this effort

We have assembled the following metadata as part of the Code for Science’s Svalbard v1:

  • 2.7 million SHA-256 hashes for all downloadable resources linked from Data.gov, representing around 40TB of data
  • 29 million SHA-1 hashes of files archived by the Internet Archive and the Archive Team from federal websites and FTP servers, representing over 120TB of data
  • All metadata from Data.gov, about 2.1 million datasets
  • A list of ~750 .gov and .mil FTP servers

There are additional sources such as Archivers.Space, EDGI, Climate Mirror, Azimuth Data Backup that we are working adding metadata for in future releases.

Following the principles set forth by the librarians behind Data Refuge, we believe it’s important to establish a clear and trustworthy chain of custody for research datasets so that mirror copies can be trusted. With this project, we are working to curate metadata that includes strong cryptographic hashes of data files in addition to metadata that can be used to reproduce a download procedure from the originating host.

We are hoping the community can use this data in the following ways:

  • To independently verify that the mirroring processes that produced these hashes can be reproduced
  • To aid in developing new forms of redundant dataset distribution (such as peer to peer networks)
  • To seed additional web crawls or scraping efforts with additional dataset source URLs
  • To encourage other archiving efforts to publish their metadata in an easily accessible format
  • To cross reference data across archives, for deduplication or verification purposes

What about the data?

The metadata is great, but the initial release of 30 million hashes and urls is just part of our project. The actual content (how the hashes were derived) have also been downloaded.  They are stored at either the Internet Archive or on our California Digital Library servers.

The Dat Project carried out a Data.gov HTTP mirror (~40TB) and uploaded it to our servers at California Digital Library. We are working with them to access ~160TB of data in the future and have partnered with UC Riverside to offer longer term storage .

Download

You can download the metadata here using Dat Desktop or Dat CLI tool.  We are using the Dat Protocol for distribution so that we can publish new metadata releases efficiently while still keeping the old versions around. Dat provides a secure cryptographic ledger, similar in concept to a blockchain, that can verify integrity of updates.

Feedback

If you want to learn more about how CDL and the UC3 team is involved, contact us at uc3@ucop.edu or @UC3CDL. If you have suggestions or questions, you can join the Code for Science Community Chat.  And, if you are a technical user you can report issues or get involved at the Svalbard GitHub.

This is crossposted here: https://medium.com/@maxogden/project-svalbard-a-metadata-vault-for-research-data-7088239177ab#.f933mmts8

There’s a new Dash!

Dash: an open source, community approach to data publication

We have great news! Last week we refreshed our Dash data publication service.  For those of you who don’t know, Dash is an open source, community driven project that takes a unique approach to data publication and digital preservation.

Dash focuses on search, presentation, and discovery and delegates the responsibility for the data preservation function to the underlying repository with which it is integrated. It is a project based at the University of California Curation Center (UC3), a program at California Digital Library (CDL) that aims to develop interdisciplinary research data infrastructure.

Dash employs a multi-tenancy user interface; providing partners with extensive opportunities for local branding and customization, use of existing campus login credentials, and, importantly, offering the Dash service under a tenant-specific URL, an important consideration helping to drive adoption. We welcome collaborations with other organizations wishing to provide a simple, intuitive data publication service on top of more cumbersome legacy systems.

There are currently seven live instances of Dash: – UC BerkeleyUC IrvineUC MercedUC Office of the PresidentUC RiversideUC Santa CruzUC San FranciscoONEshare (in partnership with DataONE)

Architecture and Implementation

Dash is completely open source. Our code is made publicly available on GitHub (http://cdluc3.github.io/dash/). Dash is based on an underlying Ruby-on-Rails data publication platform called Stash. Stash encompasses three main functional components: Store, Harvest, and Share.

  • Store: The Store component is responsible for the selection of datasets; their description in terms of configurable metadata schemas, including specification of ORCID and Fundref identifiers for researcher and funder disambiguation; the assignment of DOIs for stable citation and retrieval; designation of an optional limited time embargo; and packaging and submission to the integrated repository
  • Harvest: The Harvest component is responsible for retrieval of descriptive metadata from that repository for inclusion into a Solr search index
  • Share: The Share component, based on GeoBlacklight, is responsible for the faceted search and browse interface

Dash Architecture Diagram

Individual dataset landing pages are formatted as an online version of a data paper, presenting all appropriate descriptive and administrative metadata in a form that can be downloaded as an individual PDF file, or as part of the complete dataset download package, incorporating all data files for all versions.

To facilitate flexible configuration and future enhancement, all support for the various external service providers and repository protocols are fully encapsulated into pluggable modules. Metadata modules are available for the DataCite and Dublin Core metadata schemas. Protocol modules are available for the SWORD 2.0 deposit protocol and the OAI-PMH and ResourceSync harvesting protocols. Authentication modules are available for InCommon/Shibboleth and Google/OAuth19 identity providers (IdPs). We welcome collaborations to develop additional modules for additional metadata schemas and repository protocols. Please email UC3 (uc3 at ucop dot edu) or visit GitHub (http://cdluc3.github.io/dash/) for more information.

Features of the newly refreshed Dash service

What are the new features on our refresh of the Dash services?  Take a look.

Feature Tech-focused User-focused Description
Open Source X All components open source, MIT licensed code (http://cdluc3.github.io/dash/)
Standards compliant X Dash integrates with any SWORD/OAI-PMH-compliant repository
Pluggable Framework X Inherent extensibility for supporting additional protocols and metadata schemas
Flexible metadata schemas X Support Datacite metadata schema out-of-the-box, but can be configured to support any schema
Innovation X Our modular framework will make new feature development easier and quicker
Mobile/responsive design X X Built mobile-first, from the ground up, for better user experience
Geolocation – Metadata X X For applicable research outputs, we have an easy to use way to capture location of your datasets
Persistent Identifers – ORCID X X Dash allows researchers to attach their ORCID, allowing them to track and get credit for their work
Persistent Identifers – DOIs X X Dash issues DOIs for all datasets, allowing researchers to track and get credit for their work
Persistent Identifers – Fundref X X Dash tracks funder information using FundRef, allowing researchers and funders to track their reasearch outputs
Login – Shibboleth /OAuth2 X X We offer easy single-sign with your campus credentials or Google account
Versioning X X Datasets can change. Dash offers a quick way for you to upload new versions of your datasets and offer a simple process for tracking updates
Accessibility X X The technology, design, and user workflows have all been built with accessibility in mind
Better user experience X Self-depositing made easy. Simple workflow, drag-and-drop upload, simple navigation, clean data publication pages, user dashboards
Geolocation – Search X With GeoBlacklight, we can offer search by location
Robust Search X Search by subject, filetype, keywords, campus, location, etc.
Discoverability X Indexing by search engines for Google, Bing, etc.
Build Relationships X Many datasets are related to publications or other data. Dash offers a quick way to describe these relationships
Supports Best Practices X Data publication can be confusing. But with Dash, you can trust Dash is following best practices
Data Metrics X See the reach of your datasets through usage and download metrics
Data Citations X Quick access to a well-formed citiation reference (with DOI) to every data publication. Easy for your peers to quickly grab
Open License X Dash supports open Creative Commons licensing for all data deposits; can be configured for other licenses
Lower Barrier to Entry X For those in a hurry, Dash offers a quick interface to self-deposit. Only three steps and few required fields
Support Data Reuse X Focus researchers on describing methods and explaining ways to reuse their datasets
Satisfies Data Availability Requirements X Many publishers and funders require researchers to make their data available. Dash is an readily accepted and easy way to comply

A little Dash history

The Dash project began as DataShare, a collaboration among UC3, the University of California San Francisco Library and Center for Knowledge Management, and the UCSF Clinical and Translational Science Institute (CTSI). CTSI is part of the Clinical and Translational Science Award program funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health. Dash version 2 developed by UC3 and partners with funding from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation (our funded proposal). Read more about the code, the project, and contributing to development on the Dash GitHub site.

A little Dash future

We will continue the development of the new Dash platform and will keep you posted. Next up: support for timed deposits and embargoes.  Stay tuned!

Tagged , ,

USING AMAZON S3 AND GLACIER FOR MERRITT- An Update

The integration of the Merritt repository with Amazon’s S3 and Glacier cloud storage services, previously described in an August 16 post on the Data Pub blog, is now mostly complete. The new Amazon storage supplements Merritt’s longstanding reliance on UC private cloud offerings at UCLA and UCSD. Content tagged for public access is now routed to S3 for primary storage, with automatic replication to UCSD and UCLA. Private content is routed first to UCSD, and then replicated to UCLA and Glacier. Content is served for retrieval from the primary storage location; in the unlikely event of a failure, Merritt automatically retries from secondary UCSD or UCLA storage. Glacier, which provides near-line storage with four hour retrieval latency, is not used to respond to user-initiated retrieval requests.

Content Type Primary Storage Secondary Storage Primary Retrieval Secondary Retrieval
Public S3 UCSD
UCLA
S3 UCSD
UCLA
Private UCSD UCLA
Glacier
UCSD UCLA

In preparation for this integration, all retrospective public content, over 1.1 million objects and 3 TB, was copied from UCSD to S3, a process that took about six days to complete. A similar move from UCSD to Glacier is now underway for the much larger corpus of private content, 1.5 million objects and 71 TB, which is expected to take about five weeks to complete.

The Merritt-Amazon integration enables more optimized internal workflows and increased levels of reliability and preservation assurance. It also holds the promise of lowering overall storage costs, and thus, the recharge price of Merritt for our campus customers.  Amazon has, for example, recently announced significant price reductions for S3 and Glacier storage capacity, although their transactional fees remain unchanged.  Once the long-term impact of S3 and Glacier pricing on Merritt costs is understood, CDL will be able to revise Merritt pricing appropriately.

CDL is also investigating the possible use of the Oracle archive cloud, as a lower-cost alternative, or supplement, to Glacier for dark archival content hosting.  While offering similar function to Glacier, including four hour retrieval latency, Oracle’s price point is about 1/4th of Glacier’s for storage capacity.

An RDM Model for Researchers: What we’ve learned

Thanks to everyone who gave feedback on our previous blog post describing our data management tool for researchers. We received a great deal of input related to our guide’s use of the term “data sharing” and our guide’s position in relation to other RDM tools as well as quite a few questions about what our guide will include as we develop it further.

As stated in our initial post, we’re building a tool to enable individual researchers to assess the maturity of their data management practices within an institutional or organizational context. To do this, we’ve taken the concept of RDM maturity from in existing tools like the Five Organizational Stages of Digital Preservation, the Scientific Data Management Capability Model, and the Capability Maturity Guide and placed it within a framework familiar to researchers, the research data lifecycle.

researchercmm_090916

A visualization of our guide as presented in our last blog post. An updated version, including changed made in response to reader feedback, is presented later in this post.

Data Sharing

The most immediate feedback we received was about the term “Data Sharing”. Several commenters pointed out the ambiguity of this term in the context of the research data life cycle. In the last iteration of our guide, we intended “Data Sharing” as a shorthand to describe activities related to the communication of data. Such activities may range from describing data in a traditional scholarly publication to depositing a dataset in a public repository or publishing a data paper. Because existing data sharing policies (e.g. PLOS, The Gates Foundation, and The Moore Foundation) refer specifically to the latter over the former, the term is clearly too imprecise for our guide.

Like “Data Sharing”, “Data Publication” is a popular term for describing activities surrounding the communication of data. Even more than “Sharing”, “Publication” relays our desire to advance practices that treat data as a first class research product. Unfortunately the term is simultaneously too precise and too ambiguous it to be useful in our guide. On one hand, the term “Data Publication” can refer specifically to a peer reviewed document that presents a dataset without offering any analysis or conclusion. While data papers may be a straightforward way of inserting datasets into the existing scholarly communication ecosystem, they represent a single point on the continuum of data management maturity. On the other hand, there is currently no clear consensus between researchers about what it means to “publish” data.

For now, we’ve given that portion of our guide the preliminary label of “Data Output”. As the development process proceeds, this row will include a full range of activities- from description of data in traditional scholarly publications (that may or may not include a data availability statement) to depositing data into public repositories and the publication of data papers.

Other Models and Guides

While we correctly identified that there are are range of rubrics, tools, and capability models with similar aims as our guide, we overstated that ours uniquely allows researchers to assess where they are and where they want to be in regards to data management. Several of the tools we cited in our initial post can be applied by researchers to measure the maturity of data management practices within a project or institutional context.

Below we’ve profiled four such tools and indicated how we believe our guide differs from each. In differentiating our guide, we do not mean to position it strictly as an alternative. Rather, we believe that our guide could be used in concert with these other tools.

Collaborative Assessment of Research Data Infrastructure and Objectives (CARDIO)

CARDIO is a benchmarking tool designed to be used by researchers, service providers, and coordinators for collaborative data management strategy development. Designed to be applied at a variety of levels, from entire institutions down to individual research projects, CARDIO enables its users to collaboratively assess data management requirements, activities, and capacities using an online interface. Users of CARDIO rate their data management infrastructure relative to a series of statements concerning their organization, technology, and resources. After completing CARDIO, users are given a comprehensive set of quantitative capability ratings as well as a series of practical recommendations for improvement.

Unlike CARDIO, our guide does not necessarily assume its users are in contact with data-related service providers at their institution. As we stated in our initial blog post, we intend to guide researchers to specialist knowledge without necessarily turning them into specialists. Therefore, we would consider a researcher making contact with their local data management, research IT, or library service providers for the first time as a positive application of our guide.

Community Capability Model Framework (CCMF)

The Community Capability Model Framework is designed to evaluate a community’s readiness to perform data intensive research. Intended to be used by researchers, institutions, and funders to assess current capabilities, identify areas requiring investment, and develop roadmaps for achieving a target state of readiness, the CCMF encompasses eight “capability factors” including openness, skills and training, research culture, and technical infrastructure. When used alongside the Capability Profile Template, the CCMF provides its users with a scorecard containing multiple quantitative scores related to each capability factor.   

Unlike the CCMF, our guide does not necessarily assume that its users should all be striving towards the same level of data management maturity. We recognize that data management practices may vary significantly between institutions or research areas and that what works for one researcher may not necessarily work for another. Therefore, we would consider researchers understanding the maturity of their data management practices within their local contexts to be a positive application of our guide.

Data Curation Profiles (DCP) and DMVitals

The Data Curation Profile toolkit is intended to address the needs of an individual researcher or research group with regards to the “primary” data used for a particular project. Taking the form of a structured interview between an information professional and a researcher, a DCP can allow an individual research group to consider their long-term data needs, enable an institution to coordinate their data management services, or facilitate research into broader topics in digital curation and preservation.

DMVitals is a tool designed to take information from a source like a Data Curation Profile and use it to systematically assess a researcher’s data management practices in direct comparison to institutional and domain standards. Using the DMVitals, a consultant matches a list of evaluated data management practices with responses from an interview and ranks the researcher’s current practices by their level of data management “sustainability.” The tool then generates customized and actionable recommendations, which a consultant then provides to the researcher as guidance to improve his or her data management practices.  

Unlike DMVitals, our guide does not calculate a quantitative rating to describe the maturity of data management practices. From a measurement perspective, the range of practice maturity may differ between the four stages of our guide (e.g. the “Project Planning” stage could have greater or fewer steps than the “Data Collection” stage), which would significantly complicate the interpretation of any quantitative ratings derived from our guide. We also recognize that data management practices are constantly evolving and likely dependent on disciplinary and institutional context. On the other hand, we also recognize the utility of quantitative ratings for benchmarking. Therefore, if, after assessing the maturity of their data management practices with our guide, a researcher chooses to apply a tool like DMVitals, we would consider that a positive application of our guide.

Our Model (Redux)

Perhaps the biggest takeaway from the response to our  last blog post is that it is very difficult to give detailed feedback on a guide that is mostly whitespace. Below is an updated mock-up, which describes a set of RDM practices along the continuum of data management maturity. At present, we are not aiming to illustrate a full range of data management practices. More simply, this mock-up is intended to show the types of practices that could be described by our guide once it is complete.

screen-shot-2016-11-08-at-11-37-35-am

An updated visualization of our guide based on reader feedback. At this stage, the example RDM practices are intended to be representative not comprehensive.

Project Planning

The “Project Planning” stage describes practices that occur prior to the start of data collection. Our examples are all centered around data management plans (DMPs), but other considerations at this stage could include training in data literacy, engagement with local RDM services, inclusion of “sharing” in project documentation (e.g. consent forms), and project pre-registration.

Data Collection

The “Data Collection” stage describes practices related to the acquisition, accumulation, measurement, or simulation of data. Our examples relate mostly to standards around file naming and structuring, but other considerations at this stage could include the protection of sensitive or restricted data, validation of data integrity, and specification of linked data.

Data Analysis

The “Data Analysis” stage describes practices that involve the inspection, modeling, cleaning, or transformation of data. Our examples mostly relate to documenting the analysis workflow, but other considerations at this stage could include the generation and annotation of code and the packaging of data within sharable files or formats.

Data Output

The “Data Output” stage describes practices that involve the communication of either the data itself of conclusions drawn from the data. Our examples are mostly related to the communication of data linked to scholarly publications, but other considerations at this stage could include journal and funder mandates around data sharing, the publication of data papers, and the long term preservation of data.

Next Steps

Now that we’ve solicited a round of feedback from the community that works on issues around research support, data management, and digital curation, our next step is to broaden our scope to include researchers.

Specifically we are looking for help with the following:

  • Do you find the divisions within our model useful? We’ve used the research data lifecycle as a framework because we believe it makes our tool user-friendly for researchers. At the same time, we also acknowledge that the lines separating planning, collection, analysis, and output can be quite blurry. We would be grateful to know if researchers or data management service providers find these divisions useful or overly constrained.
  • Should there be more discrete “steps” within our framework? Because we view data management maturity as a continuum, we have shied away from creating discrete steps within each division. We would be grateful to know how researchers or data management service providers view this approach, especially when compared to the more quantitative approach employed by CARDIO, the Capability Profile Template, and DMVitals.
  • What else should we put into our model? Researchers are faced with changing expectations and obligations in regards to data management. We want our model to reflect that. We also want our model to reflect the relationship between research data management and broader issues like openness and reproducibility. With that in mind, what other practices and considerations should or model include?
Tagged , , , , , ,

Who “owns” your data?

This post was originally published on the University of California Office of Scholarly Communication blog.

Which of these is true?

“The PI owns the data.”

“The university owns the data.”

“Nobody can own it; data isn’t copyrightable.”

You’ve probably heard somebody say at least one of these things — confidently. Maybe you’ve heard all of them. Maybe about the same dataset (but in that case, hopefully not from the same person). So who really owns research data? Well, the short answer is “it depends.”

A longer answer is that determining ownership (and whether there’s even anything to own) can be frustratingly complicated — and, even when obvious, ownership only determines some of what can be done with data. Other things like policies, contracts, and laws may dictate certain terms in circumstances where ownership isn’t relevant — or even augment or overrule an owner where it is. To avoid an unpleasant surprise about what you can or can’t do with your data, you’ll want to plan ahead and think beyond the simple question of ownership. Continue reading

UC3 to Explore Amazon S3 and Glacier Use for Merritt Storage

The UC Curation Center (UC3) has offered innovative digital content access and preservation services to the UC community for over six years through its Merritt repository.  Merritt was developed by UC3 to address unique needs for high-quality curation services at scale and a low price point.   Recently, UC3 started looking into Amazon’s S3 and Glacier cloud storage products as a way to address cost concerns, fine-tune reliability issues, increase service options, and keep pace with ever-increasing scale in the volume, variety, and velocity of new content contributions.

The current Merritt pricing model, in effect since July 1, 2015, is based on recovering the costs of storage use, currently totally over 73 TB contributed from all 10 UC campuses.  This content is now being replicated in UC private clouds supported by UCLA and UCSD.   Since the closure earlier this year of the UCOP data center, the computational processes underlying Merritt, along with all other CDL services, have been moved to virtual machines in the Amazon AWS cloud.  Collocating storage alongside this computational presence in AWS will provide increased data transfer throughput during Merritt deposit and retrieval.  In addition, the integration of online S3 with near-line Glacier storage offers opportunities to lower storage costs by moving archival materials with no expectation of direct end-user access to Glacier.  The cost for Glacier storage is about one quarter of that for S3, which is comparable with UCLA and UCSD pricing.  Of course, the additional dispersed replication of Merritt-managed data in AWS will also increase overall reliability and long-term preservation assurance.

The integration of S3 and Glacier will supplement Merritt’s existing use of UC storage.  Merritt’s storage function acts as a broker that automatically routes submitted content to the appropriate storage location based on its curatorially-defined access characteristics.  Once Amazon storage has been added to Merritt, content tagged for public access will be routed to S3 for primary storage, from which it will be automatically replicated to a UC cloud.  Retrieval requests for this content will be served from the S3 copy; should these requests fail (for example, if S3 is temporarily non-responsive), Merritt automatically retries from its secondary copy.

The path for content tagged for private access is somewhat different.  It is initially routed to S3 for temporary storage until the replication to a UC cloud completes.  The content is then moved into Glacier for permanent low-cost primary storage.  Retrieval requests will be served from the UC cloud.  In the unlikely event that this retrieval doesn’t success, there is no automatic retry from Glacier, since Glacier, while inexpensive for static storage, is costly for systematic retrieval.  UC3 staff can, however, intervene manually to retrieve from Glacier if it becomes necessary.  In the case of both public and private access, the digital content will continue to be managed with at least five copies spread across independent storage infrastructures and data centers.

The integration of Amazon S3 and Glacier into Merritt’s storage architecture will increase overall reliability and performance, while possibly leading to future reduction in costs.  Once the integration is complete, UC3 will monitor AWS storage usage and associated costs through the end of the current Merritt service year in June 30, 2017, to determine the impact on Merritt pricing.

Tagged , , ,

Dash Project Receives Funding!

We are happy to announce the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation has funded our project to improve the user interface and functionality of our Dash tool! You can read the full grant text at http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2mw6v93b.

More about Dash

Dash is a University of California project to create a platform that allows researchers to easily describe, deposit and share their research data publicly. Currently the Dash platform is connected to the UC3 Merritt Digital Repository; however, we have plans to make the platform compatible with other repositories using protocols during our Sloan-funded work. The Dash project is open-source; read more on our GitHub site. We encourage community discussion and contribution via GitHub Issues.

Currently there are five instances of the Dash tool available:

We plan to launch the new DataONE Dash instance in two weeks; this tool will replace the existing DataUp tool and allow anyone to deposit data into the DataONE infrastructure via the ONEShare repository using their Google credentials. Along with the release of DataONE Dash, we will release Dash 1.1 for the live sites listed above. There will be improvements to the user interface and experience.

The Newly Funded Sloan Project

Problem Statement

Researchers are not archiving and sharing their data in sustainable ways. Often data sharing involves using commercially owned solutions, posting data on personal websites, or submitting data alongside articles as supplemental material. A better option for data archiving is community repositories, which are owned and operated by trusted organizations (i.e., institutional or disciplinary repositories). Although disciplinary repositories are often known and used by researchers in the relevant field, institutional repositories are less well known as a place to archive and share data.

Why aren’t researchers using institutional repositories?

First, the repositories are often not set up for self-service operation by individual researchers who wish to deposit a single dataset without assistance. Second, many (or perhaps most) institutional repositories were created with publications in mind, rather than datasets, which may in part account for their less-than-ideal functionality. Third, user interfaces for the repositories are often poorly designed and do not take into account the user’s experience (or inexperience) and expectations. Because more of our activities are conducted on the Internet, we are exposed to many high-quality, commercial-grade user interfaces in the course of a workday. Correspondingly, researchers have expectations for clean, simple interfaces that can be learned quickly, with minimal need for contacting repository administrators.

Our Solution

We propose to address the three issues above with Dash, a well-designed, user friendly data curation platform that can be layered on top of existing community repositories. Rather than creating a new repository or rebuilding community repositories from the ground up, Dash will provide a way for organizations to allow self-service deposit of datasets via a simple, intuitive interface that is designed with individual researchers in mind. Researchers will be able to document, preserve, and publicly share their own data with minimal support required from repository staff, as well as be able to find, retrieve, and reuse data made available by others.

Three Phases of Work

  1. Requirements gathering: Before the design process begins, we will build requirements for researchers via interviews and surveys
  2. Design work: Based on surveys and interviews with researchers (Phase 1), we will develop requirements for a researcher-focused user interface that is visually appealing and easy to use.
  3. Technical work: Dash will be an added-value data sharing platform that integrates with any repository that supports community protocols (e.g., SWORD (Simple Web-service Offering Repository Deposit).

The dash is a critical component of any good ascii art. By reddit user Haleljacob

Tagged , , , , ,