Week 10
August 13, 2012: Last week of the internship
As I am preparing to make suggested changes to the DMPTool, the following are a list of the status of each of the changes I am planning to implement and this includes any issues that I have been running into
#1 This specific sentence on Part 1 of the NSF-Bio template may be confusing (according to 1 respondent)
- How will you capture or create the data? (This should cover content selection, instrumentation, technologies and approaches chosen, methods for naming, versioning, meeting user needs, etc, and should be sensitive to the location in which data capture is taking place.)
I want to directly address the respondent’s concern, because this is one of the only very concrete areas pointed out by the researchers who have completed the survey.ย The respondent said that this sentence may be interpreted differently by some researchers. He said that though the “instrumentation and technologies” are referring to hardware and software some of his colleagues may think of it as a type of thermometer.ย Similarly he argued that though the “methods for naming” may be referring to the conventions or standards in the fields, some of his colleagues may take that to mean the names that make the most sense to them. Though I see what he means with the naming argument, I do not agree with the instrumentation comment.ย I do think that the question is asking for the type of thermometer if in fact the researcher collects data using a thermometer.ย Correct?ย Regardless, this confusion indicates that this part of the tool/explanation isn’t quite clear.ย But I am not entirely sure about how to make it more clear…. suggestions?
#2-ย data standards and metadata standards information –> this is difficult and something I have been struggling with the entire internship.ย I always had a hunch that more information about data and metadata standards would be useful.ย But more links to website such as the Dublin core official website for example might just add to the chaos and clutter of the site rather than informing people.ย One of the respondents said that a chart of repositories and which standards/metadata standards they accept might be nice.ย Then we run into the problem of promoting certain repositories over others. Eek?!
#3- Overview of entire template–> This may be a simple fix.ย I realized that in the “funder requirements” section each of the templates has an RTF of the template.ย Maybe we could reproduce this RTF link on the first page of each of the templates?
#4- Community forum–> I agree that a community forum linked to the DMPTool might be beneficial.ย I am working on a wireframe of what this forum might look like and where it would link to the DMPTool
Comments welcome!
Thanks all!
So, once again, I think this challenge is between providing too much detail and not enough. Too much may have the effect of scaring somebody off, making them confused, bogging them down, or distracting them from what really matters. It might also have the effect of causing them to ask somebody (like a data management expert/librarian) for help. Alternately, not enough may make them think that the tool is pointless, that they know everything and have it covered, or that we just don’t know what we’re doing or much about the issues. There needs to be a really fine sweet spot that is the right balance, and a lot of it is in the delivery and communication.
#2 I think Databib and DataONE are both already there, but maybe it isn’t clear WHY they are there. Does there need to be description with them, or do they need to be referenced in the help text more clearly, instead of just linked in the resources?
#3 good idea
#4 I think the forum piece ought to be taken on by the community as we built out the DMPTool community following the governance model implementation. The conversation should be for the people, by the people, which also makes it less of a burden. There are likely some technical strategies to keep it flowing, like spotlighting new posts on the home page or via a Twitter feed or something like that. A means of repurposing content in places where it’s more visible and accessible, while then having it track back to the native environment (forum).
“…this should cover content selection, instrumentation, technologies and approaches chosen, methods for naming, versioning, meeting user needs, etc, and should be sensitive to the location in which data capture is taking place.”
never read this sentence but it definitely isn’t clear. “content selection” should be deleted. Instrumentation is fine. methods for naming, versioning, meeting user needs is a confusing phrase too. no idea what the last phrase is.
The main points:
Include details about where and when the data will be collected; what instruments will be used; how metadata will be captured during data collection; what software and/or hardware will be needed to collect the data; what samples will be collected and details about quantity, quality, and how the samples will be acquired; how samples, data, and datasets will be named, and how you will handle version control of your data and datasets.
#2: Databib and DataONE are good places to direct people for repositories. There is a wikipedia article on metadata standards. in general I would say to advise them to (1) contact a repo, (2) explain their project to a local librarian and get thelp, (3) ask a colleague in their field.
#3: that seems like a great shortcut to this problem. the outline in the bottom left is meant to be an overview, but this might meet the needs too.
#4: the only problem with forums is they need monitoring. Andrew, any ideas on who would take this on?
Great work Rachel!