by Brian McMahon » Mon Sep 02, 2013 10:01 am
Since the IUCr Executive Committee met formally very soon after the ECM28 meeting, at which an Open Forum session was held, it was felt useful to provide to the Executive a brief report on that meeting. The following summary was communicated:
An Open Forum meeting at ECM28 continued the process of public consultation that informs the activities of the Working Group. 15 people were present, including representatives of databases, commercial instrument manufacturers, software developers and practising structural scientists. After a brief report on the progress of the WG, new input was solicited.
Suggestions included the provision of a lightweight interface allowing a scientist easily to annotate data sets during the process of uploading to a storage service. There was a sense that a community-driven central storage facility would be attractive, but a central metadata registry coupled to distributed storage (possibly using commercial suppliers) was another potentially workable solution. An invitation to argue against the retention of raw data - in principle in perpetuity - raised no dissenting voices. Some discussion touched on an optimum target for realistic retention periods; it was pointed out that in practice this could vary according to national policies. There was also general approval for the idea of collecting data sets for structures that had proved impossible to solve, as a future resource to be exploited; but a sense that this should take a lower priority than securing data sets associated with published work.
Perhaps most surprisingly no one spoke against the posited statement regarding release of publicly funded data after a given time period, where no publication had resulted. This is a practice adopted by e.g. space science and astronomy, who use three years as the time period. Most interestingly this procedure is already adopted by the UK National Crystallography Service.
A more complete report will be posted also to the DDDWG public discussion forum.
Present at the Open Forum meeting were:
John Helliwell Manchester U.
[email protected]Simon Coles Southampton U.
[email protected]Colin Groom CCDC
[email protected]Pete Wood CCDC
[email protected]Loes Kroon-Batenburg Utrecht U.
[email protected]Brian McMahon IUCr
[email protected]Mitchell Guss Sydney U.
[email protected]Andrius Merkys Vilnius U. IBT
[email protected]Manfred Weiss HZB Berlin
[email protected]Herbert Bernstein Dowling College
[email protected]Frances Bernstein
[email protected]Rafael S. Nunes INESP
[email protected]Dale Tronrud Oregon State U.
[email protected]Naohiro Matsugaki KEK-PF
[email protected]Kimiko Hasegawa Rigaku Corp.
[email protected]Brian McMahon
Since the IUCr Executive Committee met formally very soon after the ECM28 meeting, at which an Open Forum session was held, it was felt useful to provide to the Executive a brief report on that meeting. The following summary was communicated:
[quote]An Open Forum meeting at ECM28 continued the process of public consultation that informs the activities of the Working Group. 15 people were present, including representatives of databases, commercial instrument manufacturers, software developers and practising structural scientists. After a brief report on the progress of the WG, new input was solicited.
Suggestions included the provision of a lightweight interface allowing a scientist easily to annotate data sets during the process of uploading to a storage service. There was a sense that a community-driven central storage facility would be attractive, but a central metadata registry coupled to distributed storage (possibly using commercial suppliers) was another potentially workable solution. An invitation to argue against the retention of raw data - in principle in perpetuity - raised no dissenting voices. Some discussion touched on an optimum target for realistic retention periods; it was pointed out that in practice this could vary according to national policies. There was also general approval for the idea of collecting data sets for structures that had proved impossible to solve, as a future resource to be exploited; but a sense that this should take a lower priority than securing data sets associated with published work.
Perhaps most surprisingly no one spoke against the posited statement regarding release of publicly funded data after a given time period, where no publication had resulted. This is a practice adopted by [i]e.g.[/i] space science and astronomy, who use three years as the time period. Most interestingly this procedure is already adopted by the UK National Crystallography Service.[/quote]
A more complete report will be posted also to the DDDWG public discussion forum.
Present at the Open Forum meeting were:
John Helliwell Manchester U.
[email protected]Simon Coles Southampton U.
[email protected]Colin Groom CCDC
[email protected]Pete Wood CCDC
[email protected]Loes Kroon-Batenburg Utrecht U.
[email protected]Brian McMahon IUCr
[email protected]Mitchell Guss Sydney U.
[email protected]Andrius Merkys Vilnius U. IBT
[email protected]Manfred Weiss HZB Berlin
[email protected]Herbert Bernstein Dowling College
[email protected]Frances Bernstein
[email protected]Rafael S. Nunes INESP
[email protected]Dale Tronrud Oregon State U.
[email protected]Naohiro Matsugaki KEK-PF
[email protected]Kimiko Hasegawa Rigaku Corp.
[email protected]Brian McMahon
