Rediscovering EarthCube: Collaborate. Or collaborate not. There is no I
| Date | 08 August 2016 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/DLP-09-2015-0017 |
| Pages | 153-191 |
| Published date | 08 August 2016 |
| Author | Plato Smith II,Tanu Malik,Gary Berg-Cross |
| Subject Matter | Library & information science,Librarianship/library management,Library technology,Records management & preservation,Information repositories |
Rediscovering EarthCube:
Collaborate. Or collaborate not.
There is no I
Plato Smith II
Department of Research Data Services, University of New Mexico,
Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
Tanu Malik
University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA, and
Gary Berg-Cross
RDA US Advisory Committee, Washington, DC, USA
Abstract
Purpose – The EarthCube Technology and Architecture Committee working groups needed current
information on the development of existing EarthCube-funded projects (e.g. building blocks, conceptual
designs, and research coordination networks) to fulll the goals of the working groups (e.g. gap
analysis, use cases, standards bodies and testbed). The aims of this study include a compilation of
planned outcomes, an assessment of current work and an investigation of interests in research
collaboration among select EarthCube-funded projects.
Design/methodology/approach – Twenty-four principal investigators of 24 different EarthCube
projects completed the Funded Projects Questionnaire composed of 35 questions in March and April
2015.
Findings – The survey response rate was 100 per cent and included a diversity of results ranging from
planning stages to early development to nal development. The funded projects in this study received
awards in 2013 and 2014.
Research limitations/implications – The results are EarthCube-specic and are not generalizable.
Suggestions for future research include integration of crosscutting disciplines and perspectives, best
practices, guidelines and standards for broader impact.
Practical implications – This study identied potential collaboration opportunities, use cases and
gaps (e.g. unmet architectural, functional, operational, organizational and/or technical needs).
Social implications – The impact on society include an improved understanding of the various
EarthCube-funded projects and potential for collaboration within and across multiple disciplines.
Originality/value – This study contributed to the development of select outputs for
EarthCube-funded projects’ presentations, Tech Hands Meeting, 2015 All Hands Meeting, select
This study was made possible by contributions of the PIs, co-PIs and senior personnel of all of the
EarthCube (EC)-funded projects who participated in this study. Thanks to the EarthCube
Technology and Architecture Committee and Engagement Team, Jay Pearlman, Yolanda Gil,
Marjorie Chan, Basil Gomez, Ilya Zaslavsky, Phil Yang, Matty Mookerjee, the Gap Analysis
Working Group, Anna Kelbert, Emily Law, Mike Daniels, Janet Fredericks, Rachael Black and
Steve Diggs. Special thanks to Karl Benedict, Director of Research Data Services, and Laura Soito,
Physical Sciences Librarian, at the University of New Mexico.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2059-5816.htm
Rediscovering
EarthCube
153
Received 7 September 2015
Revised 11 November 2015
Accepted 12 November 2015
DigitalLibrary Perspectives
Vol.32 No. 3, 2016
pp.153-191
©Emerald Group Publishing Limited
2059-5816
DOI 10.1108/DLP-09-2015-0017
working groups’ outcomes and EarthCube Strategic Technology Plan and is of value to stakeholders,
scientists and users.
Keywords Research, Collaboration, Assessment, EarthCube, Funded projects, Geosciences
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
There is growing demand for scientists and researchers to develop data management
plans (DMPs) and research data management (RDM) workows that manage data over
the data’s life cycle (NSF, 2010;Tenopir et al., 2011). Academic institutions, research
organizations and stakeholders must develop campus-wide research data services
resources that assist scientists and researchers in meeting funding agencies’ DMP and
data sharing requirements. The National Science Foundation (NSF) DMP
Requirements[1] and the NSF Public Access Plan[2] supported by the Fair Access to
Science and Technology Act of 2015[3] inuenced by the 2013 White House Ofce of
Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) Memorandum[4] on “Increasing Access to the
Results of Federally Funded Scientic Research” are major examples of such
requirements. These evolving federal data management and sharing policies apply to
federally funded projects, including the NSF-funded EarthCube[5] project. The current
and planned software infrastructure development of some EarthCube building
block-funded projects seek to produce products that aid geoscientists in DMP planning,
data reproducibility and sharing within the geosciences and across disciplines such as
GeoSoft: Collaborative Open Source Software Sharing for Geosciences project and its
Ontosoft[6] software application; CINERGI: Community Inventory of EarthCube
Resources for Geoscience Interoperability; Enterprise Architecture for Transformative
Research and Collaboration; EC3: Challenges of Field Data Collection, Management and
Integration; and iSamples: The Internet Samples in the Earth Sciences.
EarthCube[7], Developing a Community-Driven Data Knowledge Environment for
the Geosciences, is an NSF-sponsored partnership between the Directorate of
Geosciences (GEO) and Directorate of Computer & Information Science & Engineering
(CISE). GEO includes the Divisions of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences, Earth
Sciences, Ocean Sciences and Polar Programs. CISE includes the Division of Advanced
Cyberinfrastructure. “EarthCube will enable geoscientists to address the challenges of
understanding and predicting a complex and evolving solid Earth, hydrosphere,
atmosphere, and space environment systems”[8]. As of May 2015, EarthCube includes
four main types of funded projects for developing cyberinfrastructure and research
practices for the geosciences: building blocks (BBs), conceptual designs (CDs), research
coordination networks (RCNs) and integrative activities (IA) (Gil et al., 2015). This study
explored BB-, CD- and RCN-funded projects from March to April 2015.
The EarthCube Technology Architecture Committee (TAC) developed working
groups[9] to gather current information on the developments and planned outcomes of
existing EarthCube-funded projects. The TAC Gap Analysis Working Group (TGA
WG) developed a preliminary framework and gap analysis model to contribute to such
efforts.
The primary goal of the TGA WG is to consolidate understanding about these
projects, especially the available interfaces, and document outputs and interactions that
projects have with each other as they progress. The working group, in its preliminary
DLP
32,3
154
discussions, has realized that principal investigators (PIs)/co-PIs and stakeholders for
funded projects often do not have the resources to make inter-project connections, and
so, the working group will serve as a coordinator for the funded projects, so that
transparent, accurate, reliable and timely information on the project deliverables,
outcomes, prototypes and websites is shared in a consistent manner. The focus of the
TGA WG is to improve the ow of information about funded projects (e.g. the way
information is presented, represented and shared across current and future funded
projects), understand how funded projects interact and identify gaps within, between
and across funded projects to promote an integrated implementation of the EarthCube
CD(s). This project contributed to information gathering and sharing:
RQ1. How can the assessment of funded projects contribute to increased research
collaborations, data management support and software infrastructure
development that aids geoscientists in effective and efcient data
reproducibility and sharing?
Denitions and key concepts relevant to the study
The TGA WG dened key concepts and created a model in which to conduct
preliminary work and prepare for future gap analysis. During the course of preliminary
work through working group meetings, observations of funded projects’ conference
presentations and review of outputs, the gap analysis group agreed on three broad,
high-level dimensions for the gap analysis. The gap analysis model (Figure 1)
conceptualizes an example of the three dimensions of gaps (features and functionality,
integration requirements and operational requirements) in practice within funded
projects and in theory within testbeds environments.
As the survey was aimed at identifying gaps, survey questions were organized along
areas of anticipated gaps. The gaps impede data integration, sharing and research
collaboration as represented in the absence of use cases, prototypes and testbeds in
which to develop capacities and infrastructure:
•EarthCube (EC): EarthCube[10] is a community-driven, 10-year initiative aimed at
transforming the conduct of geosciences research and education to develop the
cyber-infrastructure for the geosciences to better enable transformational science
within and across disciplines. EarthCube enables “fostering community-governed
efforts that develop a common cyberinfrastructure for the purpose of collecting,
accessing, analyzing, sharing, and visualizing all forms of data and related
resources, through the use of advanced technological and computational
capabilities”[11]:
Figure 1.
A model for gap
analysis
155
Rediscovering
EarthCube
To continue reading
Request your trial