ET ACDM 2023 4 - wmo-im/et-acdm GitHub Wiki

Date and Time

13 July 2023 12:00-13:30 UTC (14:00-15:30 Geneva time)

Venue

Telecon

Draft Agenda

  1. Approval of agenda and minutes of ET ACDM 2023 3 · wmo-im/et-acdm Wiki (github.com) meetings (5')

  2. GAW updates from Secretariat (SM, 5')

  3. Specific requirements on GAWSIS in future (jkl, 5')

  4. Follow-up on https://copdess.org/enabling-fair-data-project/ (MF, 10')

  5. Work Plan for 2023 in support of current GAW IP (40')

  6. Implementation of topic hierarchy for WIS2 (10')

  7. Next meetings and other business (10')

Minutes

Attendance: Jörg Klausen (JK), Jeannette Wild (JW), Ellsworth Judd Welton (EJW), Markus Fiebig (MF), Teruo Kawasaki (TK), Debra Kollonige (DK), Gao Chen (GC), Sergi Moreno (SM).

1. Approval of agenda and minutes of previous meeting meeting

Agenda has been approved, TK commented WDCGG agree to have unrestricted access to data, however data providers asked them for requirements (need of log in) to access to their data. They were planning to survey the data providers about these requirements.

MF: Many times data providers don’t subscribe company policies, and they think the data belong to them and this is the reason to ask for the login requirements.

2. GAW updates from Secretariat

WDC-RSAT sent feedback about their activities to the Chair/Secretariat. They have shown a fair amount of available data. A nominated person attending the meeting would be needed. They could play an important role to compare co-located data, retrieved from satellites and surface observations.

3. GAWSIS requirements to be included in OSCAR next generation

GAW requirements have been received by the OSCAR developers without major objections. Only further discussions need to take place about the data pull/push mechanism: Markus Fiebig, Jörg Klausen and Tom Kralidis to follow up on that.

4. Follow-up on https://copdess.org/enabling-fair-data-project/

Presentation and discussion on F.A.I.R.ness: - https://github.com/wmo-im/et-acdm/wiki/F.A.I.R.ness

MF: Implications: identification of data, pre-products, humans, software. Provenance is documented. ePIC are more configurable, less formal than DOI. ACTRIS is going to use ePIC to identify instruments, schema pidinst.

JK: how is related to wigos metadata?

MF: haven’t had the time to compare them yet. But pidinst allows to have hierarchy of instruments.

JK: Many different schemas, we just found out about this pidinst, and it shows a lack of communication ACTRIS-WMO.

EJW: pidinst was for software, but now you mention for instrument. Can we have algorithm code/instrument code together?

MF: they are separated. For researchers ORCID, for organisations ROR.

EJW: Are identifiers generic or specific to a project or python script?

MF: identifiers are as specific as to identify an individual instrument.

JK: OGG format standard as a baseline for describing observations? If ACTRIS marches ahead, how coordinates with WMO?

MF: ACTRIS asked for a working infrastructure in 3-5 yrs, very difficult to coordinate everything with WMO in that timeframe.

JW: who governs ROR? To which of the services WMO need to apply? They are stable services and we don’t need to organise them. However governance needs to be understood.

GC: we need resources.

JK: how are you going to be sure these entities are going to be stable? Is ACTRIS part of the governance?

MF: Strong interconnection at EU level. European science cloud. ENRI. They are stable, the have been established for a long term, and they are recommended by high level institutions. So many things going on that WMO could not be part of all the initiatives.

MF: F-UJI automated FAIR Data Assessment tool. However if data is not accessible that tool can’t continue, ACTRIS FIP: questionnaire about data fairness. Action proposed: ACTRIS FIP wizard and create a profile for the WDCs and check the fairness.

EJW: that wizard can work for data centres but difficult for big organisations.

MF: one for CloudNET, one for Galion, one for EBAS.

JK: for Judd the scope would be MPLNET.

EJW: I doubt some of the WDC have the tools to become FAIR at this moment.

GC: it should be assessed for data repository not for the whole centre.

JK: asked the participants if they were happy to follow the FIP-wizard and TK, EJW and DK thought they were not going to fulfil the requirements or their networks are too complex.

GC showed there could be interpretation issues: what is domain? As an example.

https://fip-wizard.ds-wizard.org/

JK: believe we should try that FIP. It takes 30-45 mins.

MF: using the same resources to evaluate our services would be very useful to achive our objectives.

Next meeting: workplan, individual WP. Close the discussion about topic hierarchy, please comment on that. Wiki page to be prepared about the FAIR and different services .