D isciplinary I nteroperability F ramework RDA DIF

1. Disciplinary Interoperability Framework RDA DIF Dimitris Koureas Natural History Museum London Coordinator Distributed System of Scientific Collections (DiSSCo) Chair Biodiversity Information Standards – TDWG 7th WG/IG Collaboration Meeting

2. Background/Impetus • Panel at Sci Data Con and subsequent paper in Data Science Journal • Genova, F.et al., (2017). Building a Disciplinary, World‐Wide Data Infrastructure. Data Science Journal. 16, p.16. DOI:http://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2017-016 • Comparison of different disciplinary ways and means of enabling and developing an interoperability infrastructure for each community was encouraged with the following set of questions: • What is your disciplinary culture with respect to data sharing? • What are the science drivers for building your discipline interoperability infrastructure? • How is your discipline organized to build its interoperability infrastructure? • What are the lessons learnt from building your discipline interoperability infrastructure? • Which part of your discipline interoperability infrastructure could be made generic for other disciplines? • Lessons learnt demonstrated it was essential that building of bridges between the disciplinary pillars be problem-driven, not just an answer to top-down injunctions.

3. What challenges drive this initiative? Significant increase of disciplinary interest groups Lack of effective communication amongst disciplines Representation of many disciplines at group level is not exhaustive Disciplinary specificities but also commonalities Need for end-user driven technical advancement

4. Session Title: • Towards RDA disciplinary interoperability framework Interest Group • RDA Plenary: • P9 – Barcelona | 5-7 April 2017 | Barcelona, Spain • Speakers: • Françoise Genova • Bridget Almas • Dimitris Koureas Number of participants: 30

5. RDA role by which participants attended the session

6. Word cloud of represented disciplines according to attendees’ own declaration

7. Key challenges for adoption of RDA outputs by communities of practice in different scientific disciplines

8. Mission statements for the new group Identifying the commonalities between the disciplinary groups, harmonising technical and socio-cultural requirements relevant to their research data needs, connecting groups, and performing outreach activities, were identified as the main items to be included in the mission of such a group

9. Evaluation of feasibility and value of 10 potential tasks/outputs of the group operation

10. The quick wins Easy to achieve and of high value • Act as an inter-disciplinary open forum; • Act as a forum to introduce and discuss RDA outputs; • Perform a gap analysis for disciplinary participation in RDA; • Support RDA domain ambassadors and the ambassadors’ scheme; • Act as a single authoritative voice in RDA, representing disciplines.

11. The long runs Of high value but more difficult to achieve • Use the group as a window to RDA for scientific communities that currently do not participate in RDA; • Provide authoritative opinions to TAB/OAB/Council as needed on disciplinary engagement and coordination matters; • Take actions towards the defragmentation of the disciplinary groups landscape.

12. The good to have Easy to achieve but of lower value • Identify and prioritise common technical challenges

13. Immediate actions • Create a space in RDA website for sustaining communication with perspective group members; • Draft the group charter and issue a call for participation;