Recording, slides, and Q&A from the October 12 Monthly Meeting are available at CDI Monthly Meeting 20161012.
With the October 1, 2016 implementation of the Public Access Plan, there are more examples of model archives, which was the topic of our May Scientist’s Challenge.
See an overview of all of the CDI Working Groups, goals, and upcoming events: (Slides)
Working Group Wiki Page: bitly.com/usgscdiwg
We welcomed presentations by Jonathon Stock of the USGS Innovation Center and Jill Baron of the John Wesley Powell Center for Analysis and Synthesis.
CDI Keywords: data integration, scientific data life cycle, applications, data access, data handling and stewardship, scientific computing, knowledge delivery, "in the near-term, produce new and reusable ideas, methods or tools that have an impact beyond a single Program, Center, Region, or Mission Area" (from the RFP Guidance)
Innovation Center Keywords: measurement, monitoring, sampling, sensors, data acquisition, hardware, industry partnerships, "Successful proposals address issues of national importance where a technology partner can bring an emerging tool or technique (often with in-kind funding) that solves a problem aligned with USGS science strategy plans and private and public interests." (from the About page)
Powell Center Keywords: synthesis, working groups, publications, "leveraging existing research efforts to produce powerful new insights and move scientific understanding and its inclusion into management" (from the About page)
While the CDI proposal process is closed for FY17, both the Innovation Center and Powell Center have upcoming opportunities for funding collaborative, innovative ideas.
Joshua Bradley presented progress on the mdEditor tool, an open source client-side web application for authoring and editing metadata for spatial and non-spatial data. CDI has provided support for the development of this tool.
The Data Management working group call on December 12, 2016 at 2pm Eastern will have a more in-depth demo and Q&A period with Josh, join us for a deeper look!
AKA Your role in guiding the course of CDI funded projects
AKA Where the CDI coordinator makes a plea for you to vote
The FY17 Community for Data Integration Statements of Interest are in, and voting is open.
Last Friday, we closed the submission portal for the Community for Data Integration Request for Proposals Phase 1. The portal was open from September 14 to October 14 and the initial registrations vs. completed submissions (PDF Statement of Interest (SOI) uploaded) looked like this:
This trend gave the CDI facilitators a panic attack about whether there would be a decent number of statements of interest submitted, but follows the typical pattern of PIs using “all of the available time” “efficiently.” Still, next year we will probably recommend that PIs start registering earlier, as there were some eleventh hour (or fifty-ninth minute) issues...
Each year, the CDI Request for Proposals evolves, whether it is modifying the Guiding Principles, implementing or discarding categories for proposals, changing the panel review process, or trying to streamline the cover sheet generation. Given this year’s experience, we’ll be considering several things for improving the user experience next year. We welcome your ideas at firstname.lastname@example.org.
The following message was sent to FY17 CDI Lead-PIs and registrants on October 21, 2016:
Dear FY17 CDI Lead-PIs and registrants,
Since some of you may be new to CDI’s Community Voting process, I thought I would send a bit of an explanation since we often get questions about what is allowed/condoned, etc.
CDI has had community voting since FY2014 in an effort to engage the entire membership so that we make sure to take into account our grassroots efforts, needs, and knowledge before moving forward with funding projects. In FY2013, the proposals were evaluated only by a panel. Prior to FY2013, proposals were developed at in-person CDI meetings and participants would use sticky notes and discussions to lend their feedback. Now CDI has a Bureau-wide RFP and many members who do not attend the annual in-person meetings, so the online community voting phase is a way to preserve that aspect of proposal development and evaluation.
We sometimes get comments that the community voting system can be “gamed” by especially active PIs who solicit votes. To this, we have several responses:
Community voting is just the first phase of the evaluations, there is a panel evaluation as well in Phase 2, that evaluates the Full proposals.
We look at other metrics in Phase 1 like ratio of number of voters:number of votes, IP address participation that is overly skewed, etc. to see if there are any anomalies.
The community voting indicates the community voice, but there is also the chance for CDI executive sponsors and CDI coordinators to point out SOIs that meet the criteria and add them to Phase 2, this has happened in past years.
We do encourage PIs to spread the word about their proposal to colleagues that would be interested in the project and support the effort, and lend their voice to CDI.
We do not support the solicitation of votes from “anyone off the street” who does not have any personal interest in the actual project or viewing the other submissions. Although, in our experience, this has not helped a project without merit to get funded, due to the other items listed above.
Since this topic has already come up this year, we decided that sending this explanation to all participating PIs was a place to start, and we will continue to do this in following years before the start of voting!
Get to the parent page of all CDI Working Groups at bit.ly/usgscdiwg
Sept 8: "Apache Open Climate Workbench": Lewis McGibbney and Kyo Lee, NASA JPL/Apache OCW
Tech Stack meeting schedule (joint with ESIP Tech Dives)
Next meeting: October 13, 3-4pm Eastern
Contact: Rich Signell
Sept 8: Check-in: individual members discussed semantic web efforts in our day jobs.
On-going themes: desire for semantic versions of gazetteers that provide geospatial relationships between places. Value of controlled vocabulary keywords in scientific metadata that identify observation or measurements that are included in the data. How can we effectively publish linked data in the USGS this year?
Next meeting: October 13, 2-3pm Eastern
Contact: Fran Lightsom
Sept 12: New Process and Analyze pages on the Data Management Website - Steve Tessler, NJ Water Science Center; Michelle Chang, Core Science Analytics, Synthesis, and Libraries
Next meeting: Nov 14, 2-3pm Eastern
Contact: Viv Hutchison
Sept 6: Continuing discussion of the CDI Communication Plan, edits for FY17, and prioritization of tasks
Oct 4: Plan to analyze CDI membership for gaps and review of relevant September feedback from the interactive session for identifying Communication needs
Next meeting: November 1, 3:30-4:30p Eastern
Contacts: JC Nelson and Marcia McNiff
Sept 10: Inaugural call
Oct 3: Open calls to discuss topics on metadata review, Keywords in Metadata, a presentation from the USGS Thesaurus Team
Next meeting: November 7, 2-3p Eastern
Contact: Fran Lightsom
Sept 21: Presentation on WARC (Wetland and Aquatic Research Center) Data Management workflow and communication strategy by Matt Cannister
Oct 4: Continue revising Data Management Plan FAQ (restricted to internal Dept of Int)
Next meeting: October 19 - Monthly call - 1-2p Eastern
The FY17 Annual Community for Data Integration Request for Proposals (AKA FY17 CDI RFP) is underway, with 2-page Statements of Interest accepted until October 14, 2016.
Participate in the CDI RFP this year by submitting a Statement of Interest, commenting and voting during our community voting period, or volunteering to be a reviewer for the full proposal panel. Contact email@example.com with any questions or suggestions.
The RFP funds impactful data integration and management ideas. High marks are often given to proposals that implement or demonstrate innovative solutions that could be used or replicated by others. Thus, many projects produce methods papers to describe their implementation. Two examples of such publications that have come out of CDI funded work are:
Winslow, LA, S Chamberlain, AP Appling, and JS Read. 2016. sbtools: A package connecting R to cloud-based data for collaborative online research. The R Journal 8: 387–398. https://journal.r-project.org/archive/2016-1/winslow-chamberlain-appling-etal.pdf
Duda, J.J., Wieferich, D.J., Bristol, R.S., Bellmore, J.R., Hutchison, V.B., Vittum, K.M., Craig, Laura, and Warrick, J.A., 2016, Dam Removal Information Portal (DRIP)—A map-based resource linking scientific studies and associated geospatial information about dam removals: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2016-1132, 14 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20161132.
If you were part of a past CDI-funded project and have a paper or product to link to your project page on ScienceBase CDI Community, let us know!
The September Monthly Meeting excitingly coincided with International Data Week, where several CDI members were able to participate and meet each other in Denver. Still, we forged on with our regular monthly virtual meeting - the last of fiscal year 2016.
Slides and recording are available at the September Monthly Meeting wiki page.
First, Kevin Gallagher, one of the executive sponsors of the Community for Data Integration, announced the FY17 CDI Request for Proposals. 2-page statements of interest are due by October 14!
See here for more information about the CDI FY17 RFP, including the official guidance document, link to registering to submit your statement of interest, and recording of the information session.
Alison Parker of the EPA and James Sayer of USGS presented on recent work and resources for citizen science and crowdsourcing projects. Importantly, there are efforts underway to make it easier to complete the paperwork to get a citizen science project up and running.
James is leading this effort for a “Generic Clearance” that will help USGS citizen science projects. In order to help him collect information, please do contact him if you are planning a citizen science app in the future! He would like to know estimates of number of participants and observations. firstname.lastname@example.org
Finally, in preparation for FY17, we held a polling and feedback session to guide topics and activities for the upcoming year, especially for planning our in-person Annual Workshop.
These polls are still open if you’d like to contribute:
Some highlights are:
I may be biased, but I think it was a great way to wrap up FY16, and I’m looking forward to all of the events and activities in the year ahead.