ET-IM-14 (2022-Feb-07) Meeting notes (draft)

Aim of today meeting

DB - the aim of the meeting is to let any members of the ET-IM flag and concerns, issues or reservations about sharing the draft in its current form.

Round table comments + disucssion

AA: happy to share (see comments in draft, one paragraph to be improved re data vs information).

WW: suggestion to send to colleagues at BOM form comment.

WW: Minor comments, consistency between Res 1 and what we use within the guide needs to be improved. DB to add clarifying sentence

WW (cont): Is there a need to refer to WIS2.0 somewhere, this document builds on the structure of WIS2.0. (see comment from Hassan below)

WW: Do we need statement under scope specifically what is not in scope.

DB - Is we start explicitly excluding some areas this may turn into a very long list - it might be better to just say what we include.

Agreement, make clear only identified items in scope.

WW: metadata, discussed in two places in Chapter 2. We need to decide where to put the metadata (data, information, stand-alone section).

WW: Are we going to include the appendices in this version?

DB: We hadn’t been planning to as they are not currently written.

WW: We might be able to include the draft tables compiled for the Manual HQ-GDMFC.

Agreed, include this table as an example and call for other areas to include similar.

GP: Pretty good shape now for rough draft and ready for internal review.

GP: Only issue is metadata but we could leave it the way it is. Add note that team has not yet reached consensus as to whether metadata should be its own category of form part of data.

DB: Will this prevent us from circulating?

GP: No, add comment noting that we are still deciding where to put the metadata.

GP: Suggestion of NCEI as a potential reviewer?

Some discussion of pro and cons of broader review at this stage. The document is not yet ready for an institutional level review but it would be good to get comments from colleagues who would provide constructive criticism.

TB: it may be good to share internally within NCEI. some of the direction in the document might be different to what is currently done.

Decision: Hold off institutional level review until we have complete draft but share with colleagues. TB to reach out internally within NCEI.

WW: what we want to know is whether we have the correct content and principles rather structure. We want comments on content.

XC: newsletter distributed, no interest so far but will keep group updated. WMCP2.0 will be drafted and submitted to InfCom in November 22.

TT-WISMD, drafting new document for next generation of metadata profile.

RS: agree with team that document looks good. Consider research board on weather on climate as potential reviewers.

HH: agree, ready to be shared with “friendly” reviewers. Also maybe global centres.

HH: (referring to comments on WIS2.0 above) the WIS2.0 new architecture is under development and needs to be approved by InfCom, we need to be careful referring to the WIS2.0 structure in the document before it is approved.

Also, GDPFS would be good potential reviewers as well as climate (ET-DRC).

GP: to add experts on hydrology to reviewers list.

WO: JET-HYDMON would be good to include.

TB: Anyone on the Ocean side:

• GOOS OCG

• IODE

TB: there needs to be more emphasis on open distribution of data. There are some mentions of Creative Commons (CC) licensing, but not why these would be used or cautions as to their use. These licenses may restrict the flow of data.

WW: the CC wording comes from WW edits as an example of a licensing suite that takes into account a number of different circumstances. The reader may need guidance on which license to apply, balancing organisation requirements vs user requirements and WMO policy.

GP: Suggest adding a note on including clear, open license. Example provided for reference but additional guidance will be provided.

TB: publishing of software code, this shouldn’t be emphasised and the focus should be on algorithms instead.

Some discussion of reproduceable research, best practices and software versioning. Encourage use of code repositories and open software standards. Publishing code may be beyond the scope of many data and information providers (e.g. small research project / department).

TB. We need to include a discussion of data equity, not so much the code but the analysis tools. For example, enabling anyone to use the tools in a cloud framework without the expert coding knowledge.

TB: we also need more information on flow of data and long term repositories. for example, what are the long term retention responsibilities? Are they institutional, national, international? Where should the data be archived.

WO: We need to define data set vs data. ITU have a lot of definitions in terms of data and information domains. WO to share background document (https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-t/opb/fg/T-FG-DPM-2019-2.1-PDF-E.pdf).

Other comments and closing remarks

Agreement: following final tidy to reflect above discussion and last minute comments received DB to sent draft to GP and WW (cc ET-IM members) for final confirmation.

HH: make sure we include deadline to reviewers when we send out to review.

GP: Please add field / subject area to. xls document.

DB: to send out excel sheet for reviewer suggestions.