[unav_all] Data sharing and policy discussion at the UNAVCO
meghan at unavco.org
Thu Dec 11 12:54:38 MST 2008
UNAVCO Community Members,
Among the issues that we will discuss at the Business Meeting at AGU
is the open data policy. For historical reasons, we have more than
one policy in effect and some ambiguity that has emerged from evolving
styles of geodetic observations, including quasi-permanent deployments
that don't clearly fall into either campaign or continuous
categories. The board and I have begun to review these community
policies in response to issues raised by the Facility Advisory
Committee. Hearing your thoughts is an important part of the process.
The current community data policy was developed by the board and Will
Prescott five years ago, and was modeled on IRIS's global network for
"permanent" or continuous sites (immediate archive, immediate sharing)
and PASSCAL for campaign data (two year embargo).
a. Continuous stations. Data will be made publicly accessible as soon
as it is placed in the archive.
b. Campaign data. Data from campaign sites will be made publicly
accessible no later than two years after data collection. This period
may be extended under exceptional circumstances, but only by agreement
between the Principal Investigator and the sponsoring agency. With the
PI's permission, data can be released to a particular user before it
is publicly accessible.
In contrast, and in compliance with our PBO Cooperative Agreement, all
EarthScope data, campaign or continuous, requires immediate release.
We have not had internal clarity that establishes whether this applies
to EarthScope instruments (which may be used elsewhere on a second
priority basis) or EarthScope footprint work (which may use non-
EarthScope resources) or both.
The number of experiments that last much longer than historic
campaigns but do not have permanent installations of infrastructure
support (communications, power, monument, etc.) is growing. This also
adds confusion.... Because our current overarching policy (#1 above)
that says "permanent" is sometimes confusing to people making
continuous but not-forever type observations. Some of these
investigators expect a moratorium....
So here are the questions that need to be aired.
1- Do we want to continue to differentiate between campaigns and
longer term observations? If so, how do we define campaigns?
2- Should we differentiate between domestic (PBO footprint)
campaigns and harder won data sets such as those collected in work
overseas? There is a significant difference in the amount of PI
effort and there is commonly no reciprocity on open data from other
countries. On the other hand, "open data" is among our core values
and taking the moral high ground on this issue has been a great asset
to the community, to UNAVCO, and to our sponsorship.
These two questions become coupled by the EarthScope Policy issue.
3- If we are going to continue to differentiate campaigns with a
moratorium, can we find clearer terminology for longer-term
observations and remove the ambiguity? Permanent seems wrong to me,
as humankind is transient, as are federal funding cycles. Others
rightly argue that continuous may not be literally true either,
although I think it is more rooted in our way of thinking and talking
about these things.
4- If the answer to 1 is yes, should event response data always be
immediately released, despite where on Earth it is collected?
We will allocate a limited time for this discussion at the Business
Meeting and open a forum for discussion on the web site at:
M. Meghan Miller
6350 Nautilus Drive
Boulder, CO 80301
By cell: 720/320-0026
meghan at unavco.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the unav_all