|
Sub-Activity 2.2 (Roadmap Activity 2b; establishing a “GEO label”)
After discussion in the ST-09-02 Task Team, the STC co-chairs were asked to provide more guidance on what principles the GEO label should be based on. This resulted in the general concept document prepared by the STC co-chairs, available here as doc.
The STC Co-Chairs indicated that there is a necessity to define review indicators for data sets, products, and services. The concept of review indicators is intended to design/develop a mechanism for asking task leads and task contributors to identify appropriate review mechanisms relevant for their task/dataset/product. These review indicators could then provide a basis for designing part of the assessment for the GEO label 'objective' measure. Examples are that a traditional science project might specify an appropriate indicator as "methodology subject to peer review by ISI journal" as an appropriate review indicator, where a project developing standards might specify "Developed by agreed ISO standards process", both might have similar rating in a GEO label where "published on a web site by an undergraduate student" might not.
The Co-Chairs also indicated that ST-09-02 needs to primarily take carriage of progressing the "objective" GEO Label concept in cooperation with QA4EO (as specified in the concept paper), which will include development of appropriate review indicators as discussed above.
After the Work Plan Meeting in Pretoria, the following work distribution related to the GEO Label was anticipated:
- STC (through ST-09-02 and in consultation with QA4EO) to design and develop 'objective' measures
- UIC to design and develop 'subjective' measures
- ADC to oversee technical implementation in GCI (once designed)
The QA4EO web page contains a number of documents relevant for the GEO Label; see QA4EO Documentation.
However, at the UIC-14 in Oslo, September 1, 2010, it was agreed that ST-09-02 would draft the complete GEO Label Concept and then ask for feedback from the UIC.
Moreover, the paper by Parsons et al. (2010) clarifies that there is currently no well-defined process for data review but emphasizes the need for such a process. Therefore, it is not recommended that GEO develops its own process but rather facilitates an agreement that is widely accepted.
Considering these boundary conditions, one of the Task Leads has developed a draft based on these guidelines. This draft was discussed during the ST-09-02 Task team meeting, but no consensus was reached (see Meeting page and there the minutes of the second Task Team meeting).
References
Parsons, M. A., Duerr, R., Minster, J.-B., 2010. Data Citation and Peer Review. EOS, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 91, 297-298.
|