1. Co-Chairs: Mike Hildreth (Notre Dame), Ruth Duerr (Ronin Inst.) + ?
Preservation Tools, Techniques, and Policies IG: Research Meets Preservation – Tools at the Interface
Co-Chairs: Mike Hildreth (Notre Dame),
Ruth Duerr (Ronin Inst.) + ?

2. PTTP IG: Introduction Co-Chairs: Ruth Duerr: Mike Hildreth:
NEW: Officially-approved IG!
Co-Chairs:
Ruth Duerr:
Mike Hildreth:
+ ? (still) looking for a non-US-based co-chair
Research Scholar, Ronin Institute, PI or Co-I on several NSF, NASA, and NOAA cyberinfrastructure and informatics grants, current President of AGU Earth and Space Science Informatics group
Experimental Particle Physicist (CERN), PI of US-based DASPOS project, co-leader of various NSF workshops on open access to research data

3. Today’s Agenda Group Business, name discussion
PresQT Update (from Sandra Gesing)
Jerad Bales/David Tarboton: Hydroshare & CUASHI
Sunje Dallmeier-Tiessen:  CERN Analysis Preservation Portal
Ramona Walls: CyVerse
Rachel Drysdale: ELIXIR
Ruth Duerr:  Earthcube
Discussion:
WG ideas?
Future IG focus

4. Question/Discussion of our Name
Originally:
“Preservation Tools, Techniques, and Policies” (PTTP)
Since then
Separate Policy group has arisen
Different focus, but confusing
We found that “preservation” means something different on different continents
Title lacks desired emphasis on researchers
What about: “ReTAiN” =
“Researcher Tools for Attaining kNowledge preservation”
The “p” is silent
Not sure if we are allowed to change our name mid-stream

5. Motivation for a Research Data & Software Preservation Quality Tool (PresQT)
Researchers often respond reluctantly and retroactively to funder and publisher mandates for data and software sharing.
Depositing data can be quite labor intensive.
Metadata enhancement, provenance reconstruction, reformatting and data documentation efforts can present significant barriers to timely and complete data sharing.
Curators engaged near the end of the research life cycle often receive incomplete metadata, at-risk formats, and a paucity of data documentation.
Reuse and reproducibility are jeopardized.
 PresQT bridges gaps between existing digital library infrastructure, repositories and software reuse.
Hesburgh Libraries

6. Planning Phase Finished Outlook for Implementation
Hesburgh Libraries

7. Additional Information

8. Some Thoughts…
This IG is intended to host a conversation that has been mostly lacking in the RDA discussions so far
Researcher/Data-Generator
Archivist/Data Scientist

9. Some Thoughts…
This session is intended to start a conversation that extends the RDA discussions so far
Researcher/Data-Generator
Archivist/Data Scientist

10. ? Tools & Techniques Some Thoughts… How to bridge the gap?
This session is intended to start a conversation that extends the RDA discussions so far ?
How to bridge the gap?
Tools & Techniques
Researcher/Data-Generator
Archivist/Data Scientist

11. From our Charter:
What data/software/artifacts/documentation (“knowledge products”) should be preserved for sharing, re-use, and reproducibility for a given research domain?
What tools are available for researchers to preserve these elements in a manner that does not obstruct or hinder their research?
What are the strengths and weaknesses of these tools?
Are there common features that could allow tools from one domain to be re-used elsewhere?
Are there tools that archives/repositories could provide that could make preservation much easier for researchers?
What are the longer-term development goals of each of these tools?

12. Tools & Techniques
Preservation Tools & Techniques are essential for data sharing, curation, reproducibility, and re-use
you have to preserve the data before you share it!
decidedly non-trivial, even daunting for researchers
Overlap between preservation and the needs of computational portability
e.g. if you can wrap up your workflow for remote execution, you can preserve it
potential synergies with data sharing here

13. Provocative(?) Statements
No generic preservation tool(s) exists
workflows, data structures, use cases etc. are very discipline-specific
But at some base level, all preservation is the same
must capture:
data generation and/or processing and filtering algorithms (sometimes called data provenance)
algorithm input parameters (metadata, workflow information)
repeat until result is obtained
capture should be “complete” for re-use
how do we find middle ground of commonality?

14. Provocative(?) Statements
No tool will be adopted by researchers unless there is an “Economic Incentive” (enlightened self-interest)
tool makes doing science easier, more efficient
use of tools is mandated in order to obtain $$$
use of tools is mandated in order to publish
use of tools improves the training of students
re-use possibilities worth the effort
outreach/training worth the effort