1. Data Management Working Group Kathy Hibbard, Peter Griffith, Lucia Woo, Diane Wickland, Michael Keller, Riley Duren, Marc Fisher, Molly Brown, Kevin Bowman, George Hurtt, Megan McGroddy, Libby Larson, Lisamarie Wyndham-Myers, Leslie Ott, Arlyn Andrews

2. Discussion Assessment of existing data: – Ongoing work: Developing a product (to complement project) CMS page – Preferred data format survey to stakeholders’ responses in process (excel) – Identify various short-term (e.g., snapshot) versus trend assessment and long-term data management options – Re: data selection – take advantage of DOI: e-doc ID system – Predictions and projections of CMS data record – Agreed that goal is not to federate, but develop portals with metadata as an intermediate step

3. Discussion Development of visualization tools that can leverage from others (e.g., FFDAS, VULCAN, others) for CMS applications A significant challenge will be data management of data products that are readily accessible and available. Speaks to stakeholder needs: from derived (e.g., MD DNR) to data requirements on very short term (e.g., State, CEQ) Data management closely tied to many other cross-cutting WG’s: e.g., Framework, Uncertainty, External Communication

4. Discussion Discuss consistency issues (e.g., scale) as well as documentation for QA/QC – It is not consistent with NASA policy to hold data or data products that have been through QC until they have been published. – Some CMS data have disciplinary QC, but there is no pre-defined structure or strategy for verification/validation/evaluation for the cross-cutting nature of CMS data, esp for stakeholder needs – How to adopt a standard for CMS: clearly there will be different tiers, or levels, standards and requirements for different needs – silver, gold, platinum branding – Consider a cal/val solicitation in 2016 – Suggestion to adapt CMS standards by data type: Biomass, atmosphere, ocean, data fusion, etc., for appropriate level of QC Data management is COSTLY and before we start investing a lot of time and money and loading PI's with unfunded mandates, we need to carefully consider a cost-benefit analysis.

5. Action Items Monthly telecons to sort through issues as/before they occur: e.g., some 2012 data “DAAC-ready”, some data no longer generated but need to be accounted for Historical decision for individual institutional archive by project – will begin to synthesize: – Some are already building CMS data portals from top down (Riley) and bottom up (Molly/Lucia). – Proposed January update from Molly on Product (to complement current Project) CMS website data description