Difference between revisions of "110915 DataManagementNotes"
From Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP)
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | Participants: Ruth Duerr, Ron Weaver, Bob Downs, Matt Mayernik, Jeff Arnfield, Erin Robinson | + | Participants: Ruth Duerr, Ron Weaver, Bob Downs, Matt Mayernik, Jeff Arnfield, Erin Robinson, Carol Meyer |
* Review action items | * Review action items | ||
| − | ** Ruth - breadcrumbs on the module. Name on each slide in upper left corner is sufficient. | + | ** Ruth - breadcrumbs on the module. Name on each slide in upper left corner is sufficient. (closed) |
| − | ** Erin - Created email for questions related to short course | + | ** Erin - Created email for questions related to short course (closed) |
| − | + | ** Ruth - Drafted author guidelines. (closed) | |
| − | ** Ruth - Drafted author guidelines. | + | * Workshop update? |
| − | * Workshop update? | ||
** AGU status? | ** AGU status? | ||
| − | * Modules status | + | * Modules status |
| − | |||
* Review author's guide | * Review author's guide | ||
** Ruth created the author's guide | ** Ruth created the author's guide | ||
| Line 15: | Line 13: | ||
*** don't want module titles and what's on the wiki to to diverge | *** don't want module titles and what's on the wiki to to diverge | ||
*** In general reference - add style guide for references - AGU/AMS style guide | *** In general reference - add style guide for references - AGU/AMS style guide | ||
| − | |||
* Discuss module review process | * Discuss module review process | ||
** Review Criteria: | ** Review Criteria: | ||
| Line 25: | Line 22: | ||
**** Undergraduate level or general college level | **** Undergraduate level or general college level | ||
**** reasonably simple for non expert to understand | **** reasonably simple for non expert to understand | ||
| − | |||
** Review Process: | ** Review Process: | ||
*** review board | *** review board | ||
| Line 37: | Line 33: | ||
* Schedule - October 15 for draft | * Schedule - October 15 for draft | ||
* Stipend/Honorarium - $100 If we think we need someone to edit/vet these may be good to pay. | * Stipend/Honorarium - $100 If we think we need someone to edit/vet these may be good to pay. | ||
| − | ** Could UIUC students review? | + | ** Could UIUC students review? |
| + | * Actions | ||
| + | ** Ruth add contact email and version to template and upload to the wiki | ||
| + | ** Erin email group when clarify identifier issue. | ||
** Carol - Action for Glossary. | ** Carol - Action for Glossary. | ||
| + | ** Ruth will follow-up on involving UIUC Students | ||
| + | ** Carol will follow-up on NOAA NESDIS reviewers | ||
| + | ** Bob Downs volunteered to review | ||
| + | ** Ruth will add review criteria to author guidelines | ||
| + | ** Matt Mayernik is looking into options for reference style guidelines and report back with a few options | ||
| + | ** Carol will report back when AGU side meeting is confirmed. | ||
Latest revision as of 10:24, September 15, 2011
Participants: Ruth Duerr, Ron Weaver, Bob Downs, Matt Mayernik, Jeff Arnfield, Erin Robinson, Carol Meyer
- Review action items
- Ruth - breadcrumbs on the module. Name on each slide in upper left corner is sufficient. (closed)
- Erin - Created email for questions related to short course (closed)
- Ruth - Drafted author guidelines. (closed)
- Workshop update?
- AGU status?
- Modules status
- Review author's guide
- Ruth created the author's guide
- 10 slides - does it include shell or content? ~ 7 body pages per module
- don't want module titles and what's on the wiki to to diverge
- In general reference - add style guide for references - AGU/AMS style guide
- Ruth created the author's guide
- Discuss module review process
- Review Criteria:
- Add to author's guide what review process
- Want to make sure the content is balanced, concise and complete
- Conforms to author's guide
- Reasonable ref check
- Understandability/Simplicity - to non-expert (right level of details)
- Undergraduate level or general college level
- reasonably simple for non expert to understand
- Review Process:
- review board
- Blind peer-review
- Blind review within the board
- Bob Downs volunteered to help review.
- Each module reviewed by one other person and need a way to track that.
- Reviewers can make changes; evolve as we go w/ questions.
- When modules are nearly set - running them by NOAA for review.
- NESDIS Headquarters -EDMC (Jeff DLB/Lewis)
- Review Criteria:
- Schedule - October 15 for draft
- Stipend/Honorarium - $100 If we think we need someone to edit/vet these may be good to pay.
- Could UIUC students review?
- Actions
- Ruth add contact email and version to template and upload to the wiki
- Erin email group when clarify identifier issue.
- Carol - Action for Glossary.
- Ruth will follow-up on involving UIUC Students
- Carol will follow-up on NOAA NESDIS reviewers
- Bob Downs volunteered to review
- Ruth will add review criteria to author guidelines
- Matt Mayernik is looking into options for reference style guidelines and report back with a few options
- Carol will report back when AGU side meeting is confirmed.
