1 of 22

Global open research commons What it takes and the road to get there

Reflections and discussion on creating a commons attribute model and a commons integration roadmap

GORC-IG, GORC-WG combined session

Proposed session run sheet:

Welcome and icebreakers (10 min) - Sarah, using Menti

What do you think of when you hear the word ‘commons’ [open input]
Have you heard of the GORC IG/WG before? [Yes/No]
What sort of organisation are you representing? [RFO, RPO, service provider, other]
What country are you from / representing? [open]

Introduction to meeting and previous work (10 mins) - CJ

Role of IG and WG (separately and related to each other)
Take away messages from P20
Review of task groups and workflow

Presentation of GORC-IG supporting outputs (10 min) - Andrew

Open discussion on definitions and interpretations

Presentation of GORC-WG final outputs (40 min)

Introduction, context, and intent of outputs (10 min) - CJ
Showcase and summary of main outputs (10 min) - CJ

Javier: Advertise the communiques co-developed with RDA-TIGER?
→ Think about the presentation of the model (i.e. don’t walk through the spreadsheet…)

Open discussion on commons attribute model (20 min) - Sarah

→ Be prepared for questions from all experience levels, particularly on the difference + similarities between GORC and GOSC

Discussion on what comes next (15 min) - All three of us

Update and workflow for commons integration roadmap (5 min)
Discussion on new or continuing WGs (10 min)

Next steps and conclusions (5 min)

2 of 22

Warm welcome to the RDA newcomers!

RDA Guiding Principles

Openness
Consensus
Inclusive
Harmonization
Community-driven
Non-profit and technology-neutral

Learn more: https://www.rd-alliance.org/about-rda

3 of 22

Agenda

Welcome and icebreakers (10 min) - Sarah
Role of GORC IG and WG, Presentation of GORC-IG supporting outputs (10 min) - Andrew
GORC WG Introduction (10 mins) - CJ
Presentation and discussion of GORC-WG final outputs (40 min) - CJ & Sarah
Discussion on what comes next (15 min) - Andrew, CJ, & Sarah
Next steps and conclusions (5 min)

4 of 22

Welcome and Ice Breakers

Go to menti.com

Enter code: 2732 4982

https://www.menti.com/alpwh1b8q51v

Add your name to the collaborative notes!

http://bit.ly/IDW23_GORC

5 of 22

Introduction - Global Open Research Commons (GORC)

GORC International Model WG

GORC IG

Roadmap

GORC: The coordination of data infrastructure on various levels) is on the increase. So called “Open Science Commons” or “Data commons” provide a shared virtual space, platform, and/or marketplace for data and services. Examples include the European Open Science Cloud, the Australian Research Data Commons, the African Open Science Platform, open government portals and initiatives outside traditional research contexts. Coordinating across these initiatives to enable a network of interoperable research commons is the goal of the Global Open Research Commons. The realized vision of GORC will provide frictionless access to all research artifacts including, but not limited to: data, publications, software and compute resources; and will rely on metadata, vocabulary, and identification services being available to everyone everywhere, at all times.

GORC IG: The Interest Group will provide a neutral place where people have conversations about Open Research Commons. The GORC IG is working to develop a roadmap for global alignment to help set priorities for Commons development and integration.

GORC WG: The Working Group operates under the umbrella of the GORC IG. The WG’s goal is to evaluate and recommend a model for attributes for global research commons that allows researchers and developers to coordinate services and create roadmaps for international interoperability. In its current form, the WG aims to answer “WHAT should be considered when building, expanding, operating, etc. a commons?”. The model is a contribution to the roadmap - The model is actionable on the level of individual commons, the roadmap is an overarching action plan on a global scale.

6 of 22

GORC-IG Supporting Outputs

GORC-IG started in March 2018 with a BoF
The goal of the IG was to provide a neutral place where people could discuss issues relating to what are referred to as “Open Science Commons” or “Data commons”, and to develop a roadmap for commons integration
Started by trying to understand the space:

generated a definition of a commons
examined a range of existing research commons architectures
developed a typology of the essential elements in a commons

Realised that we needed to be clearer about what we meant for each element and so came up with a set of definitions for each of the essential elements of a commons identified by the IG
This typology was presented to the RDA community as a supporting output in early 2023, revised in July 2023 to respond to community comments, and accepted as a supporting output in August 2023.

7 of 22

GORC-IG Supporting Outputs

8 of 22

GORC-IG Supporting Outputs

Typology and Definitions

Jones, S., Leggott, M., Lopez Albacete, J., Madalli, D., Pascu, C., Payne, K., Schouppe, M., & Treloar, A. (2023). GORC IG: Typology and Definitions (Version 1.01). Research Data Alliance. https://doi.org/10.15497/RDA00087

Diagram alone

Jones, S., Leggott, M., Lopez Albacete, J., Pascu, C., Payne, K., Schouppe, M., & Treloar, A. (2023). GORC IG Typology and Definitions Diagram (Version 1.0). Research Data Alliance. https://doi.org/10.15497/RDA/00095

NOTE: As this field evolves, the definitions and typology may need to be revisited

9 of 22

Up to P20

Speaker Series (8)

Phase 1 review

20 WG meetings

5 task groups

model

typology

10 of 22

P20 takeaways

Community members were waiting for our outputs, and wanted to refer to and use them before formal endorsement
Our narrative documents and descriptions needed work
We needed to consider presentation formats beyond spreadsheets
We needed to increase transparency of the GORC WG (i.e. working documents, current status, etc.)

11 of 22

Since P20

Speaker Series (12)

Phase 1+2 review

28 WG meetings

6 task groups

model

typology

report

✔

IG: typology and the typology graphic went out for a community request for comment in May 2023 and was endorsed on July 26th 2023.

WG: We added a lot more content to our RDA page since P20, so our deliverables and timelines are very visible on the wiki. We completed our speaker series with a total of 12 (4 since P20). A phase 2 literature review, bringing the total number of resources considered up to 150+, and a phase 2 evaluation by 6 task groups was done from April - August 2023. Starting in July 2023, a writing group began working on the report to accompany the model. September 2023 saw a “workshop week” where we held 9 meetings to address any outstanding issues and concerns with the current model, and were able to resolve all immediate concerns (and build a lot of ideas for future work!). We submitted the model as a spreadsheet and the report for RfC in mid-September, and it closed on Oct 20th. We have submitted our model and report for endorsement, and they are on Zenodo! The WG’s last meeting is this session, and we anticipate to go into maintenance mode in November.

12 of 22

GORC-WG supporting outputs: Introduction, context, intent

Non-prescriptive guide for stakeholders
Spreadsheet container (for now)
Organized by IG essential elements, broken down into categories & subcategories
Extended description, examples, sources, consideration level.
Glossary
KPIs & metrics

Background information and intent
Detailed methodology
Narrative summary of model
Current and intended use of the model
Areas of future work

report

model

The model is a first attempt to describe granular components of a commons.The purpose of the GORC-WG International Model is to provide a framework and common language to stakeholders around the world who are committed to developing interoperable research services for the public good. The target audience for the model is anyone that is involved in the planning, development, operation, funding or use of a research commons. It is not intended as a prescriptive model, but rather to define and establish a common basis of attributes and features of research commons that users of the model can consider in the context of their own commons as it evolves.. In particular, Commons* developers may use this model as a guide for what to consider as they build, maintain, and expand their commons, while policymakers and funders may use this model to guide what they prioritize and support for commons.

The model is currently represented as a spreadsheet, with a flat breakdown of the categories and subcategories within each essential element of a commons and the attributes and features that belong to them. The model is accompanied in the same document by extended descriptions, examples, and sources for each item as well as a consideration level that is intended on a gentle guide on priority for each item. To ensure clarity, the model also has its own glossary. Lastly, the model presents an organized starting point for KPIs and metrics that commons developers may wish to consider as they build their own.

The report is an accompanying narrative document that provides background information about the initiative, describes its intent and intended audience, the method used to create it, its structure and content. It also provides brief descriptions of communities and activities that have proposed to, or are currently, utilising the model in different contexts, as well as next steps for work in this area

13 of 22

GORC-WG supporting outputs: Summary

TG1

TG5

TG3

TG4

TG2

14 of 22

GORC-WG supporting outputs: Summary

TG1

TG5

TG3

TG4

TG2

TG1 reviewed all attributes and features within Governance & Leadership, Rules of Participation & Access, and Sustainability in addition to related KPIs in Phase 1.

Governance is focused on defining an organisation’s purpose and the development of the strategies, objectives, values, and policies that frame how that purpose will be pursued by management and internal personnel of the commons. It includes the development of such things as strategic plans including mission statements, values, organisational performance metrics, risk management frameworks; policies and guidelines for financial and operational matters such as commitments to community endorsed principles and frameworks like FAIR and data ethics ; and the creation and maintenance of governance structures, their interactions with stakeholders, and the ways of working with management.

The rules of participation and access define how different stakeholder groups interact with the commons and each other. These rules are designed to ensure that the principles of open research, collaboration, and transparency and other commons-defined values are upheld while promoting responsible and ethical interactions with commons’ resources and community members. All commons users and resources are governed by rules of participation and access but the rules and their application may vary by commons and by resource within each commons.

Sustainability includes models and agreements made on how to ensure the viability and operations of the commons. It includes funding and resourcing activities that ensure the commons can be sustained over the long-term. This may include mixed streams of investment and cost recovery through subscriptions, service payment models to ensure operation of the commons, and in-kind contributions in the form of effort/time by contributors to both maintainers of commons infrastructure and interactions with stakeholders. Sustainability should also include defining and developing a strategy for long-term sustainability for all operations and holdings, as well as keeping issues of sustainability in mind when choosing or building commons components.

15 of 22

GORC-WG supporting outputs: Summary

TG1

TG5

TG3

TG4

TG2

TG2 reviewed all attributes and features within Engagement and Human Capacity in addition to related KPIs in Phase 1.

Engagement is one of the social/human elements that is needed to make the commons succeed, and it refers to the interaction between the commons and the commons’ broadly defined community of stakeholders. Engagement activity should be seen as an iterative cycle, which includes requirements gathering exercises, consultations, usability testing, communications, events and training amongst others. A core attribute of this element is an efficient and effective engagement plan to structure, coordinate and share the relevant level of information (what), to the right target audience (to whom), addressing specific requirement (why), at the right time and with the appropriate frequency (when), and via the most suitable mechanisms (how). In the model the engagement element is defined by four categories, based on the intended scope/outcome of the engagement process: Community input and feedback; Active promotion of and participation in the commons; Incentivize the participation in and use of the commons; and Interoperability with other commons, research institutions, and other potential partners.

The human capacity of a commons should be viewed in the context of a community which includes all human individuals and entities that could be considered stakeholders, users, providers, members of the commons, and intermediaries (i.e., those who do not interact directly with the commons, but use information about or provided by the commons, e.g., policy makers, journals, funders) in the past, present, and future as well as all research communities that the research Commons is a part of in a regional, national, and global context. The model divides human capacity into five main categories: Internal Capacity ; the skills required for planning, managing and assessing service delivery; Skill requirements for the commons community ; Ease of use for the commons community; and Training and education.

16 of 22

GORC-WG supporting outputs: Summary

TG1

TG5

TG3

TG4

TG2

TG3 reviewed all attributes and features within ICT Infrastructure and Research Objects in addition to related KPIs in Phase 1.

By “ICT infrastructure” we mean the hardware and base software components that a computer system requires to function and are necessary to conduct research. These need to be designed to scale with increasing volume, complexity and velocity of projects and expectations. To aid this, a review and update of ICT infrastructure should be scheduled to happen on a regular basis. For all of the infrastructure categories listed in the model, a knowledge of, and ability to manage, the infrastructure is required by commons operators. Five infrastructure categories were identified through the review: Network ; Compute ; Storage; Base software; and Authentication and authorization infrastructure.

Research Objects are the outputs of the research process, but can also be inputs to later processes. Like ICT Infrastructure and Services & Tools, they are the underpinning digital elements that people interact with in the commons. The scope here is limited to digital research objects, and research hardware itself is out of scope. The model identifies five main categories of research objects: publications and research documentation, research data, research software, semantic objects, and collections.

17 of 22

GORC-WG supporting outputs: Summary

TG1

TG5

TG3

TG4

TG2

TG4 reviewed all attributes and features within Interoperability and Standards in addition to related KPIs in Phase 1.

Interoperability is the ability of data or tools from non-cooperating resources to integrate or work together with minimal effort. It can also enable a wider range of cross-commons use-cases. Interoperability enables cross-commons reuse of data and is of central importance to the Commons. Categories of interoperability identified in the model include: Technical interoperability (how artefacts are exchanged), encompassing Syntactic interoperability (how to structure information) and Semantic interoperability (data are interpreted the same way) ; Pragmatic or organizational interoperability (agreements between organisations); and Legal Interoperability.

A standard is a repeatable, harmonised, agreed and documented way of doing something. Standards can be either de jure or de facto. De jure standards, or standards according to law, are endorsed by a formal standards organisation, such as the ISO. The organisation ratifies each standard through its official procedures and gives the standard its stamp of approval. De facto standards, or conventions, are adopted widely by a community. These standards arise when they become part of the accepted way of doing things within a community. De facto standards can become de jure standards if they are submitted to a formal standards organisation and approved. Several varying categories of standards and conventions were identified.

18 of 22

GORC-WG supporting outputs: Summary

TG1

TG5

TG3

TG4

TG2

TG5 reviewed all attributes and features within Services and Tools in addition to related KPIs in phase 1.

Service (as defined by IVOA) is any Commons element that can be invoked by the user to perform some action on their behalf. Services are usually intended for use by machines, and mostly invoked by software. Tools enable researchers to perform one or more operations, typically on data, and often with data as the output. Tools are usually intended for use by humans. In this context we are explicitly excluding physical instruments as tools. Services and tools overlap with users who create processes. Nine categories of services were identified in the model: Research object repositories; Discovery service; Services and tools for direct research tasks; Services and tools that enable workflows and middleware; Persistent identifier services; Vocabulary and semantic object services; Data management services and tools; Commons catalogue of all services and tools; Security and identification services; Helpdesk service.

19 of 22

GORC-WG supporting outputs: Summary

KPIs & Metrics

TG6

After phase 1, all KPIs were moved out of the main model. In phase 2, they were reviewed by a new TG, TG6.

KPIs are qualitative or quantitative measures that the commons, commons’ stakeholders, and community of commons can use to measure the uptake, engagement, or use of commons attributes and features. In contrast, metrics are quantitative measures used to assess the evolution or performance of specific processes. While the model includes suggested KPIs and metrics for every essential element, most KPIs and metrics relate to engagement with the commons and to human capacity. Broad themes of KPIs and metrics are apparent and provide some organisation for the KPIs and metrics, namely: commons governance and policy, commons engagement with stakeholders, feedback and satisfaction of stakeholders, commons infrastructure and technology, and Stakeholder Engagement with technology and infrastructure. It should be noted that the KPIs and metrics are not nearly as comprehensive as the model itself and should be considered as observations of success and engagement metrics that we observed in the existing commons and may be used as a starting point while interacting with the model.

20 of 22

GORC-WG supporting outputs: Discussion

report

model

Payne, K., Corrie, B., Crawley, F., Harrower, N., Macneil, R., Sansone, S.-A., Treloar, A., Woodford, C. J., & Nyberg Åkerström, W. (2023). The Global Open Research Commons International Model Report, Version 1 (Version 1). Research Data Alliance. https://doi.org/10.15497/RDA00097

Woodford, C. J., Treloar, A., Leggott, M., Payne, K., Jones, S., Lopez Albacete, J., Madalli, D., Genova, F., Dharmawardena, K., Chibhira, N., Åkerström, W., Macneil, R., Nurnberger, A., Pfeiffenberger, H., Tanifuji, M., Zhang, Q., Jones, N., Sesink, L., & Wood-Charlson, E. (2023). The Global Open Research Commons International Model, Version 1 (Version 1). Research Data Alliance. https://doi.org/10.15497/RDA00099

21 of 22

What’s next for RDA GORC - Open Discussion

Possible avenues of work:

Adoption of the model
Profiles of the model by discipline (e.g.for health commons), by maturity
Mapping the model to other RDA and community outputs
Expand model to include research hardware, physical research infrastructure
Expand model to include an implementation recommendation and examples for each item
Expand model to include a maturity level and examples for each item
Others?

GORC-WG will go into maintenance mode.
GORC-IG will work on the integration roadmap.

Adoption of the model: who are the adopters, and who provides assistance and reporting on that adoption? Would ideally like to resubmit the model (or a V2 of it) as a formal recommendation instead of supporting output Invite speaker series participants to use and implement. Could use as adoption cases and put the model forward as a recommendation, as well as providing a test for the model and use cases for specific items within the model.
(Health) Take implementations of the model for health commons, how they’re evolving, and come up with something like a DMP or FIP that feeds into a knowledge graph to see where there’s convergence and divergence. Two main deliverables: turning the model into an actionable tool for users (FIP, knowledge graph), Discipline specific analysis of the model (for health). Main outcomes: feed areas of convergence/divergence from knowledge graph into the GORC-IG roadmap (i.e. how do we get to convergence), FIP for continued use in the health commons sphere. Based on Lauren Maxwell’s proposal: https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.15982.1 .
A connection exercise or demonstration with other RDA and community models that demonstrate a particular perspective or implementation of the commons model. E.g. PDS-IG model as a specific implementation and perspective of human capacity and services and tools attributes and features, NIST RDaF as a fine-grained implementation of human capacity, etc. Find others and how they fit in an interoperable jigsaw puzzle. Extend to secondary outputs, e.g. PDS-IG service provider types with respect to data stewardship are rolled up into our service type dimension (like string theory!)
Implementations of the model, a more general map for each item that suggestions a mechanism, tool, group, etc. that can help with or complete the adoption/expansion of any one or group of items. (Allyson Lister from FAIRsharing suggested that FAIRsharing can help with several of the items in Standards & Conventions.)
Develop a Maturity Model for the commons model, such as drawing out a five point scale for each attribute, feature, or KPI and providing examples of different levels of advancement

All of these will likely feed into the integration roadmap and inform new versions of the model itself!

Issues that may come up:

GOSC:

We work with the GOSC where possible (ISOSC, recent AIDV seminar)
We seriously reviewed (and refer to/cite!) all open GOSC work during the phase 1 and phase 2 reviews for the model.
These two projects and groups have approached the same problem with different methods and with different intended outcomes that lead to the same goal. The GOSC has taken a multi-pronged approach that combines a literature review, questionnaire, semi-structured interviews and case studies, aiming to create and enact specific implementations that can be scaled and transferred in conjunction with thematic working groups. This may be considered a bottom-up approach. The GORC, and specifically the GORC Working Group, has heard from existing commons through a speaker series and landscape review to create a non-discipline specific, overarching commons model, with the next step to work on a roadmap to integration from a top-down perspective using the model.
(i.e. complementary work!)

22 of 22

Next steps & Wrap up

You’ll see the GORC-WG model and report now on our RDA outputs page and up on Zenodo!
Consider which avenues of work to prioritize
Consider what can be done by the GORC-WG in maintenance mode, what projects need new WGs

Don’t miss a meeting or an update, join the GORC IG!