Data managers' perspectives on OAIS designated communities and the FAIR principles: mediation, tools and conceptual models

Abstract

PurposeThis paper presents results of a study on data managers' perspectives on the evolution of Designated Communities and the FAIR Principles using an example of a geological repository.Design/methodology/approachThe study employed 10 semi-structured interviews with data managers at a state geological survey and qualitative analysis of the interview transcripts.FindingsThe Designated Community for a collection in this data repository has evolved from petroleum industry users to include academic researchers and the public. This change was accompanied by significant user interaction changes from in-person, reference interview-style conversations to anonymous digital, automated interactions. The main factors driving these changes were developments in technology which allowed the data managers to shift data discovery and access into the online environment. The online data portal has seen increasing non-expert use, driving the data team to develop additional services for these new communities. Repository data team participants varied in their familiarity with the FAIR Principles and their perceptions of the FAIRness of the data in the repository.Research limitations/implicationsThe study was limited to one organization in the United States. However, the results are applicable to other data environments working through the tensions between high-level global frameworks such as FAIR, and continuing to serve the day-to-day needs of their designated communities. Continued work on how to assess success in this complex space is needed.Originality/valueThis paper lies at the nexus of two digital preservation frameworks and contributes to a limited extant literature providing guidance on implementing the concept of a Designated Community in practice.

Analysis of Pioneering Computable Biomedical Knowledge Repositories and their Emerging Governance Structures

“…Two of the four repositories included in this study retain a small core team of developers Procedural Accountability and Preservation Policy: Within TRAC, the description of procedural accountability includes a definition for "designated community." A designated community is "an identified group of potential consumers who should be able to understand a particular set of information" [26,33]. Each repository studied was born from otherwise unmet needs for replicability, transparency, and harmonization within one or more research communities.…”

“…information [33]. The starting point for governance of a CBK repository could be articulating a formal mission statement which describes the designated community and specifies linkages between repository mission and its designated community.…”

Systematic review of marine environmental DNA metabarcoding studies: toward best practices for data usability and accessibility

“…, Abbott et al, 2021 ), but the lack of similar guidance for sequencing results may be hindering the reporting of controls in eDNA studies employing metabarcoding. Navigating the intersection between best practices operating at different scales, and for different purposes—a documented tension ( Donaldson, Zegler-Poleska & Yarmey, 2020 )—will likely remain a challenge for efforts to develop eDNA-specific guidelines, especially given the disciplinary and methodological diversity of eDNA studies.…”

Designated Community: uncertainty and risk

“…1-12). The OAIS model recommends that repository staff regularly review the DC, in part because they may wish to redefine their repository's DC, and in part because the KB of a DC can change over time (e.g., Donaldson et al, 2020).…”