Project Plans

Summary

Through discussions and additional work, Metadata 2020 project participants have now created 4-6 month project plans for intended execution between May and October 2018, and in some cases have already started to advance the work. Participants are also benefiting from a useful exchange of ideas in meetings. Thanks to everyone giving up their time and contributing their expertise to this important work.

1. Researcher Communications

Led by: Carly Strasser

Review existing surveys and articles surrounding researcher attitudes to metadata
Consider assigning a student to conduct a literature review
Examine publishers who have improved metadata over last 2 years, and interview them about possible reasons (including how they may have encouraged authors to deposit more complete metadata)
Conduct informal interviews to researchers in different fields to inform survey questions
Create survey
Find channels for survey distribution
Collect results

2. Metadata Recommendations and Element Mappings

Led by: Jim Swainston

Identify list of metadata schemas that are in use (“Metadata Schema Index”)
Share list of schemas with MD2020 community to see if there are any missing and to get feedback on which are most used
Collaborate with Project 5 to discuss list of tags/elements in each of the schemas of interest and identify concepts that cut across them
Map concepts and element names in a table
Produce diagram/poster to highlight similarities and differences

3. Defining the Terms We Use About Metadata

Led by: Scott Plutchak

Pilot researcher interviews surrounding metadata at Experimental Biology conference
In consultation with other project and community groups, refine questions per community into a fuller survey for circulation surrounding metadata terminology
In alignment with other community groups, distribute survey(s) and analyze results
Contribute to central list of schema (P.2)
Contribute to P.5’s list of elements where needed
Considering developing a “glossary” to clarify terminology

4. Incentives for Improving Metadata Quality

Led by: Fiona Counsell

Discuss illustration of metadata flow through scholarly communications in consultation with community groups
In consultation with community groups, start to develop fuller lists of incentives
Create a detailed list of outputs for phase 2 of the project
Gather material for re-use in business cases
Align incentives list with P.5’s best practice guidelines
Discuss outreach & education plans for time when first content is available for distribution, including proposals for upcoming conferences

5. Shared Best Practice and Principles

Led by: Howard Ratner and Jennifer Kemp

Share and discuss list of tags/elements
Survey Metadata 2020 population for best practices resources
Catalog and publish list of best practices resources
Create set of principles (e.g., FAIR)
Follow up with hosting platforms and consultants that work with them to include what is included in RFPs, etc.
Create white paper / statement to the community

6. Metadata Evaluation and Guidance

Led by: Ted Habermann

Populate Schemas, Tools and Guidance Information
Review existing evaluation tools and identify what they are evaluating (completeness, consistency, linking, quality, other).
Identify advantages/disadvantages of current evaluation tools and make recommendations for use
Together with Project 5, create a guidance document for evaluation tool use for multiple communities and/or create a white paper or statement to the wider scholarly communications community
Consider where there might be gaps in evaluation resources and where relevant, scope out the needs for ideal additional tools
Complete Project 5’s best practices resources survey