UCSB Campus Informatics CNI Spring 2004 Task Force Meeting UCSB Campus Informatics: Collaboration for Knowledge Management Sarah Pritchard Smiti Anand

April 15, 2004 UCSB Campus Informatics CNI Spring 2004 Task Force Meeting 2 Informatics: A Definition  The study of the structure and behavior of natural and artificial systems designed to process data  Development of tools to ingest and interpret large stores of data in heterogeneous and distributed systems  Integration of data (numeric, textual, image, spatial) with tools for modeling, trend analysis, mapping, image processing, etc.  Business applications not studied in this context

April 15, 2004 UCSB Campus Informatics CNI Spring 2004 Task Force Meeting 3 UCSB Informatics: Leading Factors  Emergence of informatics as a specialty in several academic departments, notably environmental sciences  Highly interdisciplinary faculty  Development of unique stand-alone systems for managing collaborative research data  No ongoing mechanisms for communication and technical coordination  Campus and consortial projects emerging for digital publications and for instructional support but not yet for research data

April 15, 2004 UCSB Campus Informatics CNI Spring 2004 Task Force Meeting 4 UCSB Informatics: Computing Environment  One of the original nodes of the Internet  No centralized academic computing organization  Offices for networking, and for instructional support  Individual colleges and departments have developed own servers and support for research data and teaching tools  High-level campus policy board for IT issues brings some coordination

April 15, 2004 UCSB Campus Informatics CNI Spring 2004 Task Force Meeting 5 UCSB Informatics: Library context  Alexandria Digital Library ( Extension into new disciplinary applications Heterogeneous metadata ingest Very extensive backup and archiving architecture Long record of faculty collaboration  California Digital Library ( Digital preservation initiatives for published documents and for (under development) government information web sites eScholarship program to support publication of online journals, preprint archives Online Archive of California – special collections support  Other faculty support Electronic reserves including streaming audio reserves Digital document delivery to the desktop

April 15, 2004 UCSB Campus Informatics CNI Spring 2004 Task Force Meeting 6 UCSB Informatics: Project Goals  Create stronger linkages among relevant faculty research projects  Identify components and needs in informatics and the management of research data  Assess the degree of commonality in informatics tools and functionality, if any  Determine whether more support is needed for data archiving, metadata, interfaces, IP  Develop a planning agenda for informatics in a distributed environment  Inform the design of facilities and services

April 15, 2004 UCSB Campus Informatics CNI Spring 2004 Task Force Meeting 7 UCSB Informatics: Grant Specifics  Background research in current informatics work in academic disciplines  Structured interviews and site visits with selected faculty  Matrix of system characteristics and issues  Informal roundtables for faculty working in these areas  Collaboration with related IT units  White paper for campus discussion of futures

April 15, 2004 UCSB Campus Informatics CNI Spring 2004 Task Force Meeting 8 UCSB Informatics: Initial questions  Why are faculty developing these systems?  Do tool sets have applicability beyond the disciplines that created them? Must tools and metadata be discipline-specific?  Can data in these systems be openly accessed or shared?  How is information preserved beyond the length of a grant?  How are people transitioning to more advanced data systems and collections?  Are there broad-based faculty informatics needs across disciplines?

April 15, 2004 UCSB Campus Informatics CNI Spring 2004 Task Force Meeting 9 UCSB Informatics: Participants  Faculty chosen on the basis of Innovative science Data intensive work Interdisciplinary research  Control Group: Non-science faculty Select group of technologically innovative faculty in other disciplines were used as a control to determine whether trends were specific to sciences Same criteria were used  Faculty members and staff researchers recommended by the Office of Research, colleagues, department heads and librarians.

April 15, 2004 UCSB Campus Informatics CNI Spring 2004 Task Force Meeting 10 UCSB Informatics: Sample Questions  How do you store research information? Do you store research in progress differently from completed research?  Do you do any cataloging, indexing, or metadata to ensure that you get at your data easily?  How are your data maintained on an on-going basis?  Is there something special about the way that you manage your data compared to colleagues within the field?  Do you write scripts/use tools? For what purpose? How often do you borrow scripts, and from where?  Are you having difficulty managing your data collection? Are there services that you wish others would provide?  Have you experienced IP issues as a result of collaborative efforts? How is sharing of datasets/information handled in your field?  When you collaborate with others through the web what kinds of tools, if any, do you use to put stuff on the web?  What are your plans for this research in the next five years? Are there service requirements that you will need then?  Are there services, needs that you wish the university would provide?

April 15, 2004 UCSB Campus Informatics CNI Spring 2004 Task Force Meeting 11 UCSB Informatics: Sample Population  UCSB Background statistics: 960 Total Faculty population 486 Total Scientist population 474 Total Non-scientists population  UCSB Interview Statistics: 30/486 scientists (6.1%) 7/474 non scientists (1.5%) 37/960 total faculty (3.9%)  Sample size is reasonably large,statistically significant, representative of the technically innovative scientists

April 15, 2004 UCSB Campus Informatics CNI Spring 2004 Task Force Meeting 12 UCSB Informatics: Growth of Systems  The sophistication of informatics arrangements is determined by the amount of data collected and how labor-intensive it is to collect.  Change happens when the following converge: Data size increases exponentially Research questions encompass broad range of specialties Funding agencies require change for funding  Guiding principles seem to be: “What is the smallest group of people that I can have do the work, and still do the [work]” “What is the least amount of indirect work [e.g., informatics] related to the research that I can do, and still do the [work]”

April 15, 2004 UCSB Campus Informatics CNI Spring 2004 Task Force Meeting 13 UCSB Informatics: Data Preservation  Some science fields have national and international data centers where data deposit is required for grant funding.  Where data centers do not exist, backup depends on: Length of a grant Length of time primary researcher on campus “Older” data is stored on CDs, DVDs, or zip disks Perception that data has maximum value for months after publication, and negligible value after 5-10 years.  Many departments lack the personnel or departmental support for good long-term strategy on preservation of data.  Faculty store research data on the “removable media of the day” and forget about the data, until it becomes difficult if not impossible to access or migrate  More complex systems, same number of people to manage them, leads to less time to devote to issues of long term preservation.  Critical impact: interdisciplinary collaboration and long term historical data analysis suffer

April 15, 2004 UCSB Campus Informatics CNI Spring 2004 Task Force Meeting 14 UCSB Informatics: Data Organization  Most common organizing mechanism – directory structure, spreadsheets, and word processing software  Databases (with or without metadata) are uncommon. Viewed as time/labor-intensive, unnecessary drain on research time.  Well designed portals, built by computational specialists within a field are well utilized.  Storage space: Storage adequate for now. Over half the people contacted were in the process of upgrading.  Most departments did not have strictly enforced limits on , data storage, and personal storage  Though much on their servers is “garbage,” memory is thrown at the problem; little support in most departments for data management  “Not a solved problem.” While actual memory might be cheap, tape, labor, and other equipment to ensure that data are maintained is NOT.  Departmental support varied.

April 15, 2004 UCSB Campus Informatics CNI Spring 2004 Task Force Meeting 15 UCSB Informatics: Tool Creation and Use  Do informatics tools have applicability beyond the disciplines that created them? Or must tool sets be discipline specific? Most faculty use standard tools, applications, software in their field Where homegrown tool development occurs: Some borrowing of scripts and software in initial stages Tools are often extremely TASK specific, not discipline specific Not much incentive or interest for advancing possible collaboration, since the time away from research does not seem to merit the end product. Promise for cross-disciplinary collaboration in some new tools currently in development, e.g., incorporating wireless technology and automatic metadata capture for fieldwork

April 15, 2004 UCSB Campus Informatics CNI Spring 2004 Task Force Meeting 16 UCSB Informatics: Metadata issues  Metadata is discipline specific; commonalities exist, but key requirements of a discipline vary.  Metadata structures and subject taxonomies reflect the way faculty in a discipline think  While organizational structure is an important issue in metadata use, other considerations are: Services available in one’s discipline Acceptance and standardization in the discipline Usage in key portals, data centers, and repositories  One worldwide metadata format is not likely at this time  Interdisciplinary metadata issues and crosswalks

April 15, 2004 UCSB Campus Informatics CNI Spring 2004 Task Force Meeting 17 UCSB Informatics: Intellectual Property  Intellectual property protocols that faculty follow after creating software, portals or databases are highly correlated to the discipline. In disciplines where things move quickly, the ideal method is to open source one’s tool to obtain an audience, then later align oneself with a company, or start one; In disciplines where there is a lot of money there is pressure to ensure patents are filed.  Databases, portals and data centers on campus typically all have legal waiver forms, allowing release of the data sets to other researchers as part of the process to ingest the data.  Disciplines vary in the extent to which they support an ethic of data sharing.

April 15, 2004 UCSB Campus Informatics CNI Spring 2004 Task Force Meeting 18 UCSB Informatics: Collaboration  Collaborations in general tend to be on long-term research-based problems  Faculty are isolated on short-term infrastructure problems Terminology differences Disciplinary cultural and process differences Lack of obvious return on time investment  Technical challenges neglected in this isolation: Metadata Data archiving Tool Use

April 15, 2004 UCSB Campus Informatics CNI Spring 2004 Task Force Meeting 19 UCSB Informatics: Faculty Needs  Some needs and services were mentioned across disciplines regardless of current arrangements: Informatics “point person” or clearinghouse for information on tools, expertise, and research knowledge on campus and nationally Long term archiving of research data especially during the gap in coverage between publication and obsolescence Tiered support services for database development, cataloging, conversion, emulation, migration, web development, metadata, pre-planning for technology grants

April 15, 2004 UCSB Campus Informatics CNI Spring 2004 Task Force Meeting 20 UCSB Informatics: Topics for Discussion Where are the gaps in our current offerings that we need to fill to serve these needs? How do technology services and leaders on campus fit together? What are faculty priorities for various services? What are some possible organizational models for meeting these needs?

April 15, 2004 UCSB Campus Informatics CNI Spring 2004 Task Force Meeting 21 UCSB Informatics: Possible outcomes  Everything stays as is  More peer-to-peer sharing of resources and expertise  Policies are established Intellectual property rights at several levels Use of metadata and digital object standards Ensure data sustainability  Organizational approaches are considered IT offices, the library, consortial systems support, disciplinary groups, or a combination  New services are offered Database design Metadata creation Consulting Clearinghouse functions Archiving

April 15, 2004 UCSB Campus Informatics CNI Spring 2004 Task Force Meeting 22 UCSB Informatics: Next Steps  Dissemination White Paper for campus distribution Report to Mellon Foundation Website  Collaboration Office of Information Technology Office of Instructional Computing Administrative Computing UC Systemwide IT services  Discussion Information Technology Board and Planning Group Faculty Senate Senior administration

April 15, 2004 UCSB Campus Informatics CNI Spring 2004 Task Force Meeting 23 UCSB Informatics: Further Information  Project web site: Contact:  Sarah M. Pritchard, University Librarian  Smiti Anand, Research Analyst