National Snow and Ice Data Center. Plan for Reassessing the Levels of Service for Data at the NSIDC DAAC

Transcription

1 National Snow and Ice Data Center Plan for Reassessing the Levels of Service for Data at the NSIDC DAAC Authors: R. Weaver, R. Duerr Date 3/21/2010

2 CHANGE LOG Revision Date Description Author 1.0 6/29/2009 Original draft Beaverson 1.1 2/5/2010 Revised to be DAAC specific Duerr, Weaver

3 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Purpose and Scope The purpose of this Policy for Reassessing the Levels of Services for Data at the NSIDC DAAC is to ensure that decisions to change the levels of service including changes that retire data and products archived and distributed by the NSIDC DAAC are vetted and reviewed. The scope of this process is limited to the NSIDC DAAC only and does not set policy outside of the NSIDC DAAC but references those policies that apply to the NSIDC DAAC as a NSIDC managed and a NASA EOSDIS direct-funded task. In addition, this Policy ensures that a NASA approved product review process is used to recommend data sets for decommissioning from the EOSDIS supported collection of NSIDC DAAC Standard Data sets. This policy applies to all NASA approved non-eos missions and projects, and all PI-Provided or NSIDC DAAC internally generated products 1. This document describes procedures and processes for changing the levels of service for a data set including changes up to the decommissioning of non-eos data sets from the NSIDC DAAC collection of standard data sets. 1.2 Background Background for this document comes from the NSIDC draft data management policy, current best practices from other national and international organizations (see Appendix B for a list of references consulted), and discussions with EOSDIS. The following are excerpted from the draft NSIDC Data Management Policy. NSIDC supports a range of services, broadly categorized as providing service to the user or for the data. Categories of services for the user include user services, data set software development, data set documentation, and data distribution. Categories of services for the data include data ingest, data processing, and data archiving. To aid in discussions with potential data providers, levels of services for each of these categories are described In each category, the levels of service are described in order of increasing cost. In addition, depending on the needs of the data provider or user community, a wide range of value-added products or services may be developed as warranted. The possibility of future data retirement or deletion must be covered with the contributing agency or individual at the time of data donation. Procedures for disposition of new data sets and reasons for retirement must be in writing and signed off by both the contributor and an NSIDC representative. Policies may differ according to program. Programs are encouraged to negotiate agreements with their sponsors and/or contributors to develop data deletion procedures for data held at NSIDC. Reasons for retirement of data might include data that have no historical value or data that have been archived for the long-term at another repository. With respect to the NSIDC DAAC, three types of data are considered for disposition. These include: EOS Approved Mission Data and Products 1 EOS Mission data assigned to the NSIDC DAAC are not subject to this process.

4 NASA Mission and Measurement specific Science Teams are responsible for recommending disposition actions to NASA. Ultimately, disposition of NASA Science Mission Directorate (SMD) and EOSDIS approved mission data is controlled by the agreement between the NSIDC DAAC and NASA HQ and EOSDIS. The results of such considerations are documented in the NSIDC- ESDIS Annual Workplan. Disposition of these data are not considered further in this document. Data and Products Accepted through the NSIDC DAAC Data Acceptance Plan The original approval for archival and distribution of these products came through a process, described in the NSIDC DAAC Data Acceptance Plan, which provided a base level of information about the data. This base included a product description, information about the source and size of the product, the potential uses to which it could be put, justification for archival and distribution, along with a variety of other information pertinent to an assessment of the value and utility of the data. This information, along with any updates and current usage information, is the core of the information used in proposing an appropriate disposition for the product. Heritage Products Archived by the NSIDC DAAC Heritage data sets were inherited by the NSIDC DAAC from its parent organization at the inception of the original DAAC contract, based on an implicit recognition of their potential value. In many cases, a base level of information equivalent to that obtained through the current NSIDC DAAC Data Acceptance Plan is available. In other cases, the information needed to assess the value and utility of the data is not currently available and must be generated as a part of the assessment process. 2.0 Controlling Documents NASA HQ and ESDIS directives NSIDC DAAC Policy Documents Interface Control Document Data Management Plan NSIDC DAAC Annual Work plan to ESDIS 3.0 Reassessing the Levels of Service for Heritage Products and Data Accepted through the NSIDC DAAC Data Acceptance Plan An overview of the process for assessing the Levels of Service for a data set is depicted in Figure 1. The Data Assessment Checklist for the NSIDC DAAC, presented in Appendix A of this document, guides documentation and the appraisal process. Appendix B includes a listing of references used during the development of Appendix A. Step 1: Triggering Event Occurs A triggering event starts the re-assessment process. Possible triggers might include, but are not restricted to, the following: A predetermined date for resource review, Retirement or advancement of key staff members, Impending obsolescence of system hardware or software components, Conclusion of a contractually required period of support at the current level of service, or Termination of funding for data maintenance and access.

5 When a triggering event occurs, the NSIDC DAAC Manager assigns the re-assessment to a NSIDC Product Team for action. Figure 1: Data Reassessment Process

6 Step 2: Information Gathering and Initial Review The Product Team gathers any previous evaluations and existing documentation that pertains to the content, management, existing levels of service, and use of the data set being assessed. Previous data appraisal records, metadata, web resources, manuals and how-to guides, and reports detailing use metrics are all potential information sources. Once all existing documentation is compiled, the Product Team determines whether there are significant gaps in the existing information that need to be filled in order to properly re-assess the data set. If so, the team members track down outstanding facts in response to the topical questions outlined in the Data Acceptance Plan for the NSIDC DAAC; Appendix A, Section 1. As a result, additional investigation at this point should only occur for those heritage data sets where little initial documentation is available. Step 3: Ranking and Recommendation Once the data resource is fully documented, the Product Team will meet to establish a ranking of the scientific relevance of the data contents and the requirements for on-going resource support based on the products uniqueness, format, content, costs, legal obligations, and opportunities. This will, in turn, guide the Product Team to make a recommendation. The list of considerations and a recommendation form for this process are included in Appendix A. Team members will either recommend that work be done to establish a new level of service, that data is maintained at the current level of service, or that the data is decommissioned from the NSIDC DAAC. Depending on circumstances, decommissioning of data may actually involve permanently removing data from the NSIDC archive. However, it is expected that in most circumstances decommissioning will instead result in moving data to the lowest levels of service possible. If decommissioning is the recommended action, advance user notice needs to be disseminated through normal NSIDC, data center, and cryospheric community channels. This allows users time to respond, as well as alerting other data centers to a potential opportunity to acquire responsibility for the data. Step 4: Internal Review The completed Data Assessment Checklist, complete with dataset ranking and ultimate recommendation, along with any user comments (in the case of a recommendation for decommissioning) is then submitted to the DAAC manager for approval. Step 5: PoDAG and NASA Review Only if the recommendation is to de-commission the data set, is the report and DAAC recommendation submitted to the Polar DAAC Advisory Group (PODAG) for review. The PoDAG recommendation is forwarded to ESDIS and/or NASA HQ for further action only when PoDAG concurs with the recommendation to decommission the data set. If either PoDAG or NASA disagrees with the de-commissioning recommendation it is returned to the product team for further work. Step 6: Recommendation Implemented Most of the data activities in the DAAC are handled through Product Teams, which typically include representatives from each of the specialty areas at NSIDC. In general a product team will include a technical writer, a user services representative, a scientist, a scientific programmer, a data operations representative, a product team lead, and other technical personnel as needed (Weaver and Duerr, 2009 pg.

7 One all required approvals have been obtained, the recommended actions for the data resources are implemented. In all cases, complete documentation of this assessment, its results, and the results of implementation are retained as part of the NSIDC DAAC s permanent record.

8 References National Snow and Ice Data Center, NSIDC Procedures for Long-Term Data Management. National Snow and Ice Data Center. (internal document). Weaver, R., and Duerr, R., Data Acceptance Plan for the NSIDC DAAC. (internal document).

9 Appendix A: Data Assessment Checklist and Recommendation General Information: Enter reason for reassessment? Identify the triggering event. (e.g.,. scheduled review, staff retirement, software or hardware obsolescence, etc.) Which Product Team is conducting this assessment? Date of the start of data evaluation process Target date for a decision? Identify the current NSIDC DAAC Levels of Service Have the data been previously appraised? If so when? (Attach or provide links to relevant appraisals) Checklist: Is there documentation about the initial decision to archive and maintain these data? If so attach, provide web address or server/directory/filename. The documentation should include information about the heritage, or provenance, of the data; and provide any related justifications. (e.g., Where did this data resource come from? Who authorized NSIDC to manage these data (EOS, DAAC, etc.)? Are there previous User Working Group recommendations, MOUs, or other legally binding agreements?) List the documents that describe the data: (e.g., formal metadata, web resources, manuals, data format descriptions, how-to guides). Please provide server/directory/filename path or appropriate web address of each. Summarize usage of the data Are the data also maintained by any other agency? Data set size (# files and total volume), storage medium, and current location Are the data solely in a digital format, or is there also an analog version? List all software and customized programs that use the data. Is this a primary data resource (raw, or unprocessed, data) or is this data derived from another data resource (e.g., PR item/ past version of data/ subset of data)? If these data are derived is the derivation well-described (ATBD? Source code?)? Estimate the completeness of the data and any relevant supplemental resources. In other words is the documentation complete enough that the data are potentially useable? Evaluate the integrity of the data resource - Are the data authentic, reliable, and unaltered? What is the current scientific relevance or utility of the data? Are the data relevant to other ongoing NSIDC efforts? What is the projected scientific relevance or utility of the data resources? What is the likelihood that the data will be in high demand in the future? Are the data supplemental to other scientific resources or research? Does this data have special intrinsic relevance that should be noted? For example, does it increase the value of other data, have artistic merit, or have historical significance? What would be the projected cost to recollect or recreate the data? Would it actually be possible to recollect or recreate the data? Estimate current annual costs to maintain, archive, process and support users. Estimate the cost savings to lower the LoS or de-commission the data

10 Is the data in alignment with NSIDC DAAC policies? (i.e. DAAC mission, collection scope, and data management policies) Are the data of a proprietary, sensitive, or classified nature? Would the data be of use in defending NSIDC against charges of data fraud? Do the data serve to earn prestige or expand the NSIDC DAAC user base? o Is there measurable activity (use metrics) for accessible resources? o Were the data referenced in journal articles? o Were the data featured in news articles or blogs? DAAC Recommendation Based on consideration of each item above, justify your recommendation. If the recommendation is to maintain the data at the current level of service should a future action or reassessment be scheduled? PoDAG Recommendation (only necessary for decommissioning recommendations)

11 Appendix C: Resources Consulted in Developing this Plan Beagrie, Neil, Chruszcz, Julia and Lavoie, Brian, Keeping Research Data Safe, a Cost Model and Guidance for UK Universities. Joint Information Systems Committee. Broome, John and Moir, Phil, ESS Data Set Stewardship. ESS Data Management and Dissemination Branch. Version 8.0. (internal document). Committee on Earth Observation Satellites (CEOS), Web Page for the Announcement of Datasets Being Purged by Agencies or Organizations. Last updated January 5, 2009; accessed June 15, Day, Michael, The Selection, Appraisal and Retention of Digital Scientific Data: the ERPANET / CODATA workshop. Ariadne. Issue 39. April 30, Digital Curation Centre, DCC Data Curation Lifecycle Model. Last updated June 4, 2009, accessed June 15, Faundeen, John, Regarding the EROS Data Management Policy. June 16, (personal communication). Faundeen, John, EROS Records Management Plan. Version Faundeen, John L., The Challenge of Archiving and Preserving Remotely Sensed Data. Data Science Journal, Volume 2, 31 October 31, Library and Archives Canada, Canadian Digital Information Strategy. Draft Version of October, National Archives of Scotland, Information Management Policy for the Digital Data Archive and Future EDRMS. Last updated January 27, 2009; accessed June 16, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA Procedure for Scientific Records Appraisal and Archive Approval Guide for Data Managers. August 15, National Snow and Ice Data Center, NSIDC Procedures for Long-Term Data Management. National Snow and Ice Data Center. (internal document). Society of American Archivists, Winter 2009 Newsletter. Last updated December 19, 2008; accessed June 15,

12 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Document Checklist. April 10, Data Requirements U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Center for Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS), Records Appraisal Tool: Appraisal Questions. Last updated January 14, 2007; accessed June 22, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Center for Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS), Long-Term Archive Acceptance Checklist. May 1, Van Wingen, R.S., Hathorn, F., and Sprehe, J. T., Principles for Information Technology Investment in U.S. Federal Electronic Records Management. Journal of Government Information, v26 n1 p33-42 Jan-Feb Weaver, R., and Duerr, R., Data Acceptance Plan for the NSIDC DAAC. (internal document).