August 13, 2012: Last week of the internship
As I am preparing to make suggested changes to the DMPTool, the following are a list of the status of each of the changes I am planning to implement and this includes any issues that I have been running into
#1 This specific sentence on Part 1 of the NSF-Bio template may be confusing (according to 1 respondent)
- How will you capture or create the data? (This should cover content selection, instrumentation, technologies and approaches chosen, methods for naming, versioning, meeting user needs, etc, and should be sensitive to the location in which data capture is taking place.)
I want to directly address the respondent’s concern, because this is one of the only very concrete areas pointed out by the researchers who have completed the survey. The respondent said that this sentence may be interpreted differently by some researchers. He said that though the “instrumentation and technologies” are referring to hardware and software some of his colleagues may think of it as a type of thermometer. Similarly he argued that though the “methods for naming” may be referring to the conventions or standards in the fields, some of his colleagues may take that to mean the names that make the most sense to them. Though I see what he means with the naming argument, I do not agree with the instrumentation comment. I do think that the question is asking for the type of thermometer if in fact the researcher collects data using a thermometer. Correct? Regardless, this confusion indicates that this part of the tool/explanation isn’t quite clear. But I am not entirely sure about how to make it more clear…. suggestions?
#2- data standards and metadata standards information –> this is difficult and something I have been struggling with the entire internship. I always had a hunch that more information about data and metadata standards would be useful. But more links to website such as the Dublin core official website for example might just add to the chaos and clutter of the site rather than informing people. One of the respondents said that a chart of repositories and which standards/metadata standards they accept might be nice. Then we run into the problem of promoting certain repositories over others. Eek?!
#3- Overview of entire template–> This may be a simple fix. I realized that in the “funder requirements” section each of the templates has an RTF of the template. Maybe we could reproduce this RTF link on the first page of each of the templates?
#4- Community forum–> I agree that a community forum linked to the DMPTool might be beneficial. I am working on a wireframe of what this forum might look like and where it would link to the DMPTool