Built site for gh-pages

.nojekyll

@@ -1 +1 @@
-d3ff964a
+7027e302

_tex/index.tex

@@ -453,23 +453,30 @@ \subsection{Flexibility vs.~Stability}\label{flexibility-vs.-stability}
 \subsection{Mismatches between standards developers and user
 communities}\label{mismatches-between-standards-developers-and-user-communities}
 
-In contrast to the OSS case, in open-source standards there is often an
-inherent gap in both interest and ability to engage with the technical
-details undergirding standards and their development between the core
-developers of the standard and the users of the standard, which are the
-broader field to which the standard pertains. This gap, in and of
-itself, creates friction on the path to broad adoption and best
-utilization of the standards. In extreme cases, the interests of
-researchers and standards developers may even seem at odds, as
-developers implement sophisticated mechanisms to automate the creation
-and validation of the standard or advocate for more technically advanced
-mechanisms for evolving the standard. These advanced capabilities offer
-more robust development practices and consistency in cases where the
-standards are complex and elaborate. They can ease the maintenance
-burden of the standard. On the other hand, they may end up leaving
-potential users sidelined in the development of the standard, and
-limiting their ability to provide feedback about the practical
-implications of changes to the standards.
+Open-source standards often entail an inherent gap in both interest and
+ability to engage with the technical details undergirding standards and
+their development between the core developers of the standard and the
+users of the standard, which are members of the broader research field
+to which the standard pertains. This gap, in and of itself, creates
+friction on the path to broad adoption and best utilization of the
+standards. In extreme cases, the interests of researchers and standards
+developers may even seem at odds, as developers implement sophisticated
+mechanisms to automate the creation and validation of the standard or
+advocate for more technically advanced mechanisms for evolving the
+standard. These advanced capabilities offer more robust development
+practices and consistency in cases where the standards are complex and
+elaborate. They can also ease the maintenance burden of the standard. On
+the other hand, they may end up leaving potential users sidelined in the
+development of the standard, and limiting their ability to provide
+feedback about the practical implications of changes to the standards.
+One example of this (already mentioned above in
+Section~\ref{sec-use-cases}) is the use of git/GitHub for versioning of
+standards documents. This sets a high bar for participation in standards
+development for researchers in fields of research in which git/GitHub
+have not yet had significant adoption as tools of day-to-day
+computational practice. At the same time, it provides clarity and
+robustness for standards developers communities that are well-versed in
+these tools.
 
 \subsection{Unclear pathways for standards
 success}\label{unclear-pathways-for-standards-success}
@@ -700,46 +707,55 @@ \subsubsection{Fund Data Standards
 The OSS model is seen as a particularly promising avenue for an
 investment of resources, because it builds on previously-developed
 procedures and technical infrastructure and because it provides avenues
-for democratization of development processes and for community input
+for the democratization of development processes and for community input
 along the way. The clarity offered by procedures for enhancement
 proposals and semantic versioning schemes adopted in standards
-development offer avenues for a range of stakeholders to propose to
-funding bodies well-defined contributions to large and field-wide
-standards efforts (e.g., (Pestilli et al. 2021)).
+development offers avenues for a range of stakeholders to propose
+well-defined contributions to large and field-wide standards efforts
+(e.g., (Pestilli et al. 2021)).
 
 \subsubsection{Invest in Data Stewards}\label{invest-in-data-stewards}
 
 Advancing the development and adoption of open-source standards requires
 the dissemination of knowledge to researchers in a variety of fields,
 but this dissemination itself may not be enough without the fostering of
-specialized expertise. Therefore, it is important to recognize
-\emph{data stewards} as a distinct role in research. To truly support
-experts whose role will be to develop, maintain, and facilitate the
-adoption and use of open-source standards, it will be necessary to set
-up programs for training for data stewards and invest in career paths
-that encourage this role. Initial proposals for the curriculum and scope
-of the role have already been proposed (e.g., in (Mons 2018)). In
-addition, in order for these individuals to be able to make the best use
-of open-source standards, it will be important for these individuals to
-be facile in the methodology of OSS. This does not mean that they need
-to become software engineers -- though there may be some overlap with
-the role of research software engineers (Connolly et al. 2023) -- but
-rather that they need to become familiar with those parts of the OSS
-development life-cycle that are useful for development of open-source
-standards.
+specialized expertise. Therefore, it is important to recognize the
+distinct role that \emph{data stewards} play in contemporary research.
+As policy demands for openess become increasingly high, it is crucial to
+truly support experts whose role will be to develop, maintain, and
+facilitate the adoption and use of open-source standards. This support
+needs to manifest in all stages of the career of these individuals: it
+will be necessary to set up programs for training for data stewards, and
+to invest in the career paths of individuals that receive such training
+so that this crucial role is encouraged. Initial proposals for the
+curriculum and scope of the role have already been proposed (e.g., in
+(Mons 2018)), but we identify here also a need to connect these
+individuals directly to the practices that exemplify open-source
+standards. Thus, it will be important for these individuals to be facile
+in the methodology of OSS. This does not mean that they need to become
+software engineers -- though for some of them there may be some overlap
+with the role of research software engineers (Connolly et al. 2023) --
+but rather that they need to become familiar with those parts of the OSS
+development life-cycle that are specifically useful for the development
+of open-source standards. For example, tools for version control, tools
+for versioning, and tools for creation and validation of compliant data
+and metadata.
 
 \subsubsection{Review Data Standards
 Pathways}\label{review-data-standards-pathways}
 
 Invest in programs that examine retrospective pathways for establishing
 data standards. Encourage publication of lifecycles for successful data
-standards. Lifecycle should include process, creators, affiliations,
-grants, and adoption journeys. Make this documentation step integral to
-the work of standards creators and granting agencies. Retrocactively
-document \#3 for standards such as CF(climate science), NASA genelab
-(space omics), OpenGIS (geospatial), DICOM (medical imaging), GA4GH
-(genomics), FITS (astronomy), Zarr (domain agnostic n-dimensional
-arrays)\ldots{} ?
+standards. These lifecycles should include the process, creators,
+affiliations, grants, and adoption journeys of open-source standards. To
+encourage sustainable development of open-source standards, and to build
+on prior experience, the documentation and dissemination of lifecycles
+should be seen as an integral step of the work of standards creators and
+granting agencies. In the meanwhile, it would be good to also
+retroactively document the lifecycle of existing standards that are seen
+as success stories. Research on the principles that underlie successful
+open-source standards development can be used to formulate new standards
+and iterate on existing ones.
 
 \subsubsection{Establish Governance}\label{establish-governance}
 
@@ -780,20 +796,25 @@ \subsubsection{User-Driven Development}\label{user-driven-development}
 \subsubsection{Meta-Standards
 development}\label{meta-standards-development}
 
-Develop meta-standards or standards-of-standards. These are descriptions
-of cross-cutting best-practices and can be used as a basis of the
-analysis or assessment of an existing standard, or as guidelines to
-develop new standards. For instance, barriers to adopting a data
-standard irrespective of team size and technological capabilities should
-be considered. Meta standards should include formalization for
-versioning of standards \& interaction with related software. Naming of
-standards should aid marketing and adoption.
-
-\subsubsection{Ontology Development}\label{ontology-development}
-
-Create ontology for standards process such as top down vs bottom up,
-minimum number of datasets, community size. Examine schema.org (w3c),
-PEP (Python), CDISC (FDA).
+In surveying the landscape of existing standards, a readiness/maturity
+model can be developed that assesses the challenges and opportunities
+that a specific standard faces. This process in itself can be
+standardized to develop meta-standards or standards-of-standards. These
+are the succinct descriptions of cross-cutting best-practices that can
+be used as a basis for the analysis or assessment of an existing
+standard, or as guidelines to develop new standards. For instance,
+barriers to adopting a data standard irrespective of team size and
+technological capabilities should be considered. Meta-standards should
+include formalization for versioning of standards and interactions with
+speficic related software. Aspects of communication with potential user
+audiences (e.g., researchers in particular domains) should be taken into
+account as well. For example, in the quality of onboarding documentation
+and tools for ingestion or conversion into standards-compliant datasets.
+Relatedly, it would be good to create an ontology for standards process
+such as top down vs bottom up, minimum number of datasets, target
+community size and technical expertise typical of this community, etc.
+This ontology can help guide the standards-development process towards
+more effective adoption and use.
 
 \subsubsection{Formalization Guidelines}\label{formalization-guidelines}