NERC documents

[dzchilds]

We're going to have to eventually slice and dice the text in here into three documents on Je-S:

1. Justification of Resources This is easy enough to do. Basically a statement of the day rate and brief overview of what this buys + a pointer to docs with the detail. Big up the RSE team too.
2. Impact Plan This needs to be precisely set out what we'll do and when it will happen, along with who it benefits, without getting into the technical 'how' (we just point to the DMP)
3. Data Management Plan This is where the fine detail can go. Which DB, hosting, R packages, etc...

It would be very helpful to have three working docs here with everything organised along these lines.

[annakrystalli]

On it @dzchilds

[annakrystalli]

@dzchilds FYI

This is the feedback I got from showing the DMP section to RDM manager John Lewis at the library.

Perhaps what is currently in the DMP section might be best as a special section within the proposal proper, ie making a case that you are going above and beyond what is expected from a normal DMP (and hence is too detailed for their standards DMP?). I'll leave it with you to chop and insert wherever you see fit.

His only other comment is to be explicit in the DMP about licensing and reuse related to compiling third party data.

[dzchilds]

@annakrystalli I can cut and slice text between the impact plan and the data management p[lan. To be honest, no one really looks at the latter when reviewing a grant proposal. A few people may skim the impact plan. The IP needs to address the who (will benefit), the how (what we'll do), and the when (timeline of impact activities). I would rather keep as much of the RSE side of things in the IP, as we won't have space to in the actual proposal. We can maybe find room for a few sentences at best.

One comment, there's a lot of "we might" and "maybe" in the text so far. It's never a good idea to use these kinds of phrases too much in a proposal. There's a risk that it is perceived as handwaving. It's better to be as specific as possible. We need to say what we will do, with what tools, to deliver which output, and when. The world doesn't move so fast that whatever we write now will be completely obsolete by the time the project starts.

[annakrystalli]

Thanks @dzchilds, understood.

A few more questions:

• which NERC data centre will you use?

• Having a closer look at the data sources, I'm unsure whether we'll have the right to republish data from the Plant atlases. I think we'll need to establish what sort of reuse license they come attached with when you purchase them. Also, are the Land use surveys open?

[annakrystalli]

Hi @dzchilds & @ShaunCoutts . We’ve been through and finalised the current version of the proposal. Let me know if that's sufficient or whether you need more/any changes.

My main comment would be to reiterate the above re: clarifying the reuse policy associated with the purchased plant atlases.

[ShaunCoutts]

So there might be some confusion here. We will not be able to republish any of the species distribution data, or any of the trait data, as that is already from other open source repositories and plant atlases. What we want in the data base is the names of the species, which country they are listed in, date they were listed, date they were unlisted (if relevant), the restrictions imposed and possibly a link to the actual legislation (since in some cases I am not even sure we can republish a pdf of the law, but we can always link to the original source).

[annakrystalli]

Thanks @ShaunCoutts , ok cool. Good to go then.

[ShaunCoutts]

As for NERC data centre I am not sure, as far as I understood the guidelines in the data management plan you say what you want data you will produce, and what sort of data it will be and they help guide successful applicants on which centre is used. But I think all of that only happens after the proposal is accepted.

[annakrystalli]

So the Library RDM suggested that we need to propose it and suggested NERC Environmental Information Data Centre (EIDC) which I've now included in the proposal. But I reckon getting this wrong wouldn't be a deal breaker and, as you say, they can help to guide that.