Brokering Governance WG
JAY PEARLMAN
Agenda
 WG Introduction
 Activities Report
 Concepts and deliverables
 WP1
 WP2
 WP2
 Roadmap
 Final Discussion
Broker Maturity
Framework
Maturity
Application
Data Discovery
M+
DAB
Data Access
M
DAB
Semantics
M-
DAB%
Work Flows and Processes
I
-
Data Quality
I+-
Logistics – security, sign-on
M-
«Brokering Governance» WG
 WG activity started in December 2014
 Wide interest from the Community –comments received and
addressed in a revised version of the statement
 “TAB is convinced the topic has merit and the team is right”;
 The WG has about 20 members (https://rdalliance.org/group/brokering-governance.html)
Generally Recognized Barriers (especially
for GEOSS)
Problem: users need to know the nature and location of
service providers,
◦ making it difficult to bind and dynamically change the bindings
between users and providers
Solution: The broker pattern supports users of services
(clients) from providers of services (servers) by inserting an
intermediary, called a broker.
Broker Requirements
1. Support users and further interoperability;
2. Be sustainable;
3. Support and be compliant with national and international policies
(including research objectives);
4. Support core technical capability advancement, be accessible to a
wide range of users;
5. Create a flexible adaptable framework for incorporation of new
developments;
6. Offer a range of services essential to multi-disciplinary science
collaborations –this range of services is expected to grow.
7. Scalable; supports a wide range of standards and data models
8. Open, transparent, trustworthy (improved managed access]
Consider – incorporation of RDA metadata wg outputs and capabilities such as
metadata harvesting, linked data. Show how different approaches integrate
[a manuscript was jointly published partially addressing these topics]
Working Group Outcomes
The Working Group expects to deliver 3 main outcomes:
•A position paper including guidelines and best practices for a
governance approach
•Test (and refinement) of a governance model to piloted by ‘adopters’
participating in the Working Group
•A recommendation document for the Research Data Alliance, including
consensus on paths for international adoption of this capability.
Brokering Governance Areas
Brokering (framework) Sustainability Assessment
 Business Models
Agreements between brokering organization and
data/service providers
 Preserving autonomy required by the Broker pattern
Community adoption and support of the Broker
pattern
 Use cases, training, pilots, …
Business Models
Information and Ad sales
- Google is available at no cost for search and for visualization of earth
information. Google is supported by advertising and sale of collected
information. Facebook has the same model.
Product (Document) Sales
- Standards organizations (IEEE, ISO, etc.) sell standards documents and
rely on volunteers and corporate participation to formulate standards.
Corporate Support
- OGC has a membership model with fees for participation (different
levels are available) and relies on volunteers.
- The Open Source Initiative is moving from a volunteer base to a
member/affiliate base. They focus on licenses. The financial base comes
from corporate sponsors.
Business Models
“Software as a Service” (SAS) Model
 Companies provide a mixture of base and enhanced services.
Wikipedia defines a similar freemium model -“Freemium is a pricing strategy by
which a product or service (typically a digital offering such as software, media, games
or web services) is provided free of charge, but money (premium) is charged for
proprietary features, functionality, or virtual goods
- Model can work through individual sales or large scale subscriptions.
- Examples: WordPress has an open source component (wordpress.org) and a service
component (wordpress.com) The latter offers enhanced services for fee. Redhat
follows the same model.
Government Funding
- GEOSS solicits support from governments for their secretariat operations, both in
funds and in staff assignments..
- Pan-European research Infrastructures provide an information service based on
government grants.
Business Models
Other ideas:
Non-profit companies using grants for startup. Use of non-profit using
federal funding to support sw for research community (IF)
HDF as an example – HDF moved to a non-profit company to continue
growth
Key that the community has adopted the capability and the Gov’t
recognizes the broad impact on the university community – Unidata is
an example. SW has been adopted by Unidata and it can support the
education and research community. Objective is promoting research
and education to improve efficiency. Thredds server as an example?
Is there is a national mandate so that NSF will be receptive to
businesses engaging in the community support. NSF will not dictate
much, but there is an opportunity for the community.
Brokering Agreements Definition
 Agreements between brokering organization and data/service
providers
 Define high-level service interoperability agreements
 Consider the specificity of high-level broker pattern (e.g. preserve autonomy)
 Agreements may include:

Agreements for notification of changes (e.g. in formats for data or metadata or changes in web interface
protocols)

Data Management plan adopted by the provider

Confirmation of access requirements and release policy

Requirements for sign-on and authorization

Intellectual Property Rights – including access, use and reuse

Security requirements for data uptake and distribution

Code of conduct (e.g., will not distribute user information)

License Agreements (service or operation license agreements)
Work Group tasks and
Deliverables
T1: Brokering process definition and definition of terms agreements
with adopters (WP2)
T2: Review of initial governance model; considerations of options (subWP1)
T3: Stakeholders apply/test the governance model; document
experience (WP3)
T4: Analysis of governance model – examination of updates; testing of
updates (All)
T5: Develop recommendations for a brokering framework governance
approach; (recommendations by each WP)
T6: Review recommendation with a broad stakeholder and RDA
Communities (All)
T7: Report writing (WG Chairs)
Activities Report
Three WPs created
◦ WP1. Business model
◦ WP2. Service agreement
◦ WP3. Use Cases
 A couple of WG meetings to create consensus on the WP goals and
schedule
WP ToR draft produced
Open Solicitation for participation issued
WP Chairs:
 WP1: Sue Fyfe (Geosciences Australia), Lindsay Powers (HDF)
 WP2: Rebecca Koskela (Executive Director, DataOne)
 WP3: Erin Robinson (Executive Director, ESIP) and Mattia Santoro (GEOSS Services
leader, CNR)
Thank you !