workshop 4 accessibility

[cmbarton]

Raise the question about why should models be accessible and which models should be accessible?

[cmbarton]

Accessibility in the way the it is discussed in the standards seems more to apply to "releases" than to in-development code, even on public repositories like GitHub

[cmbarton]

Is this what OMF should focus on? To what extent should it also come up with standards for development style repositories like GitHub?

[cmbarton]

A release model for accessibility is probably more sustainable practically than something that also includes versioning/development environments

[cmbarton]

Do we need separate accessibility standards for repositories?

[cmbarton]

Perhaps this can be dealt with adequately by defining model accessibility standards. That is, just by putting the model on a server with other code is not necessarily making it accessible.

[manuvanegas]

Accessibility of models can be assessed by the repository they are published on. A set of repository requirements may be established for this purpose.

[cmbarton]

Once code is made openly accessible, does that imply that a dev must support it forever?

[cmbarton]

Can this be dealt with by sufficient documentation? Do accessible models need to have an optional disclaimer about whether the developer can be asked for info, or whether it is still in active development?

[cmbarton]

Also containerization might help with this

[manuvanegas]

Managing accessibility expectations. Authors are not expected to actively update their models so they can be run in every new platform. Should we consider model publications as research publications? Authors may move on in their research topic.

[cmbarton]

In draft doc, should it just say that model should follow the accessible part of Force 11 standards

[cmbarton]

Maybe this should become an issue

[percivall]

Current goal: "Models expose metadata publicly using interoperable standards"
Suggested change:
Model Repository provides "Summary metadata for model" for online reading and searching/indexing by web search engines.
"Summary metadata for model" to be defined or overlapping with metadata as described in Document standards.

[cmbarton]

This is a place for an issue for editing the standards. Need to reword this like: 'Models need to published in repositories that expose metadata publicly...'

[cmbarton]

See comment on coretrustseal below

[cmbarton]

Created issue #316

[MarcoAJanssen]

What do we mean with accessibility beyond making the model code and documentation available? Accessible for whom? For other developers. Different respositories might have different dimensions of accessibility for different types of stakeholders (training, tutorials etc).

[cmbarton]

Do we need to define accessibility standard for non-developer audience? Some models may be technically accessible, but actually getting them requires sophisticated knowledge to find and download them (e.g., Earth System models).

[cmbarton]

Existing standards for repositories: https://www.coretrustseal.org/

[cmbarton]

We could use this as the gold standard for where models should be published

[cmbarton]

Proposed "checklist" includes items not directly related to accessibility

[cmbarton]

Who should certify that a model is accessible?

[cmbarton]

One answer is that journals might require the existence of a DOI or comparable resource locator before the paper gets an accessible badge

[qincz]

I think that editors or reviewers of normal journals might not want to review and certify a model to be accessible, while github and similar portals can support open access for model code.

[rkoskela]

Work in RDA on publishing workflow: https://www.rd-alliance.org/groups/rdawds-publishing-data-workflows-wg.html
The seminar series that brings together societies, publishers, and repositories: https://wesharedata.org/

[rkoskela]

Another relevant RDA group: https://www.rd-alliance.org/groups/fair-data-maturity-model-wg

[cmbarton]

Need to define what is meant by accessibility in the overview section. An issue

[cmbarton]

Differentiate from disabled accessibility

[manuvanegas]

We may reconsider the term itself.

[manuvanegas]

Also on definition: accessibility is understood to pertain to software releases.

[cmbarton]

We can reference FAIR4RS (see issue #315)

[cmbarton]

Minimum accessibility might be the source code. But ideal might include runnable model

[cmbarton]

Maybe an issue to add to the ideal standards

[cmbarton]

Actually, this seems to be more relevant for reusability than accessibility.

[cmbarton]

Need to have less rigid language for the statements about DOIs

[cmbarton]

Need a sufficiently nuanced language to deal with slight modification issues. Need to think about how to phrase this

[cmbarton]

Should the DOI be attached to the docs instead of the code

[cmbarton]

This seems to have been resolved already