RAC TKN Task Force
May 2, 2013

Meeting Notes -- Approved

Agenda

  1. Roll call
    Present: Andy Everett, Carol Paszamant, Renee McHenry, Sandy Brady., Cindy Smith, Daniel Yeh, Karen Perrin, Sue Sillick, Leighton Christiansen, Louise Rosenzweig, Lynn Matis, Mary Moulton
    Leni Oman, Chair, Kathy Szolomayer, Notes
  2. Check in on April notes –no further corrections or additions; will be posted to website.
    Are agenda adjustments needed? – None suggested.
  3. NTKN Coordinating Committee -No new information this month.
    There will be a meeting tomorrow morning, so information will be shared at next month’s meeting, according to Leni.
  4. Discussion Topic: What do we mean by knowledge networking?We have the definition of a Knowledge Network copied below* but what are the practices we advise for those that manage information resources that are intended to be networked within or between organizations?Is there a way to identify the information that is or should be networked?

Leni opened the discussion by asking “what do we mean by networking?” It’s about access but also location of data, where it’s stored, metadata, format, etc. Depending on type of information, there may be restrictions on access. Carol commented that maybe we should concentrate on publications, including grey literature – items that are publicly published. Karen asked why that somewhat narrow focus on publications? The communication in the network is just as important, for her, as the publications that are available, especially for emerging topics. Carol added that she was thinking of the audience for products of networks. Mary said that experience of the network members is also an important facet of a knowledge network. TranLib is a somewhat exclusive group; a TKN is broader group, to her way of thinking. Publications are certainly a focus, Leni said, but not the whole story.
Special Report 284 mentions being able to sit down at a computer and having the ability to access information from anywhere. To make that happen we have to deal with issues such as taxonomy building, information architecture, metadata, data citation, how to deal with large volumes of unstructured data. Andy commented that knowledge transfer is certainly a part of networking. Executives want to be able to locate practices and experts.
How are business needs defined? How can we help people think about what is needed to conduct business, so that we’ll know what to put in the network? Also, how is the underlying infrastructure to be managed? What are the “behind the scenes” practices?
Daniel commented that just “putting it all out there” is not always the most helpful thing; some synthesis is needed. That is the type of information that is needed, but getting to that point is a challenge. Synthesizing information in one particular way may not allow for answers to all questions that could come up, Sue remarked.
The AASHTO RAC Survey page provides some information on questions that have already been asked, that could help guide synthesis efforts, in that some questions may have at least been partially answered.
Is it about “someone” packaging information? Or, are there tools we should be considering? RSS feeds, for example. What would be the data side of this? There are issues surrounding data to enable findability that have to be dealt with. Putting information “in the right place” and labeled appropriately to make it findable – that’s the basic issue.
Connecting or making known common resources is important. Using the same jargon to describe information will help with that; agreed-upon definitions are critical. Example: what is a bus?
Trusting the information can sometimes mean knowing who is connected to producing it, and trusting/knowing them and/or their expertise, experience, education. Authoritative source appliesto both people and information – this is the foundation of a community of practice, as Andy commented. “Experience/expertise locator” – Mary was involved with creating this for a company she once worked for. Employees were surveyed to capture relevant information – goes back to authoritative sources.

Leni tried to sum up the points made in the discussion:
Knowing what we want a network to do:
-- know each other exist
-- collate material appropriately
-- use common language and defined terms to describe content
Characteristicsof the content:
-- defining business purpose
-- authoritative sources
-- frequency of updates/currency

[Note: see Addendum for literature search regarding older driver safety mentioned during the discussion.]

*A Knowledge Network is a voluntary alliance of organizations and people, supported by technology, with a common goal to provide and share rich, quality information and expertise.

Knowledge Networks identify and develop strategies to engage and influence decision makers directly, and to present the network's knowledge in a way that transforms policy and practice. Networks strengthen the capacity for knowledge sharing and communications in and across all member organizations, and support the creation and implementation of new knowledge. Knowledge Networks easily link information providers to users wherever they are located.

  1. Task Updates
  2. Calendar project – Laura Wilt, written report:

Kendra Levine has agreed to work on the project, using excess funding from the TKN website project, and the NWcentral.org site designer has agreed to meet with Kendra to discuss design features. The interest group met on 4/8, and discussed options with Kendra and Maggie. It was decided to limit the scope to include events, webinars, and conferences, and not to include items like work group agendas, committees, etc. There was also an agreement to avoid items that would duplicate things being posted to the newly launched Hermes Transport Research Portal. The site will be hosted on the WTKN site - at least for now - but will be a stand-alone product that can be "moved" if necessary. I am in the process of trying to make arrangements with Maggie to have Kendra meet with Paul Irving (billing logistics. etc.), and getting an estimate from Kendra. Once I have that, I will submit the estimate to the TKN groups involved in the website project. With their approval, we'll get started on the design.

  1. Communication plan – Lynn and Kathy:
    We are trying to get the video cataloged and archived into NTL; getting some clarification on format needed.
  2. Report distribution and technical page – Karen reported that she and Jane Minotti have been working with the Pooled Fund to figure out if the PF consultants can do the work, or should it be contracted out? If it’s done by PF, work may not start until September. Using a subcontractor may result in the work starting sooner; Karen is surveying the working group for direction on this.
  3. Data management – Not much to report since TRB, according to Andy and Mary; they will touch base with Frances to see if anything is new with her on this topic. Leni asked what we need to be thinking about surrounding this topic for the new reauthorization bill and also possible NCHRP problem statements. There may be some helpful information Mary obtains next month regarding federal data management plans, and she will let us know if that’s the case.
  4. Repository paper – Dale is not on the call. Leni recapped where we are with this; stabilizing repositories could be a reauthorization topic.
    Mary has been on the working group – the paper was well done and comments from reviewers sometimes showed individual biases, which some of the commenters wanted to have represented in the paper. Mary opined that doing that would take the focus away from being a paper about repositories. She suggested that someone who doesn’t have an emotional stake in this should facilitate the paper’s further development. Leni said a conversation should/will happen to get this moving again (among Leni, Mary and Dale).

Sandy Tucker sent the following information about digital repositories that she came across in her research to support a university effortto develop a policy on stewardship of research data. Long-term preservation of digital information is, of course, a very big issue these days. The last I heard there are just three U.S. repositories that have received Trusted Repository Audit Checklist (TRAC) certification – HathiTrust, Portico, and Chronopolis at UCSD. The Center for Research Libraries has a page, Metrics for Repository Assessment that provides links to the pertinent documents.

Does this modify our recommendation about a repository?

  1. Emergent tasks – not sure of long term role:
  2. Assisting the RAC Admin Task Force with the SCOR/RAC Website – Mary Moulton agreed to provide some suggestions for content management and will participate in one or more conference calls. I sent Cynthia Gerst the Portal paper that was developed by AJ, Bob, and John. While that is about developing and supporting sustainable portals, I think some of the material is relevant to collaborative websites. I’ve attached some thoughts I also sent about governance and content.
    Sue commented they are focusing on organization and structure at this point. Andy recommended that concentrating on content first would help with setting up relevant taxonomy terminology. He commented that we are working on a content audit at WSDOT for our Intranet; he will send information on how to conduct a content audit to this group.
  1. Review of AASHTO Standing Committee on Research Strategic Plan for fall/early winter meeting. Leni will let this group know when panel members are being solicited.
  1. News from our partner orgs (regional TKNs, LIST, SLA Transportation Division, Data Section committees . . .)
    SLA and GTRIC happening in early June; no agenda yet for GTRIC
    ETKN – presented webinar on transportation information resources for new engineers to the members – sort of a practice session. It will be marketed and presented for the target audience. The library guide that goes with the presentation (“LibGuide”) is called “Recommended Resources for Engineers” and is on the ETKN website at under the last tab in the banner, “Recommended Resources for Engineers”. There is also a place for comments, in case folks have suggestions for adding to the LibGuide. Sandy is working to post the webinar. ETKN is thinking about future projects.
    MTKN – next meeting is May 14th; they have not met since January. They are discussing extending loan periods for members; brochure has been updated. Leni asked if state stats are still being updated. Renee said that is now in her court. The site gets used quite a bit. Karen said they will be asking who else in MTKN can help Renee with this.
    WTKN – Louise reported that at the last meeting, Kathy and Laura gave a practice run of a presentation they were to deliver at the joint Oregon-Washington Library Association Conference on April 26th. Kathy said the actual presentation was well-received and the practice run was helpful.
    TRB – there will soon be requests for program ideas for the next annual meeting
    TRT – recently looked at terminology that had been submitted
    Pooled Fund – Quarterly report has been submitted and they are figuring out how best to move forward on a couple of the research projects.

Meeting adjourned 9:54.

Addendum: Attachment containing Literature Search by Leighton Christiansen regarding older driver safety – referred to in sidebar discussion during agenda item 4. In his note with this attachment, Leighton states that the final language for Guideline 13 has yet to be sent to him.

Next meeting: Thursday, June 6th at 8:30 am Pacific Daylight Time