ICRI Manifesto — Call for Help Peter Wittenburg

ICRI Manifesto - Call for Help Peter Wittenburg CLARIN Research Infrastructure DASISH Cluster Project EUDAT Data Infrastructure The Language Archive – Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics Nijmegen, The Netherlands

our vision and problem • our (CLARIN) problem was stated in 2005 at ECRI in Nottigham: building virtual collections as a coming “global” scenario • started to implement a FIM test domain and to talk to Terena and edu. Gain in the hope of solutions • it’s 6 years ago !!! • since then we tried to push things, but • do we have an operational solution? • who is responsible for doing what? • how much do we need to know/do?

my changed role • until 2011 I was active and part of the pushing team in CLARIN together with Daan & Dieter (from MPI) and others • I was/am a data practitioner • now I changed to another role • these old people are dangerous • they tend to become impatient and get a biting voice • now I am allowed to be blunt from a community perspective: the situation is still a mess

embedding of FIM (slide from Larry Lannom) Enabling Technologies ID Discovery Access (ref. resolution, protocols, AAI) ID ID 0100 0101. . ID ID need to Scientists, Data Curators, us, thus nymo End Users, Applications Interpretation n is ano spect) ai ice dom n ID ID ID 0100 0101. . ID serv ne a emai n data & mework (AAI is o rotection will r r 1. mode fra us p Datasets lish trust tition, th estab t compe Accessed via Repositories ust is abou esearch ing is a m 2. r d shar Reuse controlle and

where are we in CLARIN (D) • current functions in CLARIN D relevant for AAI • MD component registry access • virtual collection registry (write access) • weblicht web application access (chaining without delegation, busy with a workaround based on certificates) • BBAW web application access • MPI web application based data access • tested/planned are: • access to BBAW and IDS resources • monitoring of centers (nagios) by Jülich CC • center registry (write access) at Garching CC • service hosting/deployment, access to workspaces at CC

where are we in CLARIN (D) • what are we facing in CLARIN D • 4 of 9 centers with SP (in CLARIN SPF) • 7 of 9 centers have Id. Ps in DFN AAI • centers act as Id. Ps and SPs - different agreements • web services check at application access level • i. e. no delegation - only ok for a closed domain • big problem: • some Id. Ps deliver NO attributes • some deliver just EPTID (diff per SP, number) i. e. no useful credentials for AAI

where are we in CLARIN EU • same functions intended but now across borders • until now MPI SP contract partner - will go over to CLARIN ERIC • MPI has contracts with all centers that act as SP (MPI (NL), INL (NL), Meertens (NL), IDS (DE), BBAW (DE), UTU (DE), CSC (FI), ATILF-CNRS (FR), UFAL (CZ)) • MPI has contracts with 7 NRENs (Surf. Federatie (SP metadata, Id. P metadata), DFN (metadata), HAKA (metadata, pem), Kalmar Union (via HAKA - metadata): FEIDE (Norway), WAYF (Denmark + Iceland), SWAMID (Sweden)) • but does not scale (negotiations with CZ and UK (JANET) take months/years) (this needs to be almost an automatism)

what happens in EUDAT • in EUDAT we are working across disciplines all with different AAI • CLARIN as shown • ENES (climate modeling) have own federation • Life. Watch, VPH, EPOS in pre FIM state (as many others) • different requirements for services • Safe replication only between “trusted centers”, but access to copies • Staging to HPC pipes by users using Grid. FTP • Medatata aggregation all is open - no AAI required • Simple. Store many researchers • Hosting nr. of • general trends centers Q 4: CLARIN, DARIAH, CESSDA, Life. Watch, etc Q 1: ENES, etc. • don’t dare to explain the intended solution nr. of users

how to characterize the situation • AAI is a complex field with different types of players • we lack a proper technical infrastructure • lack a fully operational AAI infrastructure for Q 4 domains • lack a gateway between Shib & Certificate domains • lack attempt to solve the delegation issue • we lack agreements on trust establishment • the whole “game” is not understood by some players (SPs are thought to come from big commerce only) • Id. Ps do what they like (often restrictive interpretations) (administrators decide and not researchers) • NRENs don’t sign “official” agreements • we have a new Co. C - will it help to overcome barriers? • what are the consequences • disciplines are going their own way reinventing the wheel, creating sub-scenes, etc. • a lot of hobbyism takes place creating islands

who is responsible • who feels now responsible and will lead a concerted action • what to expect from edu. Gain • edu. Gain seems to be ready for European MD exchange • currently only few (? ) agreements, opt-in for Id. Ps • standard MD profile not yet broadly used • CLARIN pilot with edu. Gain: we as SPs sign special Co. C • who takes responsibility for a proper technical solution ESFRI projects - GEANT - EUDAT - Grid - ? ? ? isn’t it the terrain of GEANT - but I lost my hope • who takes responsibility to tackle policy problems ESFRI - ESFRI projects - EC - ministries - ? ? • who will get all player focused to make real steps I can see a clear role for FIM - but needs to be broad and massive

role of Manifesto • it’s like an SOS call from communities • we cannot agree with the situation and the way things are dealt with • so much time and money invested with little output for communities • we need a concerted action in Europe, since research is about competition and shared access to distributed data and services will be key • why does it seem again that we need the US to achieve breakthroughs

FIM is a very good initiative. But we need more. Thanks for your attention.