Canadian Digital Information Strategy

Responses to October 2007 Draft Strategy

Previous | Table of Contents | Next

Submissions received, including the name of the person or organization making the submission, have been posted in the official language in which they were submitted. Content of the submissions has been posted as received; however, minor reformatting may have occurred during HTML conversion. Personal address information has been removed.

Roxane de la Sablonnière, Ph.D.,
Professeure adjointe
Département de psychologie, Université de Montréal
Prof. Michel Sabourin, Chair
Mary Zborowski, Executive Secretary
On behalf of Canadian National Committee,
Committee on Data for Science and Technology (CNC/CODATA)

Email
November 25, 2007

Downloadable Formats
PDF version [PDF 28 KB]

The members of CNC/CODATA committee have read the whole document entitled: "Canadian Digital information Strategy". Overall, we find this document very instructive and useful. The suggestions are well-thought and will certainly help in providing a guideline for actions. We have, however, a few suggestions that are representative of the CNC/CODATA group. Please address these you think will be useful.

First, we think that the idea of Trusted Digital Repositories (TDRs) is the key one, both from the point of view of implementing this report and the NCASRD. We don't think most scientists (or others, for that matter) realize how hard it is to preserve digital data over the long term. It really requires regional or national facilities staffed by professionals. Accordingly, an action plan for the CDIS and the NCASRD should probably put this initiative near the top of its list of priorities. One positive aspect is that it's a big (but spatially distributed) project with impacts right across the arts and sciences that might get the politicians' attention. If a TDR program can be initiated, it would definitely grease the wheels for other aspects of the NCASRD.

Second, we personally believe that it is a must that Canadians (and other countries) have a strategy for digital information. We are already convinced, and this without even reading the Strategy. In the report, we found that the authors assumed that the readers would all be familiar and already convinced. In relation to this, some members found that the report was sometimes a little "dry". We were also somehow expecting that more convincing arguments, as well as their explanations, would be put forward. In other words, we believe that from the beginning the authors should write "why" it is essential that a strategy is put into actions. In the report, especially in the first pages, we seem to assume that the reader understands the importance of a strategy and that everybody is familiar with data issues. Maybe it could be useful to add some concrete examples that address this question. In the following, we have taken note of some places that we think these precisions should be provided

• For example, on page 3 (executive summary), the authors wrote: "Canada must act quickly and decisively". I wonder "why"? We believe that if we want to convince the reader, we should make it easy for him, and explain maybe a little more sometimes.
• Also on page 3, maybe explain more why it is important to have digital information for future generation. We have live centuries without it. Why it is now a must and how it would make our country more competitive and efficient if we adopt such a strategy?
• On page 4, we like the sentence: "Digital information and networked technologies are key drivers of economic growth and social well-being in the 21st century". Again, we wonder why such a claim is made without an explanation to support it.
• In the section "why a strategy", we would suggest to give a few concrete "dramatic" (maybe) examples to illustrate the points made. Maybe by showing some statistics about how much good data (and resources) were lost because Canadians had no strategy would wake up the reader and make him think...let's do something NOW about digital information.
• On page 7, maybe explain how a strategy would help to compete in a global information market.
• On page 7-8, we wondered if the section "strategy development process" was necessary.
• On page 13, should the authors explain a little more the three outcomes. For instance find compelling arguments to convince Canadians.
• On page 40, we found that what was written was maybe a little too abstract. Should the authors provide concrete examples?

We hope that our comments will be useful.
Please do not hesitate to contact us, if you wish to discuss further the Strategy report.

Previous | Table of Contents | Next