Workshop #2 Report

17 Apr 2019
Groups audience: 

Dear members of the RDA FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group,

We would like to thank you for attending the meeting of the Working Group in Philadelphia on 3 April 2019 and hope you found the meeting useful.

The report of the meeting is now available for download from the WG page on the RDA site at https://www.rd-alliance.org/workshop-2.

We are currently finalising a Google spreadsheet for your contributions to the development of the indicators for the FAIR principles following the approach presented at the meeting in Philadelphia, and we plan to share the spreadsheet with the Working Group in the coming days.

Many thanks!

Makx Dekkers

Editorial team

  • Ge Peng's picture

    Author: Ge Peng

    Date: 17 Apr, 2019

    Thanks a lot, Makx, for the workshop report. Thank also the chairs and the
    editor team for organizing the P13 session and facilitating the discussions.

    I'd like to note that I was present at the workshop:
    Ge Peng; US; North Carolina State University/NCEI

    Best regards,

    Ge Peng

    On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 4:25 AM makxdekkers wrote:

    > Dear members of the RDA FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group,
    >
    >
    >
    > We would like to thank you for attending the meeting of the Working Group
    > in Philadelphia on 3 April 2019 and hope you found the meeting useful.
    >
    > The report of the meeting is now available for download from the WG page
    > on the RDA site at https://www.rd-alliance.org/workshop-2.
    >
    >
    >
    > We are currently finalising a Google spreadsheet for your contributions to
    > the development of the indicators for the FAIR principles following the
    > approach presented at the meeting in Philadelphia, and we plan to share the
    > spreadsheet with the Working Group in the coming days.
    >
    >
    >
    > Many thanks!
    >
    >
    >
    > Makx Dekkers
    >
    > Editorial team
    > --
    > Full post:
    > https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    > Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    > Stop emails for this post:
    > https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859
    >

    --

    *Ge Peng, PhD*
    *Research Scholar*
    Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites - NC (CICS-NC)/NCSU at

    NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

    Center for Weather and Climate (CWC)

    151 Patton Ave, Asheville, NC 28801
    +1 828 257 3009; ge.peng@noaa.gov

    ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1986-9115

    Following CICS-NC on Facebook

  • Makx Dekkers's picture

    Author: Makx Dekkers

    Date: 17 Apr, 2019

    Thank you. We will revise the report and add your name to it. If there are other people who were at the meeting, but whose name is not in the report, please let us know and we’ll add your name.

    Kind regards, Makx.

    From: Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate
    Sent: 17 April 2019 14:00
    To: makxdekkers
    Cc: fair_maturity@rda-groups.org; Ge Peng ; mrs.edit.herczog@gmail.com; keith.russell@ardc.edu.au
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Thanks a lot, Makx, for the workshop report. Thank also the chairs and the editor team for organizing the P13 session and facilitating the discussions.

    I'd like to note that I was present at the workshop:

    Ge Peng; US; North Carolina State University/NCEI

    Best regards,

    Ge Peng

    On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 4:25 AM makxdekkers > wrote:

    Dear members of the RDA FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group,

    We would like to thank you for attending the meeting of the Working Group in Philadelphia on 3 April 2019 and hope you found the meeting useful.

    The report of the meeting is now available for download from the WG page on the RDA site at https://www.rd-alliance.org/workshop-2.

    We are currently finalising a Google spreadsheet for your contributions to the development of the indicators for the FAIR principles following the approach presented at the meeting in Philadelphia, and we plan to share the spreadsheet with the Working Group in the coming days.

    Many thanks!

    Makx Dekkers

    Editorial team

    --
    Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859

    --

    Ge Peng, PhD
    Research Scholar
    Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites - NC (CICS-NC)/NCSU at

    NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

    Center for Weather and Climate (CWC)

    151 Patton Ave, Asheville, NC 28801
    +1 828 257 3009; ge.peng@noaa.gov

    ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1986-9115

    Following CICS-NC on Facebook

  • Andrea Perego's picture

    Author: Andrea Perego

    Date: 18 Apr, 2019

    Dear Makx, dear colleagues,

    Thanks for sharing the report.

    I would like to raise an issue on point (4) in slide 20:

    "(4) Does the licence permit access?"

    Strictly speaking, licences are just about *use* conditions, and not about who can access what. Of course, ad hoc licences happen to include access provisions as well, but this does not apply to standard ones (as the Creative Commons suite).

    For this reason, and to facilitate conformance testing, it would be desirable that access conditions/restrictions were assessed separately from the licence, and to require that this information be specified in a separate metadata field.

    Best,

    Andrea

    ----
    Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
    Scientific / Technical Project Officer
    European Commission DG JRC
    Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
    Unit B6 - Digital Economy
    Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
    21027 Ispra VA, Italy

    https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/

    ----
    The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
    not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
    position of the European Commission.

    ________________________________________
    From: mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org on behalf of makxdekkers
    Sent: 17 April 2019 10:24:54
    To: fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    Subject: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Dear members of the RDA FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group,

    We would like to thank you for attending the meeting of the Working Group in Philadelphia on 3 April 2019 and hope you found the meeting useful.
    The report of the meeting is now available for download from the WG page on the RDA site at https://www.rd-alliance.org/workshop-2.

    We are currently finalising a Google spreadsheet for your contributions to the development of the indicators for the FAIR principles following the approach presented at the meeting in Philadelphia, and we plan to share the spreadsheet with the Working Group in the coming days.

    Many thanks!

    Makx Dekkers
    Editorial team

  • Andrea Perego's picture

    Author: Andrea Perego

    Date: 18 Apr, 2019

    Thanks, Mercè.

    Actually, this distinction is already made in Dublin Core (dct:license vs dct:accessRights), and it is included in the new version of the W3C Data Catalogue vocabulary, now being finalised [1].

    Andrea

    ----
    [1] https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/dcat/#license-rights

    ----
    Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
    Scientific / Technical Project Officer
    European Commission DG JRC
    Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
    Unit B6 - Digital Economy
    Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
    21027 Ispra VA, Italy

    https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/

    ----
    The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
    not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
    position of the European Commission.

    From: Crosas, Mercè [mailto:mcrosas@g.harvard.edu]
    Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 3:58 PM
    To: PEREGO Andrea (JRC-ISPRA)
    Cc: makxdekkers; fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    That's correct - I agree that it would be best to separate license metadata from access metadata. The Data Documentation Initiative (DDI) schema has this distinction, for example.

    Best,
    Merce

    On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 4:06 AM andrea.perego > wrote:
    Dear Makx, dear colleagues,

    Thanks for sharing the report.

    I would like to raise an issue on point (4) in slide 20:

    "(4) Does the licence permit access?"

    Strictly speaking, licences are just about *use* conditions, and not about who can access what. Of course, ad hoc licences happen to include access provisions as well, but this does not apply to standard ones (as the Creative Commons suite).

    For this reason, and to facilitate conformance testing, it would be desirable that access conditions/restrictions were assessed separately from the licence, and to require that this information be specified in a separate metadata field.

    Best,

    Andrea

    ----
    Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
    Scientific / Technical Project Officer
    European Commission DG JRC
    Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
    Unit B6 - Digital Economy
    Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
    21027 Ispra VA, Italy

    https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/

    ----
    The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
    not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
    position of the European Commission.

    ________________________________________
    From: mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org > on behalf of makxdekkers >
    Sent: 17 April 2019 10:24:54
    To: fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    Subject: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Dear members of the RDA FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group,

    We would like to thank you for attending the meeting of the Working Group in Philadelphia on 3 April 2019 and hope you found the meeting useful.
    The report of the meeting is now available for download from the WG page on the RDA site at https://www.rd-alliance.org/workshop-2.

    We are currently finalising a Google spreadsheet for your contributions to the development of the indicators for the FAIR principles following the approach presented at the meeting in Philadelphia, and we plan to share the spreadsheet with the Working Group in the coming days.

    Many thanks!

    Makx Dekkers
    Editorial team
    --
    Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859

    --
    Mercè Crosas, Ph.D.
    Harvard University's Research Data Officer, Office of Vice Provost for Research
    Chief Data Science and Technology Officer, Institute for Quantitative Social Science
    mcrosas@g.harvard.edu | @mercecrosas | scholar.harvard.edu/mercecrosas

  • Makx Dekkers's picture

    Author: Makx Dekkers

    Date: 18 Apr, 2019

    Many thanks, Andrea and Mercè, for bringing this up.

    Should the expression of access rights, as opposed to the re-use licence, be covered under principle R1.1 or somewhere else?

    Kind regards, Makx

    From: Crosas, Mercè
    Sent: 18 April 2019 15:58
    To: andrea.perego
    Cc: makxdekkers ; fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    That's correct - I agree that it would be best to separate license metadata from access metadata. The Data Documentation Initiative (DDI) schema has this distinction, for example.

    Best,

    Merce

    On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 4:06 AM andrea.perego > wrote:

    Dear Makx, dear colleagues,

    Thanks for sharing the report.

    I would like to raise an issue on point (4) in slide 20:

    "(4) Does the licence permit access?"

    Strictly speaking, licences are just about *use* conditions, and not about who can access what. Of course, ad hoc licences happen to include access provisions as well, but this does not apply to standard ones (as the Creative Commons suite).

    For this reason, and to facilitate conformance testing, it would be desirable that access conditions/restrictions were assessed separately from the licence, and to require that this information be specified in a separate metadata field.

    Best,

    Andrea

    ----
    Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
    Scientific / Technical Project Officer
    European Commission DG JRC
    Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
    Unit B6 - Digital Economy
    Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
    21027 Ispra VA, Italy

    https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/

    ----
    The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
    not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
    position of the European Commission.

    ________________________________________
    From: mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org > on behalf of makxdekkers >
    Sent: 17 April 2019 10:24:54
    To: fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    Subject: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Dear members of the RDA FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group,

    We would like to thank you for attending the meeting of the Working Group in Philadelphia on 3 April 2019 and hope you found the meeting useful.
    The report of the meeting is now available for download from the WG page on the RDA site at https://www.rd-alliance.org/workshop-2.

    We are currently finalising a Google spreadsheet for your contributions to the development of the indicators for the FAIR principles following the approach presented at the meeting in Philadelphia, and we plan to share the spreadsheet with the Working Group in the coming days.

    Many thanks!

    Makx Dekkers
    Editorial team
    --
    Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859

    --

    Mercè Crosas, Ph.D.

    Harvard University's Research Data Officer, Office of Vice Provost for Research

    Chief Data Science and Technology Officer, Institute for Quantitative Social Science

    mcrosas@g.harvard.edu | @mercecrosas | scholar.harvard.edu/mercecrosas

  • Maggie Hellström's picture

    Author: Maggie Hellström

    Date: 18 Apr, 2019

    Hi Makx,

    my immediate reaction to this was that the access rights are connected to principle A1.2 ("the protocol allows for an authentication and authorization procedure, where necessary", but that doesn't specifically address the issue of how to inform the user (human or machine) of what those restrictions are. I guess that would be covered by the "plurality of accurate and relevant attributes" of R.1 and possibly also the "domain-relevant community standards" of R1.3.

    Happy Easter!

    /Maggie

    ------------------
    Associate Professor Margareta Hellström
    ICOS Carbon Portal staff member

    margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se
    Lund University
    Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science
    Sölvegatan 12, SE-22362 Lund, Sweden
    Phone: +46-(0)46-2229683

    ________________________________

    ________________________________
    From: mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org on behalf of makxdekkers
    Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 17:46
    To: 'Crosas@rda-groups.org; Mercè'; 'andrea.perego'; FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Many thanks, Andrea and Mercè, for bringing this up.

    Should the expression of access rights, as opposed to the re-use licence, be covered under principle R1.1 or somewhere else?

    Kind regards, Makx

    From: Crosas, Mercè
    Sent: 18 April 2019 15:58
    To: andrea.perego
    Cc: makxdekkers ; fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    That's correct - I agree that it would be best to separate license metadata from access metadata. The Data Documentation Initiative (DDI) schema has this distinction, for example.

    Best,

    Merce

    On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 4:06 AM andrea.perego > wrote:

    Dear Makx, dear colleagues,

    Thanks for sharing the report.

    I would like to raise an issue on point (4) in slide 20:

    "(4) Does the licence permit access?"

    Strictly speaking, licences are just about *use* conditions, and not about who can access what. Of course, ad hoc licences happen to include access provisions as well, but this does not apply to standard ones (as the Creative Commons suite).

    For this reason, and to facilitate conformance testing, it would be desirable that access conditions/restrictions were assessed separately from the licence, and to require that this information be specified in a separate metadata field.

    Best,

    Andrea

    ----
    Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
    Scientific / Technical Project Officer
    European Commission DG JRC
    Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
    Unit B6 - Digital Economy
    Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
    21027 Ispra VA, Italy

    https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/

    ----
    The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
    not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
    position of the European Commission.

    ________________________________________
    From: mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org > on behalf of makxdekkers >
    Sent: 17 April 2019 10:24:54
    To: fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    Subject: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Dear members of the RDA FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group,

    We would like to thank you for attending the meeting of the Working Group in Philadelphia on 3 April 2019 and hope you found the meeting useful.
    The report of the meeting is now available for download from the WG page on the RDA site at https://www.rd-alliance.org/workshop-2.

    We are currently finalising a Google spreadsheet for your contributions to the development of the indicators for the FAIR principles following the approach presented at the meeting in Philadelphia, and we plan to share the spreadsheet with the Working Group in the coming days.

    Many thanks!

    Makx Dekkers
    Editorial team
    --
    Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859

    --

    Mercè Crosas, Ph.D.

    Harvard University's Research Data Officer, Office of Vice Provost for Research

    Chief Data Science and Technology Officer, Institute for Quantitative Social Science

    mcrosas@g.harvard.edu | @mercecrosas | scholar.harvard.edu/mercecrosas

  • Andrea Perego's picture

    Author: Andrea Perego

    Date: 18 Apr, 2019

    Hi, Makx.

    The problem is that, to my knowledge, FAIR principles do not include anything specifically related to access rights/restrictions – besides requirements on meta/data access protocols (A.1). And R.1.1 covers only use conditions.

    Maybe, this item is a good candidate for the WG work on the "Beyond FAIR" principles.

    Andrea

    ----
    Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
    Scientific / Technical Project Officer
    European Commission DG JRC
    Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
    Unit B6 - Digital Economy
    Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
    21027 Ispra VA, Italy

    https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/

    ----
    The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
    not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
    position of the European Commission.

    From: Makx Dekkers [mailto:mail@makxdekkers.com]
    Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 5:46 PM
    To: 'Crosas, Mercè'; PEREGO Andrea (JRC-ISPRA)
    Cc: fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    Subject: RE: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Many thanks, Andrea and Mercè, for bringing this up.

    Should the expression of access rights, as opposed to the re-use licence, be covered under principle R1.1 or somewhere else?

    Kind regards, Makx

    From: Crosas, Mercè
    Sent: 18 April 2019 15:58
    To: andrea.perego
    Cc: makxdekkers ; fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    That's correct - I agree that it would be best to separate license metadata from access metadata. The Data Documentation Initiative (DDI) schema has this distinction, for example.

    Best,
    Merce

    On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 4:06 AM andrea.perego > wrote:
    Dear Makx, dear colleagues,

    Thanks for sharing the report.

    I would like to raise an issue on point (4) in slide 20:

    "(4) Does the licence permit access?"

    Strictly speaking, licences are just about *use* conditions, and not about who can access what. Of course, ad hoc licences happen to include access provisions as well, but this does not apply to standard ones (as the Creative Commons suite).

    For this reason, and to facilitate conformance testing, it would be desirable that access conditions/restrictions were assessed separately from the licence, and to require that this information be specified in a separate metadata field.

    Best,

    Andrea

    ----
    Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
    Scientific / Technical Project Officer
    European Commission DG JRC
    Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
    Unit B6 - Digital Economy
    Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
    21027 Ispra VA, Italy

    https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/

    ----
    The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
    not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
    position of the European Commission.

    ________________________________________
    From: mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org > on behalf of makxdekkers >
    Sent: 17 April 2019 10:24:54
    To: fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    Subject: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Dear members of the RDA FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group,

    We would like to thank you for attending the meeting of the Working Group in Philadelphia on 3 April 2019 and hope you found the meeting useful.
    The report of the meeting is now available for download from the WG page on the RDA site at https://www.rd-alliance.org/workshop-2.

    We are currently finalising a Google spreadsheet for your contributions to the development of the indicators for the FAIR principles following the approach presented at the meeting in Philadelphia, and we plan to share the spreadsheet with the Working Group in the coming days.

    Many thanks!

    Makx Dekkers
    Editorial team
    --
    Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859

    --
    Mercè Crosas, Ph.D.
    Harvard University's Research Data Officer, Office of Vice Provost for Research
    Chief Data Science and Technology Officer, Institute for Quantitative Social Science
    mcrosas@g.harvard.edu | @mercecrosas | scholar.harvard.edu/mercecrosas

  • Andrea Perego's picture

    Author: Andrea Perego

    Date: 18 Apr, 2019

    Hi, Maggie.

    I agree access rights are implicitly related to the principles you mention. My concern is whether a conformance test could require compliance with requirements not explicitly stated in the FAIR principles.

    This is why I was considering the possibility of including a requirement on access rights the "Beyond FAIR" work – which, ideally, can be a useful feedback for a possible revision/extension to the FAIR principles, based on usage and implementation evidence.

    Andrea

    ----
    Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
    Scientific / Technical Project Officer
    European Commission DG JRC
    Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
    Unit B6 - Digital Economy
    Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
    21027 Ispra VA, Italy

    https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/

    ----
    The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
    not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
    position of the European Commission.

    From: Margareta Hellström [mailto:margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se]
    Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 6:00 PM
    To: makxdekkers; 'Crosas@rda-groups.org; Mercè'; PEREGO Andrea (JRC-ISPRA); FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Hi Makx,

    my immediate reaction to this was that the access rights are connected to principle A1.2 ("the protocol allows for an authentication and authorization procedure, where necessary", but that doesn't specifically address the issue of how to inform the user (human or machine) of what those restrictions are. I guess that would be covered by the "plurality of accurate and relevant attributes" of R.1 and possibly also the "domain-relevant community standards" of R1.3.

    Happy Easter!

    /Maggie

    ------------------
    Associate Professor Margareta Hellström
    ICOS Carbon Portal staff member
    margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se
    Lund University
    Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science
    Sölvegatan 12, SE-22362 Lund, Sweden
    Phone: +46-(0)46-2229683
    ________________________________

    ________________________________
    From: mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org on behalf of makxdekkers
    Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 17:46
    To: 'Crosas@rda-groups.org; Mercè'; 'andrea.perego'; FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Many thanks, Andrea and Mercè, for bringing this up.

    Should the expression of access rights, as opposed to the re-use licence, be covered under principle R1.1 or somewhere else?

    Kind regards, Makx

    From: Crosas, Mercè
    Sent: 18 April 2019 15:58
    To: andrea.perego
    Cc: makxdekkers ; fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    That's correct - I agree that it would be best to separate license metadata from access metadata. The Data Documentation Initiative (DDI) schema has this distinction, for example.

    Best,

    Merce

    On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 4:06 AM andrea.perego > wrote:

    Dear Makx, dear colleagues,

    Thanks for sharing the report.

    I would like to raise an issue on point (4) in slide 20:

    "(4) Does the licence permit access?"

    Strictly speaking, licences are just about *use* conditions, and not about who can access what. Of course, ad hoc licences happen to include access provisions as well, but this does not apply to standard ones (as the Creative Commons suite).

    For this reason, and to facilitate conformance testing, it would be desirable that access conditions/restrictions were assessed separately from the licence, and to require that this information be specified in a separate metadata field.

    Best,

    Andrea

    ----
    Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
    Scientific / Technical Project Officer
    European Commission DG JRC
    Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
    Unit B6 - Digital Economy
    Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
    21027 Ispra VA, Italy

    https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/

    ----
    The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
    not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
    position of the European Commission.

    ________________________________________
    From: mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org > on behalf of makxdekkers >
    Sent: 17 April 2019 10:24:54
    To: fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    Subject: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Dear members of the RDA FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group,

    We would like to thank you for attending the meeting of the Working Group in Philadelphia on 3 April 2019 and hope you found the meeting useful.
    The report of the meeting is now available for download from the WG page on the RDA site at https://www.rd-alliance.org/workshop-2.

    We are currently finalising a Google spreadsheet for your contributions to the development of the indicators for the FAIR principles following the approach presented at the meeting in Philadelphia, and we plan to share the spreadsheet with the Working Group in the coming days.

    Many thanks!

    Makx Dekkers
    Editorial team
    --
    Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859

    --

    Mercè Crosas, Ph.D.

    Harvard University's Research Data Officer, Office of Vice Provost for Research

    Chief Data Science and Technology Officer, Institute for Quantitative Social Science

    mcrosas@g.harvard.edu | @mercecrosas | scholar.harvard.edu/mercecrosas

  • Barend Mons's picture

    Author: Barend Mons

    Date: 18 Apr, 2019

    Good discussion (just landed from Nairobi, so was a bit out of the loop.

    Also there, access rights e.d. were a hot discussion topic.

    I concur with Maggie that the ‘A’ and part of R is implicitly requiring access rights and licensing (the machine need to know what it is technically able to do with the data as well as what it is ‘allowed’ to do). To me this is all covered by the generic principle of rich, machine actionable metadata for all FAIR digital objects. Measuring can imho include any further specification of that, and again, the requirements may vary per disciploine as we stated at the meeting.
    I know for instance from an earlier IMI project (Open PHACTS) that the pharma is unlikely to even ‘touch’ a data set without a clear license, even if the researcher is so ‘open minded’ that putting a license did not even occur to her/him...
    B

    Prof. Barend Mons
    Leiden University Medical Center
    President of CODATA
    GO FAIR international Support and coordination office

    Mail: barend.mons@go-fair.org
    +31624879779

    ORCID: 0000-0003-3934-0072
    sent from my IPad

    > On 18 Apr 2019, at 18:17, andrea.perego wrote:
    >
    > Hi, Maggie.
    >
    > I agree access rights are implicitly related to the principles you mention. My concern is whether a conformance test could require compliance with requirements not explicitly stated in the FAIR principles.
    >
    > This is why I was considering the possibility of including a requirement on access rights the "Beyond FAIR" work – which, ideally, can be a useful feedback for a possible revision/extension to the FAIR principles, based on usage and implementation evidence.
    >
    > Andrea
    >
    > ----
    > Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
    > Scientific / Technical Project Officer
    > European Commission DG JRC
    > Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
    > Unit B6 - Digital Economy
    > Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
    > 21027 Ispra VA, Italy
    >
    > https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/
    >
    > ----
    > The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
    > not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
    > position of the European Commission.
    >
    > From: Margareta Hellström [mailto:margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se]
    > Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 6:00 PM
    > To: makxdekkers; 'Crosas@rda-groups.org; Mercè'; PEREGO Andrea (JRC-ISPRA); FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
    > Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
    >
    > Hi Makx,
    >
    > my immediate reaction to this was that the access rights are connected to principle A1.2 ("the protocol allows for an authentication and authorization procedure, where necessary", but that doesn't specifically address the issue of how to inform the user (human or machine) of what those restrictions are. I guess that would be covered by the "plurality of accurate and relevant attributes" of R.1 and possibly also the "domain-relevant community standards" of R1.3.
    >
    > Happy Easter!
    > /Maggie
    >
    >
    > ------------------
    > Associate Professor Margareta Hellström
    > ICOS Carbon Portal staff member
    >
    > margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se
    > Lund University
    > Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science
    > Sölvegatan 12, SE-22362 Lund, Sweden
    > Phone: +46-(0)46-2229683
    >
    >
    >
    > From: mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org on behalf of makxdekkers
    > Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 17:46
    > To: 'Crosas@rda-groups.org; Mercè'; 'andrea.perego'; FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
    > Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
    >
    > Many thanks, Andrea and Mercè, for bringing this up.
    >
    > Should the expression of access rights, as opposed to the re-use licence, be covered under principle R1.1 or somewhere else?
    >
    > Kind regards, Makx
    >
    >
    > From: Crosas, Mercè
    > Sent: 18 April 2019 15:58
    > To: andrea.perego
    > Cc: makxdekkers ; fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    > Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
    >
    > That's correct - I agree that it would be best to separate license metadata from access metadata. The Data Documentation Initiative (DDI) schema has this distinction, for example.
    >
    > Best,
    > Merce
    >
    > On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 4:06 AM andrea.perego wrote:
    > Dear Makx, dear colleagues,
    >
    > Thanks for sharing the report.
    >
    > I would like to raise an issue on point (4) in slide 20:
    >
    > "(4) Does the licence permit access?"
    >
    > Strictly speaking, licences are just about *use* conditions, and not about who can access what. Of course, ad hoc licences happen to include access provisions as well, but this does not apply to standard ones (as the Creative Commons suite).
    >
    > For this reason, and to facilitate conformance testing, it would be desirable that access conditions/restrictions were assessed separately from the licence, and to require that this information be specified in a separate metadata field.
    >
    > Best,
    >
    > Andrea
    >
    > ----
    > Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
    > Scientific / Technical Project Officer
    > European Commission DG JRC
    > Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
    > Unit B6 - Digital Economy
    > Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
    > 21027 Ispra VA, Italy
    >
    > https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/
    >
    > ----
    > The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
    > not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
    > position of the European Commission.
    >
    >
    > ________________________________________
    > From: mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org on behalf of makxdekkers
    > Sent: 17 April 2019 10:24:54
    > To: fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    > Subject: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
    >
    > Dear members of the RDA FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group,
    >
    > We would like to thank you for attending the meeting of the Working Group in Philadelphia on 3 April 2019 and hope you found the meeting useful.
    > The report of the meeting is now available for download from the WG page on the RDA site at https://www.rd-alliance.org/workshop-2.
    >
    > We are currently finalising a Google spreadsheet for your contributions to the development of the indicators for the FAIR principles following the approach presented at the meeting in Philadelphia, and we plan to share the spreadsheet with the Working Group in the coming days.
    >
    > Many thanks!
    >
    > Makx Dekkers
    > Editorial team
    > --
    > Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    > Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    > Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859
    >
    >
    > --
    > Mercè Crosas, Ph.D.
    > Harvard University's Research Data Officer, Office of Vice Provost for Research
    > Chief Data Science and Technology Officer, Institute for Quantitative Social Science
    > mcrosas@g.harvard.edu | @mercecrosas | scholar.harvard.edu/mercecrosas
    > --
    > Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    > Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    > Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859

  • Ge Peng's picture

    Author: Ge Peng

    Date: 18 Apr, 2019

    Thanks, Barend, for bringing up the point of open-minded researchers. For
    them and many, if not all, US federal agencies, not having any restriction
    clauses on access and/or use in metadata record or website means there is
    no restriction, period. It has been on my mind but have not got a good time
    to mention so until now.

    However, requiring explicitly description of the license, access and use
    rights may be a good practice.

    Regards,

    --- Peng

    On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 12:31 PM Barend Mons wrote:

    > Good discussion (just landed from Nairobi, so was a bit out of the loop.
    >
    > Also there, access rights e.d. were a hot discussion topic.
    >
    > I concur with Maggie that the ‘A’ and part of R is implicitly requiring
    > access rights and licensing (the machine need to know what it is
    > technically able to do with the data as well as what it is ‘allowed’ to
    > do). To me this is all covered by the generic principle of rich, machine
    > actionable metadata for all FAIR digital objects. Measuring can imho
    > include any further specification of that, and again, the requirements may
    > vary per disciploine as we stated at the meeting.
    > I know for instance from an earlier IMI project (Open PHACTS) that the
    > pharma is unlikely to even ‘touch’ a data set without a clear license, even
    > if the researcher is so ‘open minded’ that putting a license did not even
    > occur to her/him...
    > B
    >
    >
    > Prof. Barend Mons
    >
    > Leiden University Medical Center
    >
    > President of CODATA
    >
    > GO FAIR international Support and coordination office
    >
    >
    > Mail: barend.mons@go-fair.org
    >
    > +31624879779
    >
    >
    > ORCID: 0000-0003-3934-0072
    >
    > sent from my IPad
    >
    >
    > On 18 Apr 2019, at 18:17, andrea.perego
    > wrote:
    >
    > Hi, Maggie.
    >
    >
    >
    > I agree access rights are implicitly related to the principles you
    > mention. My concern is whether a conformance test could require compliance
    > with requirements not explicitly stated in the FAIR principles.
    >
    >
    >
    > This is why I was considering the possibility of including a requirement
    > on access rights the "Beyond FAIR" work – which, ideally, can be a useful
    > feedback for a possible revision/extension to the FAIR principles, based on
    > usage and implementation evidence.
    >
    >
    >
    > Andrea
    >
    >
    >
    > ----
    >
    > Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
    >
    > Scientific / Technical Project Officer
    >
    > European Commission DG JRC
    >
    > Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
    >
    > Unit B6 - Digital Economy
    >
    > Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
    >
    > 21027 Ispra VA, Italy
    >
    >
    >
    > https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/
    >
    >
    >
    > ----
    >
    > The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
    >
    > not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
    >
    > position of the European Commission.
    >
    >
    >
    > *From:* Margareta Hellström [mailto:margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se
    > ]
    > *Sent:* Thursday, April 18, 2019 6:00 PM
    > *To:* makxdekkers; 'Crosas@rda-groups.org; Mercè'; PEREGO Andrea
    > (JRC-ISPRA); FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
    > *Subject:* Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
    >
    >
    >
    > Hi Makx,
    >
    >
    >
    > my immediate reaction to this was that the access rights are
    > connected to principle A1.2 ("the protocol allows for an authentication and
    > authorization procedure, where necessary", but that doesn't specifically
    > address the issue of how to inform the user (human or machine) of what
    > those restrictions are. I guess that would be covered by the "plurality of
    > accurate and relevant attributes" of R.1 and possibly also the
    > "domain-relevant community standards" of R1.3.
    >
    >
    >
    > Happy Easter!
    >
    > /Maggie
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > ------------------
    > Associate Professor Margareta Hellström
    >
    > ICOS Carbon Portal staff member
    >
    > margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se
    >
    > Lund University
    >
    > Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science
    > Sölvegatan 12, SE-22362 Lund, Sweden
    > Phone: +46-(0)46-2229683
    > ------------------------------
    >
    >
    > ------------------------------
    >
    > *From:* mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org <
    > mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org> on behalf of makxdekkers <
    > mail@makxdekkers.com>
    > *Sent:* Thursday, April 18, 2019 17:46
    > *To:* 'Crosas@rda-groups.org; Mercè'; 'andrea.perego'; FAIR Data Maturity
    > Model WG
    > *Subject:* Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
    >
    >
    >
    > Many thanks, Andrea and Mercè, for bringing this up.
    >
    >
    >
    > Should the expression of access rights, as opposed to the re-use licence,
    > be covered under principle R1.1
    >
    > or somewhere else?
    >
    >
    >
    > Kind regards, Makx
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > *From:* Crosas, Mercè
    > *Sent:* 18 April 2019 15:58
    > *To:* andrea.perego
    > *Cc:* makxdekkers ; fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    > *Subject:* Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
    >
    >
    >
    > That's correct - I agree that it would be best to separate license
    > metadata from access metadata. The Data Documentation Initiative (DDI)
    > schema has this
    > distinction, for example.
    >
    >
    >
    > Best,
    >
    > Merce
    >
    >
    >
    > On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 4:06 AM andrea.perego
    > wrote:
    >
    > Dear Makx, dear colleagues,
    >
    > Thanks for sharing the report.
    >
    > I would like to raise an issue on point (4) in slide 20:
    >
    > "(4) Does the licence permit access?"
    >
    > Strictly speaking, licences are just about *use* conditions, and not about
    > who can access what. Of course, ad hoc licences happen to include access
    > provisions as well, but this does not apply to standard ones (as the
    > Creative Commons suite).
    >
    > For this reason, and to facilitate conformance testing, it would be
    > desirable that access conditions/restrictions were assessed separately from
    > the licence, and to require that this information be specified in a
    > separate metadata field.
    >
    > Best,
    >
    > Andrea
    >
    > ----
    > Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
    > Scientific / Technical Project Officer
    > European Commission DG JRC
    > Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
    > Unit B6 - Digital Economy
    > Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
    > 21027 Ispra VA, Italy
    >
    > https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/
    >
    > ----
    > The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
    > not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
    > position of the European Commission.
    >
    >
    > ________________________________________
    > From: mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org> on behalf of makxdekkers <
    > mail@makxdekkers.com>
    > Sent: 17 April 2019 10:24:54
    > To: fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    > Subject: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
    >
    > Dear members of the RDA FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group,
    >
    > We would like to thank you for attending the meeting of the Working Group
    > in Philadelphia on 3 April 2019 and hope you found the meeting useful.
    > The report of the meeting is now available for download from the WG page
    > on the RDA site at https://www.rd-alliance.org/workshop-2.
    >
    > We are currently finalising a Google spreadsheet for your contributions to
    > the development of the indicators for the FAIR principles following the
    > approach presented at the meeting in Philadelphia, and we plan to share the
    > spreadsheet with the Working Group in the coming days.
    >
    > Many thanks!
    >
    > Makx Dekkers
    > Editorial team
    > --
    > Full post:
    > https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    > Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    > Stop emails for this post:
    > https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > Mercè Crosas, Ph.D.
    >
    > Harvard University's Research Data Officer, Office of Vice Provost for
    > Research
    >
    > Chief Data Science and Technology Officer, Institute for Quantitative
    > Social Science
    >
    > mcrosas@g.harvard.edu | @mercecrosas |
    > scholar.harvard.edu/mercecrosas
    >
    > --
    > Full post:
    > https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    > Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    > Stop emails for this post:
    > https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859
    >
    > --
    > Full post:
    > https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    > Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    > Stop emails for this post:
    > https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859
    >

    --

    *Ge Peng, PhD*
    *Research Scholar*
    Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites - NC (CICS-NC)/NCSU at

    NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

    Center for Weather and Climate (CWC)

    151 Patton Ave, Asheville, NC 28801
    +1 828 257 3009; ge.peng@noaa.gov

    ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1986-9115

    Following CICS-NC on Facebook

  • Edit Herczog's picture

    Author: Edit Herczog

    Date: 18 Apr, 2019

    Dear All,

    The RDA technical work can be achieved the technical open access ( we all hope), and can be agreed at global level.
    On the other side, the legislation will happen at regional or even national level, due to political competences.
    In RDA there is a legal WG started in Philly. In the EU the Data ownership and Access as ownership will come during the new legislative period.

    In RDA funders discuss the issue and FAIR principles drive the policies into similar directions, but it can not be the same ever.

    The WG concentrate on WHAT is the common criteria, and the HOW is only the next step after.

    I already put into the github under outside FAIR criteria the different flows: people, legal openness, money flow (in case of price tag in the future on some data or services)

    Have a nice Easter and talk to you all soon

    Edit

    Edit Herczog
    Managing Director
    Mobile:  0032 476777595
    Phone:    0032 2311 6177
    Email:   mrs.edit.herczog@gmail.com

    In case you cannot reach me please contact my assistant.
    Zsuzsanna Szeredi
    Mobile: 0032 475255905
    Phone:    0032 2311 6177
    Email: zsuzsanna.szeredi@gmail.com

    From: Barend Mons
    Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 6:31 PM
    To: andrea.perego; FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
    Cc: margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se; mail@makxdekkers.com; 'Crosas@rda-groups.org; mcrosas@g.harvard.edu
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Good discussion (just landed from Nairobi, so was a bit out of the loop.

    Also there, access rights e.d. were a hot discussion topic. 

    I concur with Maggie that the ‘A’ and part of R is implicitly requiring access rights and licensing (the machine need to know what it is technically able to do with the data as well as what it is ‘allowed’ to do). To me this is all covered by the generic principle of rich, machine actionable metadata for all FAIR digital objects. Measuring can imho include any further specification of that, and again, the requirements may vary per disciploine as we stated at the meeting.
    I know for instance from an earlier IMI project (Open PHACTS) that the pharma is unlikely to even ‘touch’ a data set without a clear license, even if the researcher is so ‘open minded’ that putting a license did not even occur to her/him...
    B

    Prof. Barend Mons
    Leiden University Medical Center
    President of CODATA 
    GO FAIR international Support and coordination office

    Mail: barend.mons@go-fair.org
    +31624879779

    ORCID: 0000-0003-3934-0072
    sent from my IPad

    On 18 Apr 2019, at 18:17, andrea.perego wrote:
    Hi, Maggie.
     
    I agree access rights are implicitly related to the principles you mention. My concern is whether a conformance test could require compliance with requirements not explicitly stated in the FAIR principles.
     
    This is why I was considering the possibility of including a requirement on access rights the "Beyond FAIR" work – which, ideally, can be a useful feedback for a possible revision/extension to the FAIR principles, based on usage and implementation evidence.
     
    Andrea
     
    ----
    Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
    Scientific / Technical Project Officer
    European Commission DG JRC
    Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
    Unit B6 - Digital Economy
    Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
    21027 Ispra VA, Italy
     
    https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/
     
    ----
    The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
    not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
    position of the European Commission.
     
    From: Margareta Hellström [mailto:margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se]
    Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 6:00 PM
    To: makxdekkers; 'Crosas@rda-groups.org; Mercè'; PEREGO Andrea (JRC-ISPRA); FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
     
    Hi Makx,
     
    my immediate reaction to this was that the access rights are connected to principle A1.2 ("the protocol allows for an authentication and authorization procedure, where necessary", but that doesn't specifically address the issue of how to inform the user (human or machine) of what those restrictions are. I guess that would be covered by the "plurality of accurate and relevant attributes" of R.1 and possibly also the "domain-relevant community standards" of  R1.3.
     
    Happy Easter!
    /Maggie
     
     
    ------------------
    Associate Professor Margareta Hellström
    ICOS Carbon Portal staff member
    margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se
    Lund University  
    Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science      
    Sölvegatan 12, SE-22362 Lund, Sweden
    Phone: +46-(0)46-2229683

     

    From: mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org on behalf of makxdekkers
    Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 17:46
    To: 'Crosas@rda-groups.org; Mercè'; 'andrea.perego'; FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
     
    Many thanks, Andrea and Mercè, for bringing this up.
     
    Should the expression of access rights, as opposed to the re-use licence, be covered under principle R1.1 or somewhere else?
     
    Kind regards, Makx
     
     
    From: Crosas, Mercè
    Sent: 18 April 2019 15:58
    To: andrea.perego
    Cc: makxdekkers ; fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
     
    That's correct - I agree that it would be best to separate license metadata from access metadata. The Data Documentation Initiative (DDI) schema has this distinction, for example.
     
    Best,
    Merce
     
    On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 4:06 AM andrea.perego wrote:
    Dear Makx, dear colleagues,

    Thanks for sharing the report.

    I would like to raise an issue on point (4) in slide 20:

    "(4) Does the licence permit access?"

    Strictly speaking, licences are just about *use* conditions, and not about who can access what. Of course, ad hoc licences happen to include access provisions as well, but this does not apply to standard ones (as the Creative Commons suite).

    For this reason, and to facilitate conformance testing, it would be desirable that access conditions/restrictions were assessed separately from the licence, and to require that this information be specified in a separate metadata field.

    Best,

    Andrea

    ----
    Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
    Scientific / Technical Project Officer
    European Commission DG JRC
    Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
    Unit B6 - Digital Economy
    Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
    21027 Ispra VA, Italy

    https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/

    ----
    The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
    not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
    position of the European Commission.

    ________________________________________
    From: mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org on behalf of makxdekkers
    Sent: 17 April 2019 10:24:54
    To: fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    Subject: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Dear members of the RDA FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group,

    We would like to thank you for attending the meeting of the Working Group in Philadelphia on 3 April 2019 and hope you found the meeting useful.
    The report of the meeting is now available for download from the WG page on the RDA site at https://www.rd-alliance.org/workshop-2.

    We are currently finalising a Google spreadsheet for your contributions to the development of the indicators for the FAIR principles following the approach presented at the meeting in Philadelphia, and we plan to share the spreadsheet with the Working Group in the coming days.

    Many thanks!

    Makx Dekkers
    Editorial team
    --
    Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859

     
    --
    Mercè Crosas, Ph.D.
    Harvard University's Research Data Officer, Office of Vice Provost for Research
    Chief Data Science and Technology Officer, Institute for Quantitative Social Science
    mcrosas@g.harvard.edu | @mercecrosas | scholar.harvard.edu/mercecrosas

    --
    Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859

  • Barend Mons's picture

    Author: Barend Mons

    Date: 18 Apr, 2019

    Yes and as we support the statement: ‘as open as possible, as closed as necessary’, we could even put the most liberal license as ‘default’ UPRI in metadata templates, so that researchers would have to ‘increase restriction deliberately if they have good reasons for that, which the funder will accept (for instnace patient privacy).
    In that way ‘unlicensed’ and thereforwe in some circles re-useless data can be avoided?
    B

    Prof. Barend Mons
    Leiden University Medical Center
    President of CODATA
    GO FAIR international Support and coordination office

    Mail: barend.mons@go-fair.org
    +31624879779

    ORCID: 0000-0003-3934-0072
    sent from my IPad

    > On 18 Apr 2019, at 19:01, Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate wrote:
    >
    > Thanks, Barend, for bringing up the point of open-minded researchers. For them and many, if not all, US federal agencies, not having any restriction clauses on access and/or use in metadata record or website means there is no restriction, period. It has been on my mind but have not got a good time to mention so until now.
    >
    > However, requiring explicitly description of the license, access and use rights may be a good practice.
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > --- Peng
    >
    >> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 12:31 PM Barend Mons wrote:
    >> Good discussion (just landed from Nairobi, so was a bit out of the loop.
    >>
    >> Also there, access rights e.d. were a hot discussion topic.
    >>
    >> I concur with Maggie that the ‘A’ and part of R is implicitly requiring access rights and licensing (the machine need to know what it is technically able to do with the data as well as what it is ‘allowed’ to do). To me this is all covered by the generic principle of rich, machine actionable metadata for all FAIR digital objects. Measuring can imho include any further specification of that, and again, the requirements may vary per disciploine as we stated at the meeting.
    >> I know for instance from an earlier IMI project (Open PHACTS) that the pharma is unlikely to even ‘touch’ a data set without a clear license, even if the researcher is so ‘open minded’ that putting a license did not even occur to her/him...
    >> B
    >>
    >>
    >> Prof. Barend Mons
    >> Leiden University Medical Center
    >> President of CODATA
    >> GO FAIR international Support and coordination office
    >>
    >> Mail: barend.mons@go-fair.org
    >> +31624879779
    >>
    >>
    >> ORCID: 0000-0003-3934-0072
    >> sent from my IPad
    >>
    >>
    >>> On 18 Apr 2019, at 18:17, andrea.perego wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Hi, Maggie.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> I agree access rights are implicitly related to the principles you mention. My concern is whether a conformance test could require compliance with requirements not explicitly stated in the FAIR principles.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> This is why I was considering the possibility of including a requirement on access rights the "Beyond FAIR" work – which, ideally, can be a useful feedback for a possible revision/extension to the FAIR principles, based on usage and implementation evidence.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Andrea
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> ----
    >>>
    >>> Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
    >>>
    >>> Scientific / Technical Project Officer
    >>>
    >>> European Commission DG JRC
    >>>
    >>> Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
    >>>
    >>> Unit B6 - Digital Economy
    >>>
    >>> Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
    >>>
    >>> 21027 Ispra VA, Italy
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> ----
    >>>
    >>> The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
    >>>
    >>> not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
    >>>
    >>> position of the European Commission.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> From: Margareta Hellström [mailto:margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se]
    >>> Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 6:00 PM
    >>> To: makxdekkers; 'Crosas@rda-groups.org; Mercè'; PEREGO Andrea (JRC-ISPRA); FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
    >>> Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Hi Makx,
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> my immediate reaction to this was that the access rights are connected to principle A1.2 ("the protocol allows for an authentication and authorization procedure, where necessary", but that doesn't specifically address the issue of how to inform the user (human or machine) of what those restrictions are. I guess that would be covered by the "plurality of accurate and relevant attributes" of R.1 and possibly also the "domain-relevant community standards" of R1.3.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Happy Easter!
    >>>
    >>> /Maggie
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> ------------------
    >>> Associate Professor Margareta Hellström
    >>>
    >>> ICOS Carbon Portal staff member
    >>>
    >>> margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se
    >>>
    >>> Lund University
    >>>
    >>> Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science
    >>> Sölvegatan 12, SE-22362 Lund, Sweden
    >>> Phone: +46-(0)46-2229683
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> From: mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org on behalf of makxdekkers
    >>> Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 17:46
    >>> To: 'Crosas@rda-groups.org; Mercè'; 'andrea.perego'; FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
    >>> Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Many thanks, Andrea and Mercè, for bringing this up.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Should the expression of access rights, as opposed to the re-use licence, be covered under principle R1.1 or somewhere else?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Kind regards, Makx
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> From: Crosas, Mercè
    >>> Sent: 18 April 2019 15:58
    >>> To: andrea.perego
    >>> Cc: makxdekkers ; fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    >>> Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> That's correct - I agree that it would be best to separate license metadata from access metadata. The Data Documentation Initiative (DDI) schema has this distinction, for example.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Best,
    >>>
    >>> Merce
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 4:06 AM andrea.perego wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Dear Makx, dear colleagues,
    >>>
    >>> Thanks for sharing the report.
    >>>
    >>> I would like to raise an issue on point (4) in slide 20:
    >>>
    >>> "(4) Does the licence permit access?"
    >>>
    >>> Strictly speaking, licences are just about *use* conditions, and not about who can access what. Of course, ad hoc licences happen to include access provisions as well, but this does not apply to standard ones (as the Creative Commons suite).
    >>>
    >>> For this reason, and to facilitate conformance testing, it would be desirable that access conditions/restrictions were assessed separately from the licence, and to require that this information be specified in a separate metadata field.
    >>>
    >>> Best,
    >>>
    >>> Andrea
    >>>
    >>> ----
    >>> Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
    >>> Scientific / Technical Project Officer
    >>> European Commission DG JRC
    >>> Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
    >>> Unit B6 - Digital Economy
    >>> Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
    >>> 21027 Ispra VA, Italy
    >>>
    >>> https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/
    >>>
    >>> ----
    >>> The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
    >>> not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
    >>> position of the European Commission.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> ________________________________________
    >>> From: mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org on behalf of makxdekkers
    >>> Sent: 17 April 2019 10:24:54
    >>> To: fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    >>> Subject: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
    >>>
    >>> Dear members of the RDA FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group,
    >>>
    >>> We would like to thank you for attending the meeting of the Working Group in Philadelphia on 3 April 2019 and hope you found the meeting useful.
    >>> The report of the meeting is now available for download from the WG page on the RDA site at https://www.rd-alliance.org/workshop-2.
    >>>
    >>> We are currently finalising a Google spreadsheet for your contributions to the development of the indicators for the FAIR principles following the approach presented at the meeting in Philadelphia, and we plan to share the spreadsheet with the Working Group in the coming days.
    >>>
    >>> Many thanks!
    >>>
    >>> Makx Dekkers
    >>> Editorial team
    >>> --
    >>> Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    >>> Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    >>> Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>>
    >>> Mercè Crosas, Ph.D.
    >>>
    >>> Harvard University's Research Data Officer, Office of Vice Provost for Research
    >>>
    >>> Chief Data Science and Technology Officer, Institute for Quantitative Social Science
    >>>
    >>> mcrosas@g.harvard.edu | @mercecrosas | scholar.harvard.edu/mercecrosas
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    >>> Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    >>> Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859
    >> --
    >> Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    >> Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    >> Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859
    >
    >
    > --
    > Ge Peng, PhD
    > Research Scholar
    > Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites - NC (CICS-NC)/NCSU at
    >
    > NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)
    >
    > Center for Weather and Climate (CWC)
    >
    > 151 Patton Ave, Asheville, NC 28801
    > +1 828 257 3009; ge.peng@noaa.gov
    >
    > ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1986-9115
    >
    > Following CICS-NC on Facebook
    >
    >

  • Keith Jeffery's picture

    Author: Keith Jeffery

    Date: 19 Apr, 2019

    All –
    I have been following the discussion with interest. Andrea is of course correct and references (updated) DCAT in this regard. I agree with Maggie’s suggested relationships of access to the relevant FAIR principles. I agree strongly with Barend on rich metadata that is actionable (implies formal syntax and declared semantics). I agree that licence conditions and access constraints (security, privacy, trust, cost…) are related but different. The tracking of correct re-use conditions (attribution, use without change…) is related to provenance although I haven’t seen any reliable solutions yet.

    From my perspective it is commonly difficult for any workflow/process to distinguish A, I and R in terms of access permissions. The problem is the multi-dimensionality. I suggest the basic access permission actually relates to a process (e.g. Webservice) acting on a dataset (generalised as any asset acting on or with any other asset – including lab equipment, sensors, software services, datasets, persons, organisations, publications…) but this is conditioned by who owns or manages each of the two assets involved and whom those organisations or persons delegate to execute the service on the dataset (or more generally the action of one asset on another). Thus if the basic permission being managed is then we have connected to each something like:

    (person in role user different from the manager and owner persons)

    Note that each should have a temporal duration (this allows for e.g. embargo periods or elapsing of copyright). There can be interesting problems when temporal intervals do not coincide – a well-known NP-hard problem from temporal database research.

    Furthermore, access conditions can be quite complex; depending on the asset the permission may be :
    [know the existence of | read | copy | update (amend, insert, delete) | delete | execute ……] and in a different dimension [cost (which may have complex sub-conditions)] in yet another dimension [attribution] and in yet another dimension [trust/security/privacy] and of course as well as the conventional assets (datasets, services etc) the metadata itself may be subject to access conditions.

    Hopefully most research can be open and free thus avoiding the need for such access controls, but I fear that we shall have to provide them – not least because of increasing regulation (e.g. GDPR in Europe).

    I am concerned that we do not re-invent the wheel. Years of research have provided production-strength access control systems for large-scale IT systems used all the time by commerce, industry, government. I believe the problem is to relate the capabilities of these access control systems to the FAIR principles using a form of logic notation representable in the metadata as formal syntax and declared semantics.

    Best
    Keith
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Keith G Jeffery Consultants
    Prof Keith G Jeffery
    E: keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk
    T: +44 7768 446088
    S: keithgjeffery
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the
    intended recipient only. If you are not one of the intended
    recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but
    return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From: barendmons=gmail.com@rda-groups.org On Behalf Of Barend Mons
    Sent: 18 April 2019 18:09
    To: Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate ; FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
    Cc: andrea.perego ; margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se; makxdekkers ; 'Crosas@rda-groups.org; mcrosas@g.harvard.edu
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Yes and as we support the statement: ‘as open as possible, as closed as necessary’, we could even put the most liberal license as ‘default’ UPRI in metadata templates, so that researchers would have to ‘increase restriction deliberately if they have good reasons for that, which the funder will accept (for instnace patient privacy).
    In that way ‘unlicensed’ and thereforwe in some circles re-useless data can be avoided?
    B

    Prof. Barend Mons

    Leiden University Medical Center

    President of CODATA

    GO FAIR international Support and coordination office

    Mail: barend.mons@go-fair.org

    +31624879779

    [Image removed by sender.]

    ORCID: 0000-0003-3934-0072

    sent from my IPad

    On 18 Apr 2019, at 19:01, Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate > wrote:
    Thanks, Barend, for bringing up the point of open-minded researchers. For them and many, if not all, US federal agencies, not having any restriction clauses on access and/or use in metadata record or website means there is no restriction, period. It has been on my mind but have not got a good time to mention so until now.

    However, requiring explicitly description of the license, access and use rights may be a good practice.

    Regards,

    --- Peng

    On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 12:31 PM Barend Mons > wrote:
    Good discussion (just landed from Nairobi, so was a bit out of the loop.

    Also there, access rights e.d. were a hot discussion topic.

    I concur with Maggie that the ‘A’ and part of R is implicitly requiring access rights and licensing (the machine need to know what it is technically able to do with the data as well as what it is ‘allowed’ to do). To me this is all covered by the generic principle of rich, machine actionable metadata for all FAIR digital objects. Measuring can imho include any further specification of that, and again, the requirements may vary per disciploine as we stated at the meeting.
    I know for instance from an earlier IMI project (Open PHACTS) that the pharma is unlikely to even ‘touch’ a data set without a clear license, even if the researcher is so ‘open minded’ that putting a license did not even occur to her/him...
    B

    Prof. Barend Mons

    Leiden University Medical Center

    President of CODATA

    GO FAIR international Support and coordination office

    Mail: barend.mons@go-fair.org

    +31624879779

    [cid:]

    ORCID: 0000-0003-3934-0072

    sent from my IPad

    On 18 Apr 2019, at 18:17, andrea.perego > wrote:
    Hi, Maggie.

    I agree access rights are implicitly related to the principles you mention. My concern is whether a conformance test could require compliance with requirements not explicitly stated in the FAIR principles.

    This is why I was considering the possibility of including a requirement on access rights the "Beyond FAIR" work – which, ideally, can be a useful feedback for a possible revision/extension to the FAIR principles, based on usage and implementation evidence.

    Andrea

    ----
    Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
    Scientific / Technical Project Officer
    European Commission DG JRC
    Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
    Unit B6 - Digital Economy
    Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
    21027 Ispra VA, Italy

    https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/

    ----
    The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
    not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
    position of the European Commission.

    From: Margareta Hellström [mailto:margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se]
    Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 6:00 PM
    To: makxdekkers; 'Crosas@rda-groups.org; Mercè'; PEREGO Andrea (JRC-ISPRA); FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Hi Makx,

    my immediate reaction to this was that the access rights are connected to principle A1.2 ("the protocol allows for an authentication and authorization procedure, where necessary", but that doesn't specifically address the issue of how to inform the user (human or machine) of what those restrictions are. I guess that would be covered by the "plurality of accurate and relevant attributes" of R.1 and possibly also the "domain-relevant community standards" of R1.3.

    Happy Easter!

    /Maggie

    ------------------
    Associate Professor Margareta Hellström
    ICOS Carbon Portal staff member
    margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se
    Lund University
    Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science
    Sölvegatan 12, SE-22362 Lund, Sweden
    Phone: +46-(0)46-2229683
    ________________________________

    ________________________________
    From: mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org > on behalf of makxdekkers >
    Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 17:46
    To: 'Crosas@rda-groups.org; Mercè'; 'andrea.perego'; FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Many thanks, Andrea and Mercè, for bringing this up.

    Should the expression of access rights, as opposed to the re-use licence, be covered under principle R1.1 or somewhere else?

    Kind regards, Makx

    From: Crosas, Mercè >
    Sent: 18 April 2019 15:58
    To: andrea.perego >
    Cc: makxdekkers >; fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    That's correct - I agree that it would be best to separate license metadata from access metadata. The Data Documentation Initiative (DDI) schema has this distinction, for example.

    Best,

    Merce

    On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 4:06 AM andrea.perego > wrote:

    Dear Makx, dear colleagues,

    Thanks for sharing the report.

    I would like to raise an issue on point (4) in slide 20:

    "(4) Does the licence permit access?"

    Strictly speaking, licences are just about *use* conditions, and not about who can access what. Of course, ad hoc licences happen to include access provisions as well, but this does not apply to standard ones (as the Creative Commons suite).

    For this reason, and to facilitate conformance testing, it would be desirable that access conditions/restrictions were assessed separately from the licence, and to require that this information be specified in a separate metadata field.

    Best,

    Andrea

    ----
    Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
    Scientific / Technical Project Officer
    European Commission DG JRC
    Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
    Unit B6 - Digital Economy
    Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
    21027 Ispra VA, Italy

    https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/

    ----
    The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
    not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
    position of the European Commission.

    ________________________________________
    From: mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org > on behalf of makxdekkers >
    Sent: 17 April 2019 10:24:54
    To: fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    Subject: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Dear members of the RDA FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group,

    We would like to thank you for attending the meeting of the Working Group in Philadelphia on 3 April 2019 and hope you found the meeting useful.
    The report of the meeting is now available for download from the WG page on the RDA site at https://www.rd-alliance.org/workshop-2.

    We are currently finalising a Google spreadsheet for your contributions to the development of the indicators for the FAIR principles following the approach presented at the meeting in Philadelphia, and we plan to share the spreadsheet with the Working Group in the coming days.

    Many thanks!

    Makx Dekkers
    Editorial team
    --
    Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859

    --

    Mercè Crosas, Ph.D.

    Harvard University's Research Data Officer, Office of Vice Provost for Research

    Chief Data Science and Technology Officer, Institute for Quantitative Social Science

    mcrosas@g.harvard.edu | @mercecrosas | scholar.harvard.edu/mercecrosas

    --
    Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859
    --
    Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859

    --

    Ge Peng, PhD
    Research Scholar
    Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites - NC (CICS-NC)/NCSU at

    NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

    Center for Weather and Climate (CWC)

    151 Patton Ave, Asheville, NC 28801
    +1 828 257 3009; ge.peng@noaa.gov

    ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1986-9115

    Following CICS-NC on Facebook

  • Barend Mons's picture

    Author: Barend Mons

    Date: 19 Apr, 2019

    Hear hear, especially the ‘not reinventing wheels’ comment is very important, there has been al lot of thinking and development on generic data and software access and licensing.
    The major thing we have to resolve her is that (again) that now ‘the machine knows what we mean’. Also the detailed tracking thing is new but has emerged as a scale problem before, so let’s make sure we reuse whatever we can. I cc two Kenyan colleagues with a special interest and expertise in the latter.
    Best
    Barend

    Prof. Barend Mons
    Leiden University Medical Center
    President of CODATA
    GO FAIR international Support and coordination office

    Mail: barend.mons@go-fair.org
    +31624879779

    ORCID: 0000-0003-3934-0072
    sent from my IPhone

    > Op 19 apr. 2019 om 09:19 heeft Keith Jeffery het volgende geschreven:
    >
    > All –
    > I have been following the discussion with interest. Andrea is of course correct and references (updated) DCAT in this regard. I agree with Maggie’s suggested relationships of access to the relevant FAIR principles. I agree strongly with Barend on rich metadata that is actionable (implies formal syntax and declared semantics). I agree that licence conditions and access constraints (security, privacy, trust, cost…) are related but different. The tracking of correct re-use conditions (attribution, use without change…) is related to provenance although I haven’t seen any reliable solutions yet.
    >
    > From my perspective it is commonly difficult for any workflow/process to distinguish A, I and R in terms of access permissions. The problem is the multi-dimensionality. I suggest the basic access permission actually relates to a process (e.g. Webservice) acting on a dataset (generalised as any asset acting on or with any other asset – including lab equipment, sensors, software services, datasets, persons, organisations, publications…) but this is conditioned by who owns or manages each of the two assets involved and whom those organisations or persons delegate to execute the service on the dataset (or more generally the action of one asset on another). Thus if the basic permission being managed is then we have connected to each something like:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > (person in role user different from the manager and owner persons)
    >
    > Note that each should have a temporal duration (this allows for e.g. embargo periods or elapsing of copyright). There can be interesting problems when temporal intervals do not coincide – a well-known NP-hard problem from temporal database research.
    >
    > Furthermore, access conditions can be quite complex; depending on the asset the permission may be :
    > [know the existence of | read | copy | update (amend, insert, delete) | delete | execute ……] and in a different dimension [cost (which may have complex sub-conditions)] in yet another dimension [attribution] and in yet another dimension [trust/security/privacy] and of course as well as the conventional assets (datasets, services etc) the metadata itself may be subject to access conditions.
    >
    > Hopefully most research can be open and free thus avoiding the need for such access controls, but I fear that we shall have to provide them – not least because of increasing regulation (e.g. GDPR in Europe).
    >
    > I am concerned that we do not re-invent the wheel. Years of research have provided production-strength access control systems for large-scale IT systems used all the time by commerce, industry, government. I believe the problem is to relate the capabilities of these access control systems to the FAIR principles using a form of logic notation representable in the metadata as formal syntax and declared semantics.
    >
    > Best
    > Keith
    > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > Keith G Jeffery Consultants
    > Prof Keith G Jeffery
    > E: keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk
    > T: +44 7768 446088
    > S: keithgjeffery
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the
    > intended recipient only. If you are not one of the intended
    > recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but
    > return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it.
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    >
    > From: barendmons=gmail.com@rda-groups.org On Behalf Of Barend Mons
    > Sent: 18 April 2019 18:09
    > To: Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate ; FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
    > Cc: andrea.perego ; margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se; makxdekkers ; 'Crosas@rda-groups.org; mcrosas@g.harvard.edu
    > Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
    >
    > Yes and as we support the statement: ‘as open as possible, as closed as necessary’, we could even put the most liberal license as ‘default’ UPRI in metadata templates, so that researchers would have to ‘increase restriction deliberately if they have good reasons for that, which the funder will accept (for instnace patient privacy).
    > In that way ‘unlicensed’ and thereforwe in some circles re-useless data can be avoided?
    > B
    >
    >
    > Prof. Barend Mons
    > Leiden University Medical Center
    > President of CODATA
    > GO FAIR international Support and coordination office
    >
    > Mail: barend.mons@go-fair.org
    > +31624879779
    >
    >
    > ORCID: 0000-0003-3934-0072
    > sent from my IPad
    >
    >
    >
    > On 18 Apr 2019, at 19:01, Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate wrote:
    >
    > Thanks, Barend, for bringing up the point of open-minded researchers. For them and many, if not all, US federal agencies, not having any restriction clauses on access and/or use in metadata record or website means there is no restriction, period. It has been on my mind but have not got a good time to mention so until now.
    >
    > However, requiring explicitly description of the license, access and use rights may be a good practice.
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > --- Peng
    >
    > On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 12:31 PM Barend Mons wrote:
    > Good discussion (just landed from Nairobi, so was a bit out of the loop.
    >
    > Also there, access rights e.d. were a hot discussion topic.
    >
    > I concur with Maggie that the ‘A’ and part of R is implicitly requiring access rights and licensing (the machine need to know what it is technically able to do with the data as well as what it is ‘allowed’ to do). To me this is all covered by the generic principle of rich, machine actionable metadata for all FAIR digital objects. Measuring can imho include any further specification of that, and again, the requirements may vary per disciploine as we stated at the meeting.
    > I know for instance from an earlier IMI project (Open PHACTS) that the pharma is unlikely to even ‘touch’ a data set without a clear license, even if the researcher is so ‘open minded’ that putting a license did not even occur to her/him...
    > B
    >
    >
    > Prof. Barend Mons
    > Leiden University Medical Center
    > President of CODATA
    > GO FAIR international Support and coordination office
    >
    > Mail: barend.mons@go-fair.org
    > +31624879779
    >
    >
    > ORCID: 0000-0003-3934-0072
    > sent from my IPad
    >
    >
    > On 18 Apr 2019, at 18:17, andrea.perego wrote:
    >
    > Hi, Maggie.
    >
    > I agree access rights are implicitly related to the principles you mention. My concern is whether a conformance test could require compliance with requirements not explicitly stated in the FAIR principles.
    >
    > This is why I was considering the possibility of including a requirement on access rights the "Beyond FAIR" work – which, ideally, can be a useful feedback for a possible revision/extension to the FAIR principles, based on usage and implementation evidence.
    >
    > Andrea
    >
    > ----
    > Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
    > Scientific / Technical Project Officer
    > European Commission DG JRC
    > Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
    > Unit B6 - Digital Economy
    > Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
    > 21027 Ispra VA, Italy
    >
    > https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/
    >
    > ----
    > The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
    > not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
    > position of the European Commission.
    >
    > From: Margareta Hellström [mailto:margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se]
    > Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 6:00 PM
    > To: makxdekkers; 'Crosas@rda-groups.org; Mercè'; PEREGO Andrea (JRC-ISPRA); FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
    > Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
    >
    > Hi Makx,
    >
    >
    >
    > my immediate reaction to this was that the access rights are connected to principle A1.2 ("the protocol allows for an authentication and authorization procedure, where necessary", but that doesn't specifically address the issue of how to inform the user (human or machine) of what those restrictions are. I guess that would be covered by the "plurality of accurate and relevant attributes" of R.1 and possibly also the "domain-relevant community standards" of R1.3.
    >
    >
    >
    > Happy Easter!
    >
    > /Maggie
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > ------------------
    > Associate Professor Margareta Hellström
    > ICOS Carbon Portal staff member
    >
    > margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se
    > Lund University
    > Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science
    > Sölvegatan 12, SE-22362 Lund, Sweden
    > Phone: +46-(0)46-2229683
    >
    >
    >
    > From: mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org on behalf of makxdekkers
    > Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 17:46
    > To: 'Crosas@rda-groups.org; Mercè'; 'andrea.perego'; FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
    > Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
    >
    > Many thanks, Andrea and Mercè, for bringing this up.
    >
    >
    >
    > Should the expression of access rights, as opposed to the re-use licence, be covered under principle R1.1 or somewhere else?
    >
    >
    >
    > Kind regards, Makx
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > From: Crosas, Mercè
    > Sent: 18 April 2019 15:58
    > To: andrea.perego
    > Cc: makxdekkers ; fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    > Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
    >
    >
    >
    > That's correct - I agree that it would be best to separate license metadata from access metadata. The Data Documentation Initiative (DDI) schema has this distinction, for example.
    >
    >
    >
    > Best,
    >
    > Merce
    >
    >
    >
    > On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 4:06 AM andrea.perego wrote:
    >
    > Dear Makx, dear colleagues,
    >
    > Thanks for sharing the report.
    >
    > I would like to raise an issue on point (4) in slide 20:
    >
    > "(4) Does the licence permit access?"
    >
    > Strictly speaking, licences are just about *use* conditions, and not about who can access what. Of course, ad hoc licences happen to include access provisions as well, but this does not apply to standard ones (as the Creative Commons suite).
    >
    > For this reason, and to facilitate conformance testing, it would be desirable that access conditions/restrictions were assessed separately from the licence, and to require that this information be specified in a separate metadata field.
    >
    > Best,
    >
    > Andrea
    >
    > ----
    > Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
    > Scientific / Technical Project Officer
    > European Commission DG JRC
    > Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
    > Unit B6 - Digital Economy
    > Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
    > 21027 Ispra VA, Italy
    >
    > https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/
    >
    > ----
    > The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
    > not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
    > position of the European Commission.
    >
    >
    > ________________________________________
    > From: mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org on behalf of makxdekkers
    > Sent: 17 April 2019 10:24:54
    > To: fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    > Subject: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
    >
    > Dear members of the RDA FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group,
    >
    > We would like to thank you for attending the meeting of the Working Group in Philadelphia on 3 April 2019 and hope you found the meeting useful.
    > The report of the meeting is now available for download from the WG page on the RDA site at https://www.rd-alliance.org/workshop-2.
    >
    > We are currently finalising a Google spreadsheet for your contributions to the development of the indicators for the FAIR principles following the approach presented at the meeting in Philadelphia, and we plan to share the spreadsheet with the Working Group in the coming days.
    >
    > Many thanks!
    >
    > Makx Dekkers
    > Editorial team
    > --
    > Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    > Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    > Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > Mercè Crosas, Ph.D.
    >
    > Harvard University's Research Data Officer, Office of Vice Provost for Research
    >
    > Chief Data Science and Technology Officer, Institute for Quantitative Social Science
    >
    > mcrosas@g.harvard.edu | @mercecrosas | scholar.harvard.edu/mercecrosas
    >
    > --
    > Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    > Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    > Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859
    > --
    > Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    > Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    > Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859
    >
    >
    > --
    > Ge Peng, PhD
    > Research Scholar
    > Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites - NC (CICS-NC)/NCSU at
    >
    > NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)
    >
    > Center for Weather and Climate (CWC)
    >
    > 151 Patton Ave, Asheville, NC 28801
    > +1 828 257 3009; ge.peng@noaa.gov
    >
    > ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1986-9115
    >
    > Following CICS-NC on Facebook
    >

  • Makx Dekkers's picture

    Author: Makx Dekkers

    Date: 19 Apr, 2019

    Many thanks, Keith.

    Indeed, the details of access rights and conditions might be quite complex.

    For this moment, though, I’d like to propose that the groups does not dig
    into the details of this issue.

    Maybe we can establish: first, that expression of access rights and
    conditions is important for FAIRness, and, second, where it could be
    evaluated – under an existing principle, or alternatively, as Andrea Perego
    suggested, under the ‘Beyond FAIR’ category.

    The details of how exactly the access rights and conditions are expressed
    can then be discussed at a later stage. At that stage, it will indeed be
    very important to use what is already there and not reinvent the wheel.

    May I request that we limit the discussion on this issue to two questions:

    1. Is it important to include access rights and conditions in the
    evaluation of FAIRness?
    2. Under which area (F, A, I, R, beyond FAIR) or principle should it be
    evaluated?

    Kind regards, Makx

    From: Keith Jeffery
    Sent: 19 April 2019 09:20
    To: Barend Mons ; Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate
    ; FAIR Data Maturity Model WG

    Cc: andrea.perego ;
    margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se; makxdekkers ;
    'Crosas@rda-groups.org; mcrosas@g.harvard.edu
    Subject: RE: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    All –

    I have been following the discussion with interest. Andrea is of course
    correct and references (updated) DCAT in this regard. I agree with Maggie’s
    suggested relationships of access to the relevant FAIR principles. I agree
    strongly with Barend on rich metadata that is actionable (implies formal
    syntax and declared semantics). I agree that licence conditions and access
    constraints (security, privacy, trust, cost…) are related but different. The
    tracking of correct re-use conditions (attribution, use without change…) is
    related to provenance although I haven’t seen any reliable solutions yet.

    From my perspective it is commonly difficult for any workflow/process to
    distinguish A, I and R in terms of access permissions. The problem is the
    multi-dimensionality. I suggest the basic access permission actually
    relates to a process (e.g. Webservice) acting on a dataset (generalised as
    any asset acting on or with any other asset – including lab equipment,
    sensors, software services, datasets, persons, organisations, publications…)
    but this is conditioned by who owns or manages each of the two assets
    involved and whom those organisations or persons delegate to execute the
    service on the dataset (or more generally the action of one asset on
    another). Thus if the basic permission being managed is
    then we have connected to each something
    like:

    (person in role user different from
    the manager and owner persons)

    Note that each should have a temporal duration (this allows for e.g. embargo
    periods or elapsing of copyright). There can be interesting problems when
    temporal intervals do not coincide – a well-known NP-hard problem from
    temporal database research.

    Furthermore, access conditions can be quite complex; depending on the asset
    the permission may be :

    [know the existence of | read | copy | update (amend, insert, delete) |
    delete | execute ……] and in a different dimension [cost (which may have
    complex sub-conditions)] in yet another dimension [attribution] and in yet
    another dimension [trust/security/privacy] and of course as well as the
    conventional assets (datasets, services etc) the metadata itself may be
    subject to access conditions.

    Hopefully most research can be open and free thus avoiding the need for such
    access controls, but I fear that we shall have to provide them – not least
    because of increasing regulation (e.g. GDPR in Europe).

    I am concerned that we do not re-invent the wheel. Years of research have
    provided production-strength access control systems for large-scale IT
    systems used all the time by commerce, industry, government. I believe the
    problem is to relate the capabilities of these access control systems to the
    FAIR principles using a form of logic notation representable in the metadata
    as formal syntax and declared semantics.

    Best

    Keith

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ----

    Keith G Jeffery Consultants

    Prof Keith G Jeffery

    E: keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk

    T: +44 7768 446088

    S: keithgjeffery

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ------------------------------------------------------

    The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the

    intended recipient only. If you are not one of the intended

    recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but

    return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ------------------------------------------------------

    From:
    barendmons=gmail.com@rda-groups.org <

    barendmons=gmail.com@rda-groups.org> On Behalf Of Barend Mons
    Sent: 18 April 2019 18:09
    To: Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate < ge.peng@noaa.gov>;
    FAIR Data Maturity Model WG <
    fair_maturity@rda-groups.org>
    Cc: andrea.perego <
    andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu>;
    margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se; makxdekkers <
    mail@makxdekkers.com>; 'Crosas@rda-groups.org;
    mcrosas@g.harvard.edu
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Yes and as we support the statement: ‘as open as possible, as closed as
    necessary’, we could even put the most liberal license as ‘default’ UPRI in
    metadata templates, so that researchers would have to ‘increase restriction
    deliberately if they have good reasons for that, which the funder will
    accept (for instnace patient privacy).

    In that way ‘unlicensed’ and thereforwe in some circles re-useless data can
    be avoided?

    B

    Prof. Barend Mons

    Leiden University Medical Center

    President of CODATA

    GO FAIR international Support and coordination office

    Mail: barend.mons@go-fair.org

    +31624879779

    ORCID: 0000-0003-3934-0072

    sent from my IPad

    On 18 Apr 2019, at 19:01, Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate > wrote:

    Thanks, Barend, for bringing up the point of open-minded researchers. For
    them and many, if not all, US federal agencies, not having any restriction
    clauses on access and/or use in metadata record or website means there is no
    restriction, period. It has been on my mind but have not got a good time to
    mention so until now.

    However, requiring explicitly description of the license, access and use
    rights may be a good practice.

    Regards,

    --- Peng

    On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 12:31 PM Barend Mons > wrote:

    Good discussion (just landed from Nairobi, so was a bit out of the loop.

    Also there, access rights e.d. were a hot discussion topic.

    I concur with Maggie that the ‘A’ and part of R is implicitly requiring
    access rights and licensing (the machine need to know what it is technically
    able to do with the data as well as what it is ‘allowed’ to do). To me this
    is all covered by the generic principle of rich, machine actionable metadata
    for all FAIR digital objects. Measuring can imho include any further
    specification of that, and again, the requirements may vary per disciploine
    as we stated at the meeting.

    I know for instance from an earlier IMI project (Open PHACTS) that the
    pharma is unlikely to even ‘touch’ a data set without a clear license, even
    if the researcher is so ‘open minded’ that putting a license did not even
    occur to her/him...

    B

    Prof. Barend Mons

    Leiden University Medical Center

    President of CODATA

    GO FAIR international Support and coordination office

    Mail: barend.mons@go-fair.org

    +31624879779

    ORCID: 0000-0003-3934-0072

    sent from my IPad

    On 18 Apr 2019, at 18:17, andrea.perego > wrote:

    Hi, Maggie.

    I agree access rights are implicitly related to the principles you mention.
    My concern is whether a conformance test could require compliance with
    requirements not explicitly stated in the FAIR principles.

    This is why I was considering the possibility of including a requirement on
    access rights the "Beyond FAIR" work – which, ideally, can be a useful
    feedback for a possible revision/extension to the FAIR principles, based on
    usage and implementation evidence.

    Andrea

    ----

    Andrea Perego, Ph.D.

    Scientific / Technical Project Officer

    European Commission DG JRC

    Directorate B - Growth and Innovation

    Unit B6 - Digital Economy

    Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262

    21027 Ispra VA, Italy

    https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/

    ----

    The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may

    not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official

    position of the European Commission.

    From: Margareta Hellström [
    mailto:margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se]
    Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 6:00 PM
    To: makxdekkers; ' Crosas@rda-groups.org;
    Mercè'; PEREGO Andrea (JRC-ISPRA); FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Hi Makx,

    my immediate reaction to this was that the access rights are connected to
    principle A1.2 ("the protocol allows for an authentication and authorization
    procedure, where necessary", but that doesn't specifically address the issue
    of how to inform the user (human or machine) of what those restrictions are.
    I guess that would be covered by the "plurality of accurate and relevant
    attributes" of R.1 and possibly also the "domain-relevant community
    standards" of R1.3.

    Happy Easter!

    /Maggie

    ------------------
    Associate Professor Margareta Hellström

    ICOS Carbon Portal staff member

    margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se

    Lund University

    Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science
    Sölvegatan 12, SE-22362 Lund, Sweden
    Phone: +46-(0)46-2229683

    _____

    _____

    From: mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org

    > on behalf of makxdekkers
    >
    Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 17:46
    To: 'Crosas@rda-groups.org ; Mercè';
    'andrea.perego'; FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Many thanks, Andrea and Mercè, for bringing this up.

    Should the expression of access rights, as opposed to the re-use licence, be
    covered under principle R1.1
    or somewhere else?

    Kind regards, Makx

    From: Crosas, Mercè < mcrosas@g.harvard.edu>
    Sent: 18 April 2019 15:58
    To: andrea.perego <
    andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu>
    Cc: makxdekkers < mail@makxdekkers.com>;
    fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    That's correct - I agree that it would be best to separate license metadata
    from access metadata. The Data Documentation Initiative (DDI)
    schema has this
    distinction, for example.

    Best,

    Merce

    On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 4:06 AM andrea.perego > wrote:

    Dear Makx, dear colleagues,

    Thanks for sharing the report.

    I would like to raise an issue on point (4) in slide 20:

    "(4) Does the licence permit access?"

    Strictly speaking, licences are just about *use* conditions, and not about
    who can access what. Of course, ad hoc licences happen to include access
    provisions as well, but this does not apply to standard ones (as the
    Creative Commons suite).

    For this reason, and to facilitate conformance testing, it would be
    desirable that access conditions/restrictions were assessed separately from
    the licence, and to require that this information be specified in a separate
    metadata field.

    Best,

    Andrea

    ----
    Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
    Scientific / Technical Project Officer
    European Commission DG JRC
    Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
    Unit B6 - Digital Economy
    Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
    21027 Ispra VA, Italy

    https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/

    ----
    The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
    not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
    position of the European Commission.

    ________________________________________
    From: mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org

    > on behalf of makxdekkers >
    Sent: 17 April 2019 10:24:54
    To: fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    Subject: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Dear members of the RDA FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group,

    We would like to thank you for attending the meeting of the Working Group in
    Philadelphia on 3 April 2019 and hope you found the meeting useful.
    The report of the meeting is now available for download from the WG page on
    the RDA site at https://www.rd-alliance.org/workshop-2.

    We are currently finalising a Google spreadsheet for your contributions to
    the development of the indicators for the FAIR principles following the
    approach presented at the meeting in Philadelphia, and we plan to share the
    spreadsheet with the Working Group in the coming days.

    Many thanks!

    Makx Dekkers
    Editorial team
    --
    Full post:
    https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    2-report
    Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post:
    https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859

    --

    Mercè Crosas, Ph.D.

    Harvard University's Research Data Officer, Office of Vice Provost for
    Research

    Chief Data Science and Technology Officer, Institute for Quantitative Social
    Science

    mcrosas@g.harvard.edu |
    @mercecrosas |
    scholar.harvard.edu/mercecrosas

    --
    Full post:
    https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    2-report
    Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post:
    https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859

    --
    Full post:
    https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    2-report
    Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post:
    https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859

    --

    Ge Peng, PhD
    Research Scholar
    Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites - NC (CICS-NC)/NCSU at

    NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

    Center for Weather and Climate (CWC)

    151 Patton Ave, Asheville, NC 28801
    +1 828 257 3009; ge.peng@noaa.gov

    ORCID: http://
    orcid.org/0000-0002-1986-9115

    Following CICS-NC on Facebook

  • Makx Dekkers's picture

    Author: Makx Dekkers

    Date: 19 Apr, 2019

    Many thanks, Keith.

    Indeed, the details of access rights and conditions might be quite complex.

    For this moment, though, I’d like to propose that the groups does not dig
    into the details of this issue.

    Maybe we can establish: first, that expression of access rights and
    conditions is important for FAIRness, and, second, where it could be
    evaluated – under an existing principle, or alternatively, as Andrea Perego
    suggested, under the ‘Beyond FAIR’ category.

    The details of how exactly the access rights and conditions are expressed
    can then be discussed at a later stage. At that stage, it will indeed be
    very important to use what is already there and not reinvent the wheel.

    May I request that we limit the discussion on this issue to two questions:

    1. Is it important to include access rights and conditions in the
    evaluation of FAIRness?
    2. Under which area (F, A, I, R, beyond FAIR) or principle should it be
    evaluated?

    Kind regards, Makx

    From: Keith Jeffery
    Sent: 19 April 2019 09:20
    To: Barend Mons ; Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate
    ; FAIR Data Maturity Model WG

    Cc: andrea.perego ;
    margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se; makxdekkers ;
    'Crosas@rda-groups.org; mcrosas@g.harvard.edu
    Subject: RE: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    All –

    I have been following the discussion with interest. Andrea is of course
    correct and references (updated) DCAT in this regard. I agree with Maggie’s
    suggested relationships of access to the relevant FAIR principles. I agree
    strongly with Barend on rich metadata that is actionable (implies formal
    syntax and declared semantics). I agree that licence conditions and access
    constraints (security, privacy, trust, cost…) are related but different. The
    tracking of correct re-use conditions (attribution, use without change…) is
    related to provenance although I haven’t seen any reliable solutions yet.

    From my perspective it is commonly difficult for any workflow/process to
    distinguish A, I and R in terms of access permissions. The problem is the
    multi-dimensionality. I suggest the basic access permission actually
    relates to a process (e.g. Webservice) acting on a dataset (generalised as
    any asset acting on or with any other asset – including lab equipment,
    sensors, software services, datasets, persons, organisations, publications…)
    but this is conditioned by who owns or manages each of the two assets
    involved and whom those organisations or persons delegate to execute the
    service on the dataset (or more generally the action of one asset on
    another). Thus if the basic permission being managed is
    then we have connected to each something
    like:

    (person in role user different from
    the manager and owner persons)

    Note that each should have a temporal duration (this allows for e.g. embargo
    periods or elapsing of copyright). There can be interesting problems when
    temporal intervals do not coincide – a well-known NP-hard problem from
    temporal database research.

    Furthermore, access conditions can be quite complex; depending on the asset
    the permission may be :

    [know the existence of | read | copy | update (amend, insert, delete) |
    delete | execute ……] and in a different dimension [cost (which may have
    complex sub-conditions)] in yet another dimension [attribution] and in yet
    another dimension [trust/security/privacy] and of course as well as the
    conventional assets (datasets, services etc) the metadata itself may be
    subject to access conditions.

    Hopefully most research can be open and free thus avoiding the need for such
    access controls, but I fear that we shall have to provide them – not least
    because of increasing regulation (e.g. GDPR in Europe).

    I am concerned that we do not re-invent the wheel. Years of research have
    provided production-strength access control systems for large-scale IT
    systems used all the time by commerce, industry, government. I believe the
    problem is to relate the capabilities of these access control systems to the
    FAIR principles using a form of logic notation representable in the metadata
    as formal syntax and declared semantics.

    Best

    Keith

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ----

    Keith G Jeffery Consultants

    Prof Keith G Jeffery

    E: keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk

    T: +44 7768 446088

    S: keithgjeffery

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ------------------------------------------------------

    The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the

    intended recipient only. If you are not one of the intended

    recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but

    return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ------------------------------------------------------

    From:
    barendmons=gmail.com@rda-groups.org <

    barendmons=gmail.com@rda-groups.org> On Behalf Of Barend Mons
    Sent: 18 April 2019 18:09
    To: Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate < ge.peng@noaa.gov>;
    FAIR Data Maturity Model WG <
    fair_maturity@rda-groups.org>
    Cc: andrea.perego <
    andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu>;
    margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se; makxdekkers <
    mail@makxdekkers.com>; 'Crosas@rda-groups.org;
    mcrosas@g.harvard.edu
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Yes and as we support the statement: ‘as open as possible, as closed as
    necessary’, we could even put the most liberal license as ‘default’ UPRI in
    metadata templates, so that researchers would have to ‘increase restriction
    deliberately if they have good reasons for that, which the funder will
    accept (for instnace patient privacy).

    In that way ‘unlicensed’ and thereforwe in some circles re-useless data can
    be avoided?

    B

    Prof. Barend Mons

    Leiden University Medical Center

    President of CODATA

    GO FAIR international Support and coordination office

    Mail: barend.mons@go-fair.org

    +31624879779

    ORCID: 0000-0003-3934-0072

    sent from my IPad

    On 18 Apr 2019, at 19:01, Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate > wrote:

    Thanks, Barend, for bringing up the point of open-minded researchers. For
    them and many, if not all, US federal agencies, not having any restriction
    clauses on access and/or use in metadata record or website means there is no
    restriction, period. It has been on my mind but have not got a good time to
    mention so until now.

    However, requiring explicitly description of the license, access and use
    rights may be a good practice.

    Regards,

    --- Peng

    On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 12:31 PM Barend Mons > wrote:

    Good discussion (just landed from Nairobi, so was a bit out of the loop.

    Also there, access rights e.d. were a hot discussion topic.

    I concur with Maggie that the ‘A’ and part of R is implicitly requiring
    access rights and licensing (the machine need to know what it is technically
    able to do with the data as well as what it is ‘allowed’ to do). To me this
    is all covered by the generic principle of rich, machine actionable metadata
    for all FAIR digital objects. Measuring can imho include any further
    specification of that, and again, the requirements may vary per disciploine
    as we stated at the meeting.

    I know for instance from an earlier IMI project (Open PHACTS) that the
    pharma is unlikely to even ‘touch’ a data set without a clear license, even
    if the researcher is so ‘open minded’ that putting a license did not even
    occur to her/him...

    B

    Prof. Barend Mons

    Leiden University Medical Center

    President of CODATA

    GO FAIR international Support and coordination office

    Mail: barend.mons@go-fair.org

    +31624879779

    ORCID: 0000-0003-3934-0072

    sent from my IPad

    On 18 Apr 2019, at 18:17, andrea.perego > wrote:

    Hi, Maggie.

    I agree access rights are implicitly related to the principles you mention.
    My concern is whether a conformance test could require compliance with
    requirements not explicitly stated in the FAIR principles.

    This is why I was considering the possibility of including a requirement on
    access rights the "Beyond FAIR" work – which, ideally, can be a useful
    feedback for a possible revision/extension to the FAIR principles, based on
    usage and implementation evidence.

    Andrea

    ----

    Andrea Perego, Ph.D.

    Scientific / Technical Project Officer

    European Commission DG JRC

    Directorate B - Growth and Innovation

    Unit B6 - Digital Economy

    Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262

    21027 Ispra VA, Italy

    https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/

    ----

    The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may

    not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official

    position of the European Commission.

    From: Margareta Hellström [
    mailto:margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se]
    Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 6:00 PM
    To: makxdekkers; ' Crosas@rda-groups.org;
    Mercè'; PEREGO Andrea (JRC-ISPRA); FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Hi Makx,

    my immediate reaction to this was that the access rights are connected to
    principle A1.2 ("the protocol allows for an authentication and authorization
    procedure, where necessary", but that doesn't specifically address the issue
    of how to inform the user (human or machine) of what those restrictions are.
    I guess that would be covered by the "plurality of accurate and relevant
    attributes" of R.1 and possibly also the "domain-relevant community
    standards" of R1.3.

    Happy Easter!

    /Maggie

    ------------------
    Associate Professor Margareta Hellström

    ICOS Carbon Portal staff member

    margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se

    Lund University

    Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science
    Sölvegatan 12, SE-22362 Lund, Sweden
    Phone: +46-(0)46-2229683

    _____

    _____

    From: mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org

    > on behalf of makxdekkers
    >
    Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 17:46
    To: 'Crosas@rda-groups.org ; Mercè';
    'andrea.perego'; FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Many thanks, Andrea and Mercè, for bringing this up.

    Should the expression of access rights, as opposed to the re-use licence, be
    covered under principle R1.1
    or somewhere else?

    Kind regards, Makx

    From: Crosas, Mercè < mcrosas@g.harvard.edu>
    Sent: 18 April 2019 15:58
    To: andrea.perego <
    andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu>
    Cc: makxdekkers < mail@makxdekkers.com>;
    fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    That's correct - I agree that it would be best to separate license metadata
    from access metadata. The Data Documentation Initiative (DDI)
    schema has this
    distinction, for example.

    Best,

    Merce

    On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 4:06 AM andrea.perego > wrote:

    Dear Makx, dear colleagues,

    Thanks for sharing the report.

    I would like to raise an issue on point (4) in slide 20:

    "(4) Does the licence permit access?"

    Strictly speaking, licences are just about *use* conditions, and not about
    who can access what. Of course, ad hoc licences happen to include access
    provisions as well, but this does not apply to standard ones (as the
    Creative Commons suite).

    For this reason, and to facilitate conformance testing, it would be
    desirable that access conditions/restrictions were assessed separately from
    the licence, and to require that this information be specified in a separate
    metadata field.

    Best,

    Andrea

    ----
    Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
    Scientific / Technical Project Officer
    European Commission DG JRC
    Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
    Unit B6 - Digital Economy
    Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
    21027 Ispra VA, Italy

    https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/

    ----
    The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
    not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
    position of the European Commission.

    ________________________________________
    From: mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org

    > on behalf of makxdekkers >
    Sent: 17 April 2019 10:24:54
    To: fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    Subject: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Dear members of the RDA FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group,

    We would like to thank you for attending the meeting of the Working Group in
    Philadelphia on 3 April 2019 and hope you found the meeting useful.
    The report of the meeting is now available for download from the WG page on
    the RDA site at https://www.rd-alliance.org/workshop-2.

    We are currently finalising a Google spreadsheet for your contributions to
    the development of the indicators for the FAIR principles following the
    approach presented at the meeting in Philadelphia, and we plan to share the
    spreadsheet with the Working Group in the coming days.

    Many thanks!

    Makx Dekkers
    Editorial team
    --
    Full post:
    https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    2-report
    Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post:
    https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859

    --

    Mercè Crosas, Ph.D.

    Harvard University's Research Data Officer, Office of Vice Provost for
    Research

    Chief Data Science and Technology Officer, Institute for Quantitative Social
    Science

    mcrosas@g.harvard.edu |
    @mercecrosas |
    scholar.harvard.edu/mercecrosas

    --
    Full post:
    https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    2-report
    Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post:
    https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859

    --
    Full post:
    https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    2-report
    Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post:
    https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859

    --

    Ge Peng, PhD
    Research Scholar
    Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites - NC (CICS-NC)/NCSU at

    NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

    Center for Weather and Climate (CWC)

    151 Patton Ave, Asheville, NC 28801
    +1 828 257 3009; ge.peng@noaa.gov

    ORCID: http://
    orcid.org/0000-0002-1986-9115

    Following CICS-NC on Facebook

  • Edit Herczog's picture

    Author: Edit Herczog

    Date: 19 Apr, 2019

    Dear Makx and All,

    The WG has limited time and mandate and first and most capacity. Therefore we will do our work around WHAT and put all other ideas to existing WGs or suggest future WG-s. Maybe in the EU we have to think proactively how we will help the legislation, once it starts after the 2020.
    I agree also that instead of reinvent a will we just structure what we have.

    I wish you all a nice Easter break
    Edit

    Edit Herczog
    Managing Director
    Mobile:  0032 476777595
    Phone:    0032 2311 6177
    Email:   mrs.edit.herczog@gmail.com

    In case you cannot reach me please contact my assistant.
    Zsuzsanna Szeredi
    Mobile: 0032 475255905
    Phone:    0032 2311 6177
    Email: zsuzsanna.szeredi@gmail.com

    From: makxdekkers
    Sent: Friday, April 19, 2019 10:08 AM
    To: 'Keith Jeffery'; 'Barend Mons'; 'Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate'; 'FAIR Data Maturity Model WG'
    Cc: 'andrea.perego'; margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se; 'Crosas@rda-groups.org; mcrosas@g.harvard.edu
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Many thanks, Keith.

    Indeed, the details of access rights and conditions might be quite complex.

    For this moment, though, I’d like to propose that the groups does not dig into the details of this issue.

    Maybe we can establish: first, that expression of access rights and conditions is important for FAIRness, and, second, where it could be evaluated – under an existing principle, or alternatively, as Andrea Perego suggested, under the ‘Beyond FAIR’ category.

    The details of how exactly the access rights and conditions are expressed can then be discussed at a later stage. At that stage, it will indeed be very important to use what is already there and not reinvent the wheel.

    May I request that we limit the discussion on this issue to two questions:

    1. Is it important to include access rights and conditions in the evaluation of FAIRness?
    2. Under which area (F, A, I, R, beyond FAIR) or principle should it be evaluated?

    Kind regards, Makx

    From: Keith Jeffery
    Sent: 19 April 2019 09:20
    To: Barend Mons ; Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate ; FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
    Cc: andrea.perego ; margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se; makxdekkers ; 'Crosas@rda-groups.org; mcrosas@g.harvard.edu
    Subject: RE: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    All –
    I have been following the discussion with interest.  Andrea is of course correct and references (updated) DCAT in this regard. I agree with Maggie’s suggested relationships of access to the relevant FAIR principles.  I agree strongly with Barend on rich metadata that is actionable (implies formal syntax and declared semantics).  I agree that licence conditions and access constraints (security, privacy, trust, cost…) are related but different. The tracking of correct re-use conditions (attribution, use without change…) is related to provenance although I haven’t seen any reliable solutions yet. 

    From my perspective it is commonly difficult for any workflow/process to distinguish A, I and R in terms of access permissions.  The problem is the multi-dimensionality.  I suggest the basic access permission actually relates to a process (e.g. Webservice) acting on a dataset (generalised as any asset acting on or with any other asset – including lab equipment, sensors, software services, datasets, persons, organisations, publications…) but this is conditioned by who owns or manages each of the two assets involved and whom those organisations or persons delegate to execute the service on the dataset (or more generally the action of one asset on another).   Thus if the basic permission being managed is then we have connected to each something like:

    (person in role user different from the manager and owner persons)

    Note that each should have a temporal duration (this allows for e.g. embargo periods or elapsing of copyright).  There can be interesting problems when temporal intervals do not coincide – a well-known NP-hard problem from temporal database research.

    Furthermore, access conditions can be quite complex; depending on the asset the permission may be :
    [know the existence of | read | copy | update (amend, insert, delete) | delete | execute ……]  and in a different dimension [cost (which may have complex sub-conditions)] in yet another dimension [attribution] and in yet another dimension [trust/security/privacy]  and of course as well as the conventional assets (datasets, services etc) the metadata itself may be subject to access conditions.

    Hopefully most research can be open and free thus avoiding the need for such access controls, but I fear that we shall have to provide them – not least because of increasing regulation (e.g. GDPR in Europe).

    I am  concerned that we do not re-invent the wheel.  Years of research have provided production-strength access control systems for large-scale IT systems used all the time by commerce, industry, government.  I believe the problem is to relate the capabilities of these access control systems to the FAIR principles using a form of logic notation representable in the metadata as formal syntax and declared semantics.

    Best
    Keith
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Keith G Jeffery Consultants
    Prof Keith G Jeffery
    E: keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk
    T: +44 7768 446088
    S: keithgjeffery
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the
    intended recipient only.  If you are not one of the intended
    recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but
    return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From: barendmons=gmail.com@rda-groups.org On Behalf Of Barend Mons
    Sent: 18 April 2019 18:09
    To: Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate ; FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
    Cc: andrea.perego ; margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se; makxdekkers ; 'Crosas@rda-groups.org; mcrosas@g.harvard.edu
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Yes and as we support the statement: ‘as open as possible, as closed as necessary’, we could even put the most liberal license as ‘default’ UPRI in metadata templates, so that researchers would have to ‘increase restriction deliberately if they have good reasons for that, which the funder will accept (for instnace patient privacy).
    In that way ‘unlicensed’ and thereforwe in some circles re-useless data can be avoided?
    B

    Prof. Barend Mons
    Leiden University Medical Center
    President of CODATA 
    GO FAIR international Support and coordination office

    Mail: barend.mons@go-fair.org
    +31624879779

    ORCID: 0000-0003-3934-0072
    sent from my IPad

    On 18 Apr 2019, at 19:01, Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate wrote:
    Thanks, Barend, for bringing up the point of open-minded researchers. For them and many, if not all, US federal agencies, not having any restriction clauses on access and/or use in metadata record or website means there is no restriction, period. It has been on my mind but have not got a good time to mention so until now.
     
    However, requiring explicitly description of the license, access and use rights may be a good practice.
     
    Regards,
     
    --- Peng

    On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 12:31 PM Barend Mons wrote:
    Good discussion (just landed from Nairobi, so was a bit out of the loop.

    Also there, access rights e.d. were a hot discussion topic. 

    I concur with Maggie that the ‘A’ and part of R is implicitly requiring access rights and licensing (the machine need to know what it is technically able to do with the data as well as what it is ‘allowed’ to do). To me this is all covered by the generic principle of rich, machine actionable metadata for all FAIR digital objects. Measuring can imho include any further specification of that, and again, the requirements may vary per disciploine as we stated at the meeting.
    I know for instance from an earlier IMI project (Open PHACTS) that the pharma is unlikely to even ‘touch’ a data set without a clear license, even if the researcher is so ‘open minded’ that putting a license did not even occur to her/him...
    B

    Prof. Barend Mons
    Leiden University Medical Center
    President of CODATA 
    GO FAIR international Support and coordination office

    Mail: barend.mons@go-fair.org
    +31624879779

    ORCID: 0000-0003-3934-0072
    sent from my IPad

    On 18 Apr 2019, at 18:17, andrea.perego wrote:
    Hi, Maggie.
     
    I agree access rights are implicitly related to the principles you mention. My concern is whether a conformance test could require compliance with requirements not explicitly stated in the FAIR principles.
     
    This is why I was considering the possibility of including a requirement on access rights the "Beyond FAIR" work – which, ideally, can be a useful feedback for a possible revision/extension to the FAIR principles, based on usage and implementation evidence.
     
    Andrea
     
    ----
    Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
    Scientific / Technical Project Officer
    European Commission DG JRC
    Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
    Unit B6 - Digital Economy
    Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
    21027 Ispra VA, Italy
     
    https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/
     
    ----
    The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
    not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
    position of the European Commission.
     
    From: Margareta Hellström [mailto:margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se]
    Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 6:00 PM
    To: makxdekkers; 'Crosas@rda-groups.org; Mercè'; PEREGO Andrea (JRC-ISPRA); FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
     
    Hi Makx,
     
    my immediate reaction to this was that the access rights are connected to principle A1.2 ("the protocol allows for an authentication and authorization procedure, where necessary", but that doesn't specifically address the issue of how to inform the user (human or machine) of what those restrictions are. I guess that would be covered by the "plurality of accurate and relevant attributes" of R.1 and possibly also the "domain-relevant community standards" of  R1.3.
     
    Happy Easter!
    /Maggie
     
     
    ------------------
    Associate Professor Margareta Hellström
    ICOS Carbon Portal staff member
    margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se
    Lund University  
    Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science      
    Sölvegatan 12, SE-22362 Lund, Sweden
    Phone: +46-(0)46-2229683

     

    From: mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org on behalf of makxdekkers
    Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 17:46
    To: 'Crosas@rda-groups.org; Mercè'; 'andrea.perego'; FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
     
    Many thanks, Andrea and Mercè, for bringing this up.
     
    Should the expression of access rights, as opposed to the re-use licence, be covered under principle R1.1 or somewhere else?
     
    Kind regards, Makx
     
     
    From: Crosas, Mercè
    Sent: 18 April 2019 15:58
    To: andrea.perego
    Cc: makxdekkers ; fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
     
    That's correct - I agree that it would be best to separate license metadata from access metadata. The Data Documentation Initiative (DDI) schema has this distinction, for example.
     
    Best,
    Merce
     
    On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 4:06 AM andrea.perego wrote:
    Dear Makx, dear colleagues,

    Thanks for sharing the report.

    I would like to raise an issue on point (4) in slide 20:

    "(4) Does the licence permit access?"

    Strictly speaking, licences are just about *use* conditions, and not about who can access what. Of course, ad hoc licences happen to include access provisions as well, but this does not apply to standard ones (as the Creative Commons suite).

    For this reason, and to facilitate conformance testing, it would be desirable that access conditions/restrictions were assessed separately from the licence, and to require that this information be specified in a separate metadata field.

    Best,

    Andrea

    ----
    Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
    Scientific / Technical Project Officer
    European Commission DG JRC
    Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
    Unit B6 - Digital Economy
    Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
    21027 Ispra VA, Italy

    https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/

    ----
    The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
    not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
    position of the European Commission.

    ________________________________________
    From: mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org on behalf of makxdekkers
    Sent: 17 April 2019 10:24:54
    To: fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    Subject: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Dear members of the RDA FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group,

    We would like to thank you for attending the meeting of the Working Group in Philadelphia on 3 April 2019 and hope you found the meeting useful.
    The report of the meeting is now available for download from the WG page on the RDA site at https://www.rd-alliance.org/workshop-2.

    We are currently finalising a Google spreadsheet for your contributions to the development of the indicators for the FAIR principles following the approach presented at the meeting in Philadelphia, and we plan to share the spreadsheet with the Working Group in the coming days.

    Many thanks!

    Makx Dekkers
    Editorial team
    --
    Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859

     
    --
    Mercè Crosas, Ph.D.
    Harvard University's Research Data Officer, Office of Vice Provost for Research
    Chief Data Science and Technology Officer, Institute for Quantitative Social Science
    mcrosas@g.harvard.edu | @mercecrosas | scholar.harvard.edu/mercecrosas

    --
    Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859
    --
    Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859

    --
    Ge Peng, PhD
    Research Scholar
    Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites - NC (CICS-NC)/NCSU at
    NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)
    Center for Weather and Climate (CWC)
    151 Patton Ave, Asheville, NC 28801
    +1 828 257 3009; ge.peng@noaa.gov
    ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1986-9115
    Following CICS-NC on Facebook

    ATTACHMENT: 
    AttachmentSize
    Image icon image001.jpg823 bytes

  • Barend Mons's picture

    Author: Barend Mons

    Date: 19 Apr, 2019

    My two cents before Easter :)

    > Is it important to include access rights and conditions in the evaluation of FAIRness?
    It is not only important, it is a critical issue, covered entirely -at high level of abstraction- in the FAIR guiding principles. Remember that FAIR is not a goal in itself, the key is the R: we want reusable workflows and data. Data and services without proper, machine actionable, metadata on access, license and instructions for proper reuse (both technically and legally) can be FAI and still Re-useless. (If this term is new to you, you have to admit you did not read the Cloudy, increasingly FAIR paper :)
    https://content.iospress.com/articles/information-services-and-use/isu824

    > Under which area (F, A, I, R, beyond FAIR) or principle should it be evaluated?

    As I argued before, both under A and particularly R but I am a bit weary about the term ‘beyond’ FAIR, as it suggests that the principles do not cover certain aspects. So far, noone came up to me with aspects that are not covered -again at high level of abstraction- by F, A, I or R, especially R: For instance lageal aspects, quality of data etc. Are all related to acessibility under well defined conditions and ‘meaningful’ reusability. One example: totally fabricated data that are totally FAI: can be either R or not based on the use case. For example for testing model of software performance or to check VMs for their promised actions.

    So let’s indeed concentrate this group, as Edith keeps emphasizing, correctly imho’, on WHAT needs to be measured to -in the end- judge the R level of data and services and worry about the how/details of such measuments later and in other contexts.

    Prof. Barend Mons
    Leiden University Medical Center
    President of CODATA
    GO FAIR international Support and coordination office

    Mail: barend.mons@go-fair.org
    +31624879779

    ORCID: 0000-0003-3934-0072
    sent from my IPad

    > On 19 Apr 2019, at 10:07, Makx Dekkers wrote:
    >
    > Many thanks, Keith.
    >
    > Indeed, the details of access rights and conditions might be quite complex.
    >
    > For this moment, though, I’d like to propose that the groups does not dig into the details of this issue.
    >
    > Maybe we can establish: first, that expression of access rights and conditions is important for FAIRness, and, second, where it could be evaluated – under an existing principle, or alternatively, as Andrea Perego suggested, under the ‘Beyond FAIR’ category.
    >
    > The details of how exactly the access rights and conditions are expressed can then be discussed at a later stage. At that stage, it will indeed be very important to use what is already there and not reinvent the wheel.
    >
    > May I request that we limit the discussion on this issue to two questions:
    >
    > Is it important to include access rights and conditions in the evaluation of FAIRness?
    > Under which area (F, A, I, R, beyond FAIR) or principle should it be evaluated?
    >
    > Kind regards, Makx
    >
    >
    >
    > From: Keith Jeffery
    > Sent: 19 April 2019 09:20
    > To: Barend Mons ; Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate ; FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
    > Cc: andrea.perego ; margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se; makxdekkers ; 'Crosas@rda-groups.org; mcrosas@g.harvard.edu
    > Subject: RE: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
    >
    > All –
    > I have been following the discussion with interest. Andrea is of course correct and references (updated) DCAT in this regard. I agree with Maggie’s suggested relationships of access to the relevant FAIR principles. I agree strongly with Barend on rich metadata that is actionable (implies formal syntax and declared semantics). I agree that licence conditions and access constraints (security, privacy, trust, cost…) are related but different. The tracking of correct re-use conditions (attribution, use without change…) is related to provenance although I haven’t seen any reliable solutions yet.
    >
    > From my perspective it is commonly difficult for any workflow/process to distinguish A, I and R in terms of access permissions. The problem is the multi-dimensionality. I suggest the basic access permission actually relates to a process (e.g. Webservice) acting on a dataset (generalised as any asset acting on or with any other asset – including lab equipment, sensors, software services, datasets, persons, organisations, publications…) but this is conditioned by who owns or manages each of the two assets involved and whom those organisations or persons delegate to execute the service on the dataset (or more generally the action of one asset on another). Thus if the basic permission being managed is then we have connected to each something like:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > (person in role user different from the manager and owner persons)
    >
    > Note that each should have a temporal duration (this allows for e.g. embargo periods or elapsing of copyright). There can be interesting problems when temporal intervals do not coincide – a well-known NP-hard problem from temporal database research.
    >
    > Furthermore, access conditions can be quite complex; depending on the asset the permission may be :
    > [know the existence of | read | copy | update (amend, insert, delete) | delete | execute ……] and in a different dimension [cost (which may have complex sub-conditions)] in yet another dimension [attribution] and in yet another dimension [trust/security/privacy] and of course as well as the conventional assets (datasets, services etc) the metadata itself may be subject to access conditions.
    >
    > Hopefully most research can be open and free thus avoiding the need for such access controls, but I fear that we shall have to provide them – not least because of increasing regulation (e.g. GDPR in Europe).
    >
    > I am concerned that we do not re-invent the wheel. Years of research have provided production-strength access control systems for large-scale IT systems used all the time by commerce, industry, government. I believe the problem is to relate the capabilities of these access control systems to the FAIR principles using a form of logic notation representable in the metadata as formal syntax and declared semantics.
    >
    > Best
    > Keith
    > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > Keith G Jeffery Consultants
    > Prof Keith G Jeffery
    > E: keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk
    > T: +44 7768 446088
    > S: keithgjeffery
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the
    > intended recipient only. If you are not one of the intended
    > recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but
    > return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it.
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    >
    > From: barendmons=gmail.com@rda-groups.org On Behalf Of Barend Mons
    > Sent: 18 April 2019 18:09
    > To: Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate ; FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
    > Cc: andrea.perego ; margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se; makxdekkers ; 'Crosas@rda-groups.org; mcrosas@g.harvard.edu
    > Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
    >
    > Yes and as we support the statement: ‘as open as possible, as closed as necessary’, we could even put the most liberal license as ‘default’ UPRI in metadata templates, so that researchers would have to ‘increase restriction deliberately if they have good reasons for that, which the funder will accept (for instnace patient privacy).
    > In that way ‘unlicensed’ and thereforwe in some circles re-useless data can be avoided?
    > B
    >
    >
    > Prof. Barend Mons
    > Leiden University Medical Center
    > President of CODATA
    > GO FAIR international Support and coordination office
    >
    > Mail: barend.mons@go-fair.org
    > +31624879779
    >
    >
    > ORCID: 0000-0003-3934-0072
    > sent from my IPad
    >
    >
    >
    > On 18 Apr 2019, at 19:01, Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate wrote:
    >
    > Thanks, Barend, for bringing up the point of open-minded researchers. For them and many, if not all, US federal agencies, not having any restriction clauses on access and/or use in metadata record or website means there is no restriction, period. It has been on my mind but have not got a good time to mention so until now.
    >
    > However, requiring explicitly description of the license, access and use rights may be a good practice.
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > --- Peng
    >
    > On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 12:31 PM Barend Mons wrote:
    > Good discussion (just landed from Nairobi, so was a bit out of the loop.
    >
    > Also there, access rights e.d. were a hot discussion topic.
    >
    > I concur with Maggie that the ‘A’ and part of R is implicitly requiring access rights and licensing (the machine need to know what it is technically able to do with the data as well as what it is ‘allowed’ to do). To me this is all covered by the generic principle of rich, machine actionable metadata for all FAIR digital objects. Measuring can imho include any further specification of that, and again, the requirements may vary per disciploine as we stated at the meeting.
    > I know for instance from an earlier IMI project (Open PHACTS) that the pharma is unlikely to even ‘touch’ a data set without a clear license, even if the researcher is so ‘open minded’ that putting a license did not even occur to her/him...
    > B
    >
    >
    > Prof. Barend Mons
    > Leiden University Medical Center
    > President of CODATA
    > GO FAIR international Support and coordination office
    >
    > Mail: barend.mons@go-fair.org
    > +31624879779
    >
    >
    > ORCID: 0000-0003-3934-0072
    > sent from my IPad
    >
    >
    > On 18 Apr 2019, at 18:17, andrea.perego wrote:
    >
    > Hi, Maggie.
    >
    > I agree access rights are implicitly related to the principles you mention. My concern is whether a conformance test could require compliance with requirements not explicitly stated in the FAIR principles.
    >
    > This is why I was considering the possibility of including a requirement on access rights the "Beyond FAIR" work – which, ideally, can be a useful feedback for a possible revision/extension to the FAIR principles, based on usage and implementation evidence.
    >
    > Andrea
    >
    > ----
    > Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
    > Scientific / Technical Project Officer
    > European Commission DG JRC
    > Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
    > Unit B6 - Digital Economy
    > Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
    > 21027 Ispra VA, Italy
    >
    > https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/
    >
    > ----
    > The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
    > not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
    > position of the European Commission.
    >
    > From: Margareta Hellström [mailto:margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se]
    > Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 6:00 PM
    > To: makxdekkers; 'Crosas@rda-groups.org; Mercè'; PEREGO Andrea (JRC-ISPRA); FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
    > Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
    >
    > Hi Makx,
    >
    >
    >
    > my immediate reaction to this was that the access rights are connected to principle A1.2 ("the protocol allows for an authentication and authorization procedure, where necessary", but that doesn't specifically address the issue of how to inform the user (human or machine) of what those restrictions are. I guess that would be covered by the "plurality of accurate and relevant attributes" of R.1 and possibly also the "domain-relevant community standards" of R1.3.
    >
    >
    >
    > Happy Easter!
    >
    > /Maggie
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > ------------------
    > Associate Professor Margareta Hellström
    > ICOS Carbon Portal staff member
    >
    > margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se
    > Lund University
    > Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science
    > Sölvegatan 12, SE-22362 Lund, Sweden
    > Phone: +46-(0)46-2229683
    >
    >
    >
    > From: mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org on behalf of makxdekkers
    > Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 17:46
    > To: 'Crosas@rda-groups.org; Mercè'; 'andrea.perego'; FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
    > Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
    >
    > Many thanks, Andrea and Mercè, for bringing this up.
    >
    >
    >
    > Should the expression of access rights, as opposed to the re-use licence, be covered under principle R1.1 or somewhere else?
    >
    >
    >
    > Kind regards, Makx
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > From: Crosas, Mercè
    > Sent: 18 April 2019 15:58
    > To: andrea.perego
    > Cc: makxdekkers ; fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    > Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
    >
    >
    >
    > That's correct - I agree that it would be best to separate license metadata from access metadata. The Data Documentation Initiative (DDI) schema has this distinction, for example.
    >
    >
    >
    > Best,
    >
    > Merce
    >
    >
    >
    > On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 4:06 AM andrea.perego wrote:
    >
    > Dear Makx, dear colleagues,
    >
    > Thanks for sharing the report.
    >
    > I would like to raise an issue on point (4) in slide 20:
    >
    > "(4) Does the licence permit access?"
    >
    > Strictly speaking, licences are just about *use* conditions, and not about who can access what. Of course, ad hoc licences happen to include access provisions as well, but this does not apply to standard ones (as the Creative Commons suite).
    >
    > For this reason, and to facilitate conformance testing, it would be desirable that access conditions/restrictions were assessed separately from the licence, and to require that this information be specified in a separate metadata field.
    >
    > Best,
    >
    > Andrea
    >
    > ----
    > Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
    > Scientific / Technical Project Officer
    > European Commission DG JRC
    > Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
    > Unit B6 - Digital Economy
    > Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
    > 21027 Ispra VA, Italy
    >
    > https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/
    >
    > ----
    > The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
    > not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
    > position of the European Commission.
    >
    >
    > ________________________________________
    > From: mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org on behalf of makxdekkers
    > Sent: 17 April 2019 10:24:54
    > To: fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    > Subject: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
    >
    > Dear members of the RDA FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group,
    >
    > We would like to thank you for attending the meeting of the Working Group in Philadelphia on 3 April 2019 and hope you found the meeting useful.
    > The report of the meeting is now available for download from the WG page on the RDA site at https://www.rd-alliance.org/workshop-2.
    >
    > We are currently finalising a Google spreadsheet for your contributions to the development of the indicators for the FAIR principles following the approach presented at the meeting in Philadelphia, and we plan to share the spreadsheet with the Working Group in the coming days.
    >
    > Many thanks!
    >
    > Makx Dekkers
    > Editorial team
    > --
    > Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    > Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    > Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > Mercè Crosas, Ph.D.
    >
    > Harvard University's Research Data Officer, Office of Vice Provost for Research
    >
    > Chief Data Science and Technology Officer, Institute for Quantitative Social Science
    >
    > mcrosas@g.harvard.edu | @mercecrosas | scholar.harvard.edu/mercecrosas
    >
    > --
    > Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    > Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    > Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859
    > --
    > Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    > Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    > Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859
    >
    >
    > --
    > Ge Peng, PhD
    > Research Scholar
    > Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites - NC (CICS-NC)/NCSU at
    >
    > NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)
    >
    > Center for Weather and Climate (CWC)
    >
    > 151 Patton Ave, Asheville, NC 28801
    > +1 828 257 3009; ge.peng@noaa.gov
    >
    > ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1986-9115
    >
    > Following CICS-NC on Facebook
    >

  • Edit Herczog's picture

    Author: Edit Herczog

    Date: 19 Apr, 2019

    Dear Barend,

    I am sure we agree. Letter A contains the legal aspect of course. But it has to be at the level, where the reality of legislation allows it. No global legislation is possible, therefore the criteria has to be applicable at the pre- regional level, allow different regions with their individual legal systems. It is not about to leave it aside

    Beyond FAIR comes as a temporary buffer to put all things we find important, but not yet identified under FAIR, or difficult to sort. It does not mean it will remain for ever there. The WG will work hard, together with all of you to structure them under FAIR.

    And the check in the real processes is in deed about making sure the R. is workable.

    I really hope to work hard and simple to find solutions and reduce complexity
    Edit

    Edit Herczog
    Managing Director
    Mobile:  0032 476777595
    Phone:    0032 2311 6177
    Email:   mrs.edit.herczog@gmail.com

    In case you cannot reach me please contact my assistant.
    Zsuzsanna Szeredi
    Mobile: 0032 475255905
    Phone:    0032 2311 6177
    Email: zsuzsanna.szeredi@gmail.com

    From: Barend Mons
    Sent: Friday, April 19, 2019 10:30 AM
    To: Makx Dekkers; FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
    Cc: Keith Jeffery; Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate; andrea.perego; margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se; 'Crosas@rda-groups.org; mcrosas@g.harvard.edu
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    My two cents before Easter :)

    1. Is it important to include access rights and conditions in the evaluation of FAIRness?
    It is not only important, it is a critical issue, covered entirely -at high level of abstraction- in the FAIR guiding principles. Remember that FAIR is not a goal in itself, the key is the R: we want reusable workflows and data. Data and services without proper, machine actionable, metadata on access, license and instructions for proper reuse (both technically and legally) can be FAI and still Re-useless. (If this term is new to you, you have to admit you did not read the Cloudy, increasingly FAIR paper :)
    https://content.iospress.com/articles/information-services-and-use/isu824

    1.
    2. Under which area (F, A, I, R, beyond FAIR) or principle should it be evaluated?

    As I argued before, both under A and particularly R but I am a bit weary about the term ‘beyond’ FAIR, as it suggests that the principles do not cover certain aspects. So far, noone came up to me with aspects that are not covered -again at high level of abstraction- by F, A, I or R, especially R: For instance lageal aspects, quality of data etc. Are all related to acessibility under well defined conditions and ‘meaningful’ reusability. One example: totally fabricated data that are totally FAI: can be either R or not based on the use case. For example for testing model of software performance or to check VMs for their promised actions. 

    So let’s indeed concentrate this group, as Edith keeps emphasizing, correctly imho’, on WHAT needs to be measured to -in the end- judge the R level of data and services and worry about the how/details of such measuments later and in other contexts. 

    Prof. Barend Mons
    Leiden University Medical Center
    President of CODATA 
    GO FAIR international Support and coordination office

    Mail: barend.mons@go-fair.org
    +31624879779

    ORCID: 0000-0003-3934-0072
    sent from my IPad

    On 19 Apr 2019, at 10:07, Makx Dekkers wrote:
    Many thanks, Keith.
     
    Indeed, the details of access rights and conditions might be quite complex.
     
    For this moment, though, I’d like to propose that the groups does not dig into the details of this issue.
     
    Maybe we can establish: first, that expression of access rights and conditions is important for FAIRness, and, second, where it could be evaluated – under an existing principle, or alternatively, as Andrea Perego suggested, under the ‘Beyond FAIR’ category.
     
    The details of how exactly the access rights and conditions are expressed can then be discussed at a later stage. At that stage, it will indeed be very important to use what is already there and not reinvent the wheel.
     
    May I request that we limit the discussion on this issue to two questions:
     
    1. Is it important to include access rights and conditions in the evaluation of FAIRness?
    2. Under which area (F, A, I, R, beyond FAIR) or principle should it be evaluated?
     
    Kind regards, Makx
     
     
     
    From: Keith Jeffery
    Sent: 19 April 2019 09:20
    To: Barend Mons ; Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate ; FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
    Cc: andrea.perego ; margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se; makxdekkers ; 'Crosas@rda-groups.org; mcrosas@g.harvard.edu
    Subject: RE: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
     
    All –
    I have been following the discussion with interest.  Andrea is of course correct and references (updated) DCAT in this regard. I agree with Maggie’s suggested relationships of access to the relevant FAIR principles.  I agree strongly with Barend on rich metadata that is actionable (implies formal syntax and declared semantics).  I agree that licence conditions and access constraints (security, privacy, trust, cost…) are related but different. The tracking of correct re-use conditions (attribution, use without change…) is related to provenance although I haven’t seen any reliable solutions yet. 
     
    From my perspective it is commonly difficult for any workflow/process to distinguish A, I and R in terms of access permissions.  The problem is the multi-dimensionality.  I suggest the basic access permission actually relates to a process (e.g. Webservice) acting on a dataset (generalised as any asset acting on or with any other asset – including lab equipment, sensors, software services, datasets, persons, organisations, publications…) but this is conditioned by who owns or manages each of the two assets involved and whom those organisations or persons delegate to execute the service on the dataset (or more generally the action of one asset on another).   Thus if the basic permission being managed is then we have connected to each something like:

    (person in role user different from the manager and owner persons)
     
    Note that each should have a temporal duration (this allows for e.g. embargo periods or elapsing of copyright).  There can be interesting problems when temporal intervals do not coincide – a well-known NP-hard problem from temporal database research.
     
    Furthermore, access conditions can be quite complex; depending on the asset the permission may be :
    [know the existence of | read | copy | update (amend, insert, delete) | delete | execute ……]  and in a different dimension [cost (which may have complex sub-conditions)] in yet another dimension [attribution] and in yet another dimension [trust/security/privacy]  and of course as well as the conventional assets (datasets, services etc) the metadata itself may be subject to access conditions.
     
    Hopefully most research can be open and free thus avoiding the need for such access controls, but I fear that we shall have to provide them – not least because of increasing regulation (e.g. GDPR in Europe).
     
    I am  concerned that we do not re-invent the wheel.  Years of research have provided production-strength access control systems for large-scale IT systems used all the time by commerce, industry, government.  I believe the problem is to relate the capabilities of these access control systems to the FAIR principles using a form of logic notation representable in the metadata as formal syntax and declared semantics.
     
    Best
    Keith
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Keith G Jeffery Consultants
    Prof Keith G Jeffery
    E: keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk
    T: +44 7768 446088
    S: keithgjeffery
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the
    intended recipient only.  If you are not one of the intended
    recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but
    return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     
     
    From: barendmons=gmail.com@rda-groups.org On Behalf Of Barend Mons
    Sent: 18 April 2019 18:09
    To: Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate ; FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
    Cc: andrea.perego ; margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se; makxdekkers ; 'Crosas@rda-groups.org; mcrosas@g.harvard.edu
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
     
    Yes and as we support the statement: ‘as open as possible, as closed as necessary’, we could even put the most liberal license as ‘default’ UPRI in metadata templates, so that researchers would have to ‘increase restriction deliberately if they have good reasons for that, which the funder will accept (for instnace patient privacy).
    In that way ‘unlicensed’ and thereforwe in some circles re-useless data can be avoided?
    B
     
    Prof. Barend Mons
    Leiden University Medical Center
    President of CODATA 
    GO FAIR international Support and coordination office
     
    Mail: barend.mons@go-fair.org
    +31624879779

     
    ORCID: 0000-0003-3934-0072
    sent from my IPad
     

    On 18 Apr 2019, at 19:01, Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate wrote:
    Thanks, Barend, for bringing up the point of open-minded researchers. For them and many, if not all, US federal agencies, not having any restriction clauses on access and/or use in metadata record or website means there is no restriction, period. It has been on my mind but have not got a good time to mention so until now.
     
    However, requiring explicitly description of the license, access and use rights may be a good practice.
     
    Regards,
     
    --- Peng
     
    On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 12:31 PM Barend Mons wrote:
    Good discussion (just landed from Nairobi, so was a bit out of the loop.
     
    Also there, access rights e.d. were a hot discussion topic. 
     
    I concur with Maggie that the ‘A’ and part of R is implicitly requiring access rights and licensing (the machine need to know what it is technically able to do with the data as well as what it is ‘allowed’ to do). To me this is all covered by the generic principle of rich, machine actionable metadata for all FAIR digital objects. Measuring can imho include any further specification of that, and again, the requirements may vary per disciploine as we stated at the meeting.
    I know for instance from an earlier IMI project (Open PHACTS) that the pharma is unlikely to even ‘touch’ a data set without a clear license, even if the researcher is so ‘open minded’ that putting a license did not even occur to her/him...
    B
     
    Prof. Barend Mons
    Leiden University Medical Center
    President of CODATA 
    GO FAIR international Support and coordination office
     
    Mail: barend.mons@go-fair.org
    +31624879779

     
    ORCID: 0000-0003-3934-0072
    sent from my IPad
     

    On 18 Apr 2019, at 18:17, andrea.perego wrote:
    Hi, Maggie.
     
    I agree access rights are implicitly related to the principles you mention. My concern is whether a conformance test could require compliance with requirements not explicitly stated in the FAIR principles.
     
    This is why I was considering the possibility of including a requirement on access rights the "Beyond FAIR" work – which, ideally, can be a useful feedback for a possible revision/extension to the FAIR principles, based on usage and implementation evidence.
     
    Andrea
     
    ----
    Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
    Scientific / Technical Project Officer
    European Commission DG JRC
    Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
    Unit B6 - Digital Economy
    Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
    21027 Ispra VA, Italy
     
    https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/
     
    ----
    The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
    not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
    position of the European Commission.
     
    From: Margareta Hellström [mailto:margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se]
    Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 6:00 PM
    To: makxdekkers; 'Crosas@rda-groups.org; Mercè'; PEREGO Andrea (JRC-ISPRA); FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
     
    Hi Makx,
     
    my immediate reaction to this was that the access rights are connected to principle A1.2 ("the protocol allows for an authentication and authorization procedure, where necessary", but that doesn't specifically address the issue of how to inform the user (human or machine) of what those restrictions are. I guess that would be covered by the "plurality of accurate and relevant attributes" of R.1 and possibly also the "domain-relevant community standards" of  R1.3.
     
    Happy Easter!
    /Maggie
     
     
    ------------------
    Associate Professor Margareta Hellström
    ICOS Carbon Portal staff member
    margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se
    Lund University  
    Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science      
    Sölvegatan 12, SE-22362 Lund, Sweden
    Phone: +46-(0)46-2229683

     

    From: mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org on behalf of makxdekkers
    Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 17:46
    To: 'Crosas@rda-groups.org; Mercè'; 'andrea.perego'; FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
     
    Many thanks, Andrea and Mercè, for bringing this up.
     
    Should the expression of access rights, as opposed to the re-use licence, be covered under principle R1.1 or somewhere else?
     
    Kind regards, Makx
     
     
    From: Crosas, Mercè
    Sent: 18 April 2019 15:58
    To: andrea.perego
    Cc: makxdekkers ; fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
     
    That's correct - I agree that it would be best to separate license metadata from access metadata. The Data Documentation Initiative (DDI) schema has this distinction, for example.
     
    Best,
    Merce
     
    On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 4:06 AM andrea.perego wrote:
    Dear Makx, dear colleagues,

    Thanks for sharing the report.

    I would like to raise an issue on point (4) in slide 20:

    "(4) Does the licence permit access?"

    Strictly speaking, licences are just about *use* conditions, and not about who can access what. Of course, ad hoc licences happen to include access provisions as well, but this does not apply to standard ones (as the Creative Commons suite).

    For this reason, and to facilitate conformance testing, it would be desirable that access conditions/restrictions were assessed separately from the licence, and to require that this information be specified in a separate metadata field.

    Best,

    Andrea

    ----
    Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
    Scientific / Technical Project Officer
    European Commission DG JRC
    Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
    Unit B6 - Digital Economy
    Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
    21027 Ispra VA, Italy

    https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/

    ----
    The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
    not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
    position of the European Commission.

    ________________________________________
    From: mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org on behalf of makxdekkers
    Sent: 17 April 2019 10:24:54
    To: fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    Subject: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Dear members of the RDA FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group,

    We would like to thank you for attending the meeting of the Working Group in Philadelphia on 3 April 2019 and hope you found the meeting useful.
    The report of the meeting is now available for download from the WG page on the RDA site at https://www.rd-alliance.org/workshop-2.

    We are currently finalising a Google spreadsheet for your contributions to the development of the indicators for the FAIR principles following the approach presented at the meeting in Philadelphia, and we plan to share the spreadsheet with the Working Group in the coming days.

    Many thanks!

    Makx Dekkers
    Editorial team
    --
    Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859

     
    --
    Mercè Crosas, Ph.D.
    Harvard University's Research Data Officer, Office of Vice Provost for Research
    Chief Data Science and Technology Officer, Institute for Quantitative Social Science
    mcrosas@g.harvard.edu | @mercecrosas | scholar.harvard.edu/mercecrosas

    --
    Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859
    --
    Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859

     
    --
    Ge Peng, PhD
    Research Scholar
    Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites - NC (CICS-NC)/NCSU at
    NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)
    Center for Weather and Climate (CWC)
    151 Patton Ave, Asheville, NC 28801
    +1 828 257 3009; ge.peng@noaa.gov
    ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1986-9115
    Following CICS-NC on Facebook

     

  • Keith Jeffery's picture

    Author: Keith Jeffery

    Date: 19 Apr, 2019

    Maxx, All -

    I guess first I owe an apology for my lengthy email; I was trying to ensure that we are all on the same page in terms of the complexity of the 'can of worms' the initial comment opens.
    To answer the questions:

    1. Is it important to include access rights and conditions in the evaluation of FAIRness?
    Not only important but essential if we are to have any fair (lowercase) and reasonable way of assessing FAIRness

    1. Under which area (F, A, I, R, beyond FAIR) or principle should it be evaluated?
    The FAIR principles are high level and abstract so basically anything fits within the context. I am somewhat alarmed by FAIR+R (although I agree that reproducible should be explicitly stated as an example of re-usable). Similarly 'resolvable' is an important property of a Universally Unique Persistent Identifier but is, I believe, implicitly in FAIR F1.
    (as an aside I believe R1 is an important criterion for findability - usually people find relevant assets through metadata with a plurality of relevant attributes).

    For me the key thing is to define assessment criteria that ensure the 'spirit' of FAIR but are more precise in actionable terms - if necessary we have to take the wonderfully succinct FAIR principles and elaborate a paragraph for each to 'bridge' between the high level abstraction and the actionable assessment criterion.

    Best
    Keith

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Keith G Jeffery Consultants
    Prof Keith G Jeffery
    E: keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk
    T: +44 7768 446088
    S: keithgjeffery
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the
    intended recipient only. If you are not one of the intended
    recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but
    return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From: mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org On Behalf Of makxdekkers
    Sent: 19 April 2019 09:08
    To: Keith Jeffery ; 'Barend Mons' ; 'Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate' ; 'FAIR Data Maturity Model WG'
    Cc: 'andrea.perego' ; margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se; 'Crosas@rda-groups.org; mcrosas@g.harvard.edu
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Many thanks, Keith.

    Indeed, the details of access rights and conditions might be quite complex.

    For this moment, though, I'd like to propose that the groups does not dig into the details of this issue.

    Maybe we can establish: first, that expression of access rights and conditions is important for FAIRness, and, second, where it could be evaluated - under an existing principle, or alternatively, as Andrea Perego suggested, under the 'Beyond FAIR' category.

    The details of how exactly the access rights and conditions are expressed can then be discussed at a later stage. At that stage, it will indeed be very important to use what is already there and not reinvent the wheel.

    May I request that we limit the discussion on this issue to two questions:

    1. Is it important to include access rights and conditions in the evaluation of FAIRness?
    2. Under which area (F, A, I, R, beyond FAIR) or principle should it be evaluated?

    Kind regards, Makx

    From: Keith Jeffery >
    Sent: 19 April 2019 09:20
    To: Barend Mons >; Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate >; FAIR Data Maturity Model WG >
    Cc: andrea.perego >; margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se; makxdekkers >; 'Crosas@rda-groups.org; mcrosas@g.harvard.edu
    Subject: RE: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    All -
    I have been following the discussion with interest. Andrea is of course correct and references (updated) DCAT in this regard. I agree with Maggie's suggested relationships of access to the relevant FAIR principles. I agree strongly with Barend on rich metadata that is actionable (implies formal syntax and declared semantics). I agree that licence conditions and access constraints (security, privacy, trust, cost...) are related but different. The tracking of correct re-use conditions (attribution, use without change...) is related to provenance although I haven't seen any reliable solutions yet.

    From my perspective it is commonly difficult for any workflow/process to distinguish A, I and R in terms of access permissions. The problem is the multi-dimensionality. I suggest the basic access permission actually relates to a process (e.g. Webservice) acting on a dataset (generalised as any asset acting on or with any other asset - including lab equipment, sensors, software services, datasets, persons, organisations, publications...) but this is conditioned by who owns or manages each of the two assets involved and whom those organisations or persons delegate to execute the service on the dataset (or more generally the action of one asset on another). Thus if the basic permission being managed is then we have connected to each something like:

    (person in role user different from the manager and owner persons)

    Note that each should have a temporal duration (this allows for e.g. embargo periods or elapsing of copyright). There can be interesting problems when temporal intervals do not coincide - a well-known NP-hard problem from temporal database research.

    Furthermore, access conditions can be quite complex; depending on the asset the permission may be :
    [know the existence of | read | copy | update (amend, insert, delete) | delete | execute ......] and in a different dimension [cost (which may have complex sub-conditions)] in yet another dimension [attribution] and in yet another dimension [trust/security/privacy] and of course as well as the conventional assets (datasets, services etc) the metadata itself may be subject to access conditions.

    Hopefully most research can be open and free thus avoiding the need for such access controls, but I fear that we shall have to provide them - not least because of increasing regulation (e.g. GDPR in Europe).

    I am concerned that we do not re-invent the wheel. Years of research have provided production-strength access control systems for large-scale IT systems used all the time by commerce, industry, government. I believe the problem is to relate the capabilities of these access control systems to the FAIR principles using a form of logic notation representable in the metadata as formal syntax and declared semantics.

    Best
    Keith
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Keith G Jeffery Consultants
    Prof Keith G Jeffery
    E: keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk
    T: +44 7768 446088
    S: keithgjeffery
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the
    intended recipient only. If you are not one of the intended
    recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but
    return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From: barendmons=gmail.com@rda-groups.org > On Behalf Of Barend Mons
    Sent: 18 April 2019 18:09
    To: Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate >; FAIR Data Maturity Model WG >
    Cc: andrea.perego >; margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se; makxdekkers >; 'Crosas@rda-groups.org; mcrosas@g.harvard.edu
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Yes and as we support the statement: 'as open as possible, as closed as necessary', we could even put the most liberal license as 'default' UPRI in metadata templates, so that researchers would have to 'increase restriction deliberately if they have good reasons for that, which the funder will accept (for instnace patient privacy).
    In that way 'unlicensed' and thereforwe in some circles re-useless data can be avoided?
    B

    Prof. Barend Mons

    Leiden University Medical Center

    President of CODATA

    GO FAIR international Support and coordination office

    Mail: barend.mons@go-fair.org

    +31624879779

    [Image removed by sender.]

    ORCID: 0000-0003-3934-0072

    sent from my IPad

    On 18 Apr 2019, at 19:01, Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate > wrote:
    Thanks, Barend, for bringing up the point of open-minded researchers. For them and many, if not all, US federal agencies, not having any restriction clauses on access and/or use in metadata record or website means there is no restriction, period. It has been on my mind but have not got a good time to mention so until now.

    However, requiring explicitly description of the license, access and use rights may be a good practice.

    Regards,

    --- Peng

    On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 12:31 PM Barend Mons > wrote:
    Good discussion (just landed from Nairobi, so was a bit out of the loop.

    Also there, access rights e.d. were a hot discussion topic.

    I concur with Maggie that the 'A' and part of R is implicitly requiring access rights and licensing (the machine need to know what it is technically able to do with the data as well as what it is 'allowed' to do). To me this is all covered by the generic principle of rich, machine actionable metadata for all FAIR digital objects. Measuring can imho include any further specification of that, and again, the requirements may vary per disciploine as we stated at the meeting.
    I know for instance from an earlier IMI project (Open PHACTS) that the pharma is unlikely to even 'touch' a data set without a clear license, even if the researcher is so 'open minded' that putting a license did not even occur to her/him...
    B

    Prof. Barend Mons

    Leiden University Medical Center

    President of CODATA

    GO FAIR international Support and coordination office

    Mail: barend.mons@go-fair.org

    +31624879779

    [cid:]

    ORCID: 0000-0003-3934-0072

    sent from my IPad

    On 18 Apr 2019, at 18:17, andrea.perego > wrote:
    Hi, Maggie.

    I agree access rights are implicitly related to the principles you mention. My concern is whether a conformance test could require compliance with requirements not explicitly stated in the FAIR principles.

    This is why I was considering the possibility of including a requirement on access rights the "Beyond FAIR" work - which, ideally, can be a useful feedback for a possible revision/extension to the FAIR principles, based on usage and implementation evidence.

    Andrea

    ----
    Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
    Scientific / Technical Project Officer
    European Commission DG JRC
    Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
    Unit B6 - Digital Economy
    Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
    21027 Ispra VA, Italy

    https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/

    ----
    The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
    not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
    position of the European Commission.

    From: Margareta Hellström [mailto:margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se]
    Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 6:00 PM
    To: makxdekkers; 'Crosas@rda-groups.org; Mercè'; PEREGO Andrea (JRC-ISPRA); FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Hi Makx,

    my immediate reaction to this was that the access rights are connected to principle A1.2 ("the protocol allows for an authentication and authorization procedure, where necessary", but that doesn't specifically address the issue of how to inform the user (human or machine) of what those restrictions are. I guess that would be covered by the "plurality of accurate and relevant attributes" of R.1 and possibly also the "domain-relevant community standards" of R1.3.

    Happy Easter!

    /Maggie

    ------------------
    Associate Professor Margareta Hellström
    ICOS Carbon Portal staff member
    margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se
    Lund University
    Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science
    Sölvegatan 12, SE-22362 Lund, Sweden
    Phone: +46-(0)46-2229683
    ________________________________

    ________________________________
    From: mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org > on behalf of makxdekkers >
    Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 17:46
    To: 'Crosas@rda-groups.org; Mercè'; 'andrea.perego'; FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Many thanks, Andrea and Mercè, for bringing this up.

    Should the expression of access rights, as opposed to the re-use licence, be covered under principle R1.1 or somewhere else?

    Kind regards, Makx

    From: Crosas, Mercè >
    Sent: 18 April 2019 15:58
    To: andrea.perego >
    Cc: makxdekkers >; fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    That's correct - I agree that it would be best to separate license metadata from access metadata. The Data Documentation Initiative (DDI) schema has this distinction, for example.

    Best,

    Merce

    On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 4:06 AM andrea.perego > wrote:

    Dear Makx, dear colleagues,

    Thanks for sharing the report.

    I would like to raise an issue on point (4) in slide 20:

    "(4) Does the licence permit access?"

    Strictly speaking, licences are just about *use* conditions, and not about who can access what. Of course, ad hoc licences happen to include access provisions as well, but this does not apply to standard ones (as the Creative Commons suite).

    For this reason, and to facilitate conformance testing, it would be desirable that access conditions/restrictions were assessed separately from the licence, and to require that this information be specified in a separate metadata field.

    Best,

    Andrea

    ----
    Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
    Scientific / Technical Project Officer
    European Commission DG JRC
    Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
    Unit B6 - Digital Economy
    Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
    21027 Ispra VA, Italy

    https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/

    ----
    The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
    not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
    position of the European Commission.

    ________________________________________
    From: mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org > on behalf of makxdekkers >
    Sent: 17 April 2019 10:24:54
    To: fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    Subject: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Dear members of the RDA FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group,

    We would like to thank you for attending the meeting of the Working Group in Philadelphia on 3 April 2019 and hope you found the meeting useful.
    The report of the meeting is now available for download from the WG page on the RDA site at https://www.rd-alliance.org/workshop-2.

    We are currently finalising a Google spreadsheet for your contributions to the development of the indicators for the FAIR principles following the approach presented at the meeting in Philadelphia, and we plan to share the spreadsheet with the Working Group in the coming days.

    Many thanks!

    Makx Dekkers
    Editorial team
    --
    Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859

    --

    Mercè Crosas, Ph.D.

    Harvard University's Research Data Officer, Office of Vice Provost for Research

    Chief Data Science and Technology Officer, Institute for Quantitative Social Science

    mcrosas@g.harvard.edu | @mercecrosas | scholar.harvard.edu/mercecrosas

    --
    Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859
    --
    Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859

    --

    Ge Peng, PhD
    Research Scholar
    Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites - NC (CICS-NC)/NCSU at

    NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

    Center for Weather and Climate (CWC)

    151 Patton Ave, Asheville, NC 28801
    +1 828 257 3009; ge.peng@noaa.gov

    ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1986-9115

    Following CICS-NC on Facebook

  • Makx Dekkers's picture

    Author: Makx Dekkers

    Date: 19 Apr, 2019

    Barend,

    I see your point about ‘beyond FAIR’ implying that access rights are not covered in the four areas. Our intention was to include in this category anything that was not explicitly in the definitions of the individual principles.

    In this particular case, I think we looked at the title of the principle and overlooked the explanation of A1.2 (“one should provide the exact conditions under which the data are accessible”). So access rights and conditions should be covered under A1.2.

    Correct?

    Makx.

    From: barendmons=gmail.com@rda-groups.org On Behalf Of Barend Mons
    Sent: 19 April 2019 10:30
    To: Makx Dekkers ; FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
    Cc: Keith Jeffery ; Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate ; andrea.perego ; margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se; 'Crosas@rda-groups.org; mcrosas@g.harvard.edu
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    My two cents before Easter :)

    1. Is it important to include access rights and conditions in the evaluation of FAIRness?

    It is not only important, it is a critical issue, covered entirely -at high level of abstraction- in the FAIR guiding principles. Remember that FAIR is not a goal in itself, the key is the R: we want reusable workflows and data. Data and services without proper, machine actionable, metadata on access, license and instructions for proper reuse (both technically and legally) can be FAI and still Re-useless. (If this term is new to you, you have to admit you did not read the Cloudy, increasingly FAIR paper :)

    https://content.iospress.com/articles/information-services-and-use/isu824

    1.
    2. Under which area (F, A, I, R, beyond FAIR) or principle should it be evaluated?

    As I argued before, both under A and particularly R but I am a bit weary about the term ‘beyond’ FAIR, as it suggests that the principles do not cover certain aspects. So far, noone came up to me with aspects that are not covered -again at high level of abstraction- by F, A, I or R, especially R: For instance lageal aspects, quality of data etc. Are all related to acessibility under well defined conditions and ‘meaningful’ reusability. One example: totally fabricated data that are totally FAI: can be either R or not based on the use case. For example for testing model of software performance or to check VMs for their promised actions.

    So let’s indeed concentrate this group, as Edith keeps emphasizing, correctly imho’, on WHAT needs to be measured to -in the end- judge the R level of data and services and worry about the how/details of such measuments later and in other contexts.

    Prof. Barend Mons

    Leiden University Medical Center

    President of CODATA

    GO FAIR international Support and coordination office

    Mail: barend.mons@go-fair.org

    +31624879779

    ORCID: 0000-0003-3934-0072

    sent from my IPad

    On 19 Apr 2019, at 10:07, Makx Dekkers > wrote:

    Many thanks, Keith.

    Indeed, the details of access rights and conditions might be quite complex.

    For this moment, though, I’d like to propose that the groups does not dig into the details of this issue.

    Maybe we can establish: first, that expression of access rights and conditions is important for FAIRness, and, second, where it could be evaluated – under an existing principle, or alternatively, as Andrea Perego suggested, under the ‘Beyond FAIR’ category.

    The details of how exactly the access rights and conditions are expressed can then be discussed at a later stage. At that stage, it will indeed be very important to use what is already there and not reinvent the wheel.

    May I request that we limit the discussion on this issue to two questions:

    1. Is it important to include access rights and conditions in the evaluation of FAIRness?
    2. Under which area (F, A, I, R, beyond FAIR) or principle should it be evaluated?

    Kind regards, Makx

    From: Keith Jeffery >
    Sent: 19 April 2019 09:20
    To: Barend Mons >; Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate >; FAIR Data Maturity Model WG >
    Cc: andrea.perego >; margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se ; makxdekkers >; 'Crosas@rda-groups.org ; mcrosas@g.harvard.edu
    Subject: RE: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    All –

    I have been following the discussion with interest. Andrea is of course correct and references (updated) DCAT in this regard. I agree with Maggie’s suggested relationships of access to the relevant FAIR principles. I agree strongly with Barend on rich metadata that is actionable (implies formal syntax and declared semantics). I agree that licence conditions and access constraints (security, privacy, trust, cost…) are related but different. The tracking of correct re-use conditions (attribution, use without change…) is related to provenance although I haven’t seen any reliable solutions yet.

    From my perspective it is commonly difficult for any workflow/process to distinguish A, I and R in terms of access permissions. The problem is the multi-dimensionality. I suggest the basic access permission actually relates to a process (e.g. Webservice) acting on a dataset (generalised as any asset acting on or with any other asset – including lab equipment, sensors, software services, datasets, persons, organisations, publications…) but this is conditioned by who owns or manages each of the two assets involved and whom those organisations or persons delegate to execute the service on the dataset (or more generally the action of one asset on another). Thus if the basic permission being managed is then we have connected to each something like:

    (person in role user different from the manager and owner persons)

    Note that each should have a temporal duration (this allows for e.g. embargo periods or elapsing of copyright). There can be interesting problems when temporal intervals do not coincide – a well-known NP-hard problem from temporal database research.

    Furthermore, access conditions can be quite complex; depending on the asset the permission may be :

    [know the existence of | read | copy | update (amend, insert, delete) | delete | execute ……] and in a different dimension [cost (which may have complex sub-conditions)] in yet another dimension [attribution] and in yet another dimension [trust/security/privacy] and of course as well as the conventional assets (datasets, services etc) the metadata itself may be subject to access conditions.

    Hopefully most research can be open and free thus avoiding the need for such access controls, but I fear that we shall have to provide them – not least because of increasing regulation (e.g. GDPR in Europe).

    I am concerned that we do not re-invent the wheel. Years of research have provided production-strength access control systems for large-scale IT systems used all the time by commerce, industry, government. I believe the problem is to relate the capabilities of these access control systems to the FAIR principles using a form of logic notation representable in the metadata as formal syntax and declared semantics.

    Best

    Keith

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Keith G Jeffery Consultants

    Prof Keith G Jeffery

    E: keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk

    T: +44 7768 446088

    S: keithgjeffery

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the

    intended recipient only. If you are not one of the intended

    recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but

    return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From: barendmons=gmail.com@rda-groups.org < barendmons=gmail.com@rda-groups.org> On Behalf Of Barend Mons
    Sent: 18 April 2019 18:09
    To: Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate < ge.peng@noaa.gov>; FAIR Data Maturity Model WG < fair_maturity@rda-groups.org>
    Cc: andrea.perego < andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu>; margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se; makxdekkers < mail@makxdekkers.com>; 'Crosas@rda-groups.org ; mcrosas@g.harvard.edu
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Yes and as we support the statement: ‘as open as possible, as closed as necessary’, we could even put the most liberal license as ‘default’ UPRI in metadata templates, so that researchers would have to ‘increase restriction deliberately if they have good reasons for that, which the funder will accept (for instnace patient privacy).

    In that way ‘unlicensed’ and thereforwe in some circles re-useless data can be avoided?

    B

    Prof. Barend Mons

    Leiden University Medical Center

    President of CODATA

    GO FAIR international Support and coordination office

    Mail: barend.mons@go-fair.org

    +31624879779

    ORCID: 0000-0003-3934-0072

    sent from my IPad

    On 18 Apr 2019, at 19:01, Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate > wrote:

    Thanks, Barend, for bringing up the point of open-minded researchers. For them and many, if not all, US federal agencies, not having any restriction clauses on access and/or use in metadata record or website means there is no restriction, period. It has been on my mind but have not got a good time to mention so until now.

    However, requiring explicitly description of the license, access and use rights may be a good practice.

    Regards,

    --- Peng

    On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 12:31 PM Barend Mons > wrote:

    Good discussion (just landed from Nairobi, so was a bit out of the loop.

    Also there, access rights e.d. were a hot discussion topic.

    I concur with Maggie that the ‘A’ and part of R is implicitly requiring access rights and licensing (the machine need to know what it is technically able to do with the data as well as what it is ‘allowed’ to do). To me this is all covered by the generic principle of rich, machine actionable metadata for all FAIR digital objects. Measuring can imho include any further specification of that, and again, the requirements may vary per disciploine as we stated at the meeting.

    I know for instance from an earlier IMI project (Open PHACTS) that the pharma is unlikely to even ‘touch’ a data set without a clear license, even if the researcher is so ‘open minded’ that putting a license did not even occur to her/him...

    B

    Prof. Barend Mons

    Leiden University Medical Center

    President of CODATA

    GO FAIR international Support and coordination office

    Mail: barend.mons@go-fair.org

    +31624879779

    ORCID: 0000-0003-3934-0072

    sent from my IPad

    On 18 Apr 2019, at 18:17, andrea.perego > wrote:

    Hi, Maggie.

    I agree access rights are implicitly related to the principles you mention. My concern is whether a conformance test could require compliance with requirements not explicitly stated in the FAIR principles.

    This is why I was considering the possibility of including a requirement on access rights the "Beyond FAIR" work – which, ideally, can be a useful feedback for a possible revision/extension to the FAIR principles, based on usage and implementation evidence.

    Andrea

    ----

    Andrea Perego, Ph.D.

    Scientific / Technical Project Officer

    European Commission DG JRC

    Directorate B - Growth and Innovation

    Unit B6 - Digital Economy

    Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262

    21027 Ispra VA, Italy

    https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/

    ----

    The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may

    not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official

    position of the European Commission.

    From: Margareta Hellström [ mailto:margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se]
    Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 6:00 PM
    To: makxdekkers; ' Crosas@rda-groups.org; Mercè'; PEREGO Andrea (JRC-ISPRA); FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Hi Makx,

    my immediate reaction to this was that the access rights are connected to principle A1.2 ("the protocol allows for an authentication and authorization procedure, where necessary", but that doesn't specifically address the issue of how to inform the user (human or machine) of what those restrictions are. I guess that would be covered by the "plurality of accurate and relevant attributes" of R.1 and possibly also the "domain-relevant community standards" of R1.3.

    Happy Easter!

    /Maggie

    ------------------
    Associate Professor Margareta Hellström

    ICOS Carbon Portal staff member

    margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se

    Lund University

    Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science
    Sölvegatan 12, SE-22362 Lund, Sweden
    Phone: +46-(0)46-2229683

    _____

    _____

    From: mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org > on behalf of makxdekkers >
    Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 17:46
    To: 'Crosas@rda-groups.org ; Mercè'; 'andrea.perego'; FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Many thanks, Andrea and Mercè, for bringing this up.

    Should the expression of access rights, as opposed to the re-use licence, be covered under principle R1.1 or somewhere else?

    Kind regards, Makx

    From: Crosas, Mercè < mcrosas@g.harvard.edu>
    Sent: 18 April 2019 15:58
    To: andrea.perego < andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu>
    Cc: makxdekkers < mail@makxdekkers.com>; fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    That's correct - I agree that it would be best to separate license metadata from access metadata. The Data Documentation Initiative (DDI) schema has this distinction, for example.

    Best,

    Merce

    On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 4:06 AM andrea.perego > wrote:

    Dear Makx, dear colleagues,

    Thanks for sharing the report.

    I would like to raise an issue on point (4) in slide 20:

    "(4) Does the licence permit access?"

    Strictly speaking, licences are just about *use* conditions, and not about who can access what. Of course, ad hoc licences happen to include access provisions as well, but this does not apply to standard ones (as the Creative Commons suite).

    For this reason, and to facilitate conformance testing, it would be desirable that access conditions/restrictions were assessed separately from the licence, and to require that this information be specified in a separate metadata field.

    Best,

    Andrea

    ----
    Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
    Scientific / Technical Project Officer
    European Commission DG JRC
    Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
    Unit B6 - Digital Economy
    Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
    21027 Ispra VA, Italy

    https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/

    ----
    The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
    not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
    position of the European Commission.

    ________________________________________
    From: mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org > on behalf of makxdekkers >
    Sent: 17 April 2019 10:24:54
    To: fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    Subject: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Dear members of the RDA FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group,

    We would like to thank you for attending the meeting of the Working Group in Philadelphia on 3 April 2019 and hope you found the meeting useful.
    The report of the meeting is now available for download from the WG page on the RDA site at https://www.rd-alliance.org/workshop-2.

    We are currently finalising a Google spreadsheet for your contributions to the development of the indicators for the FAIR principles following the approach presented at the meeting in Philadelphia, and we plan to share the spreadsheet with the Working Group in the coming days.

    Many thanks!

    Makx Dekkers
    Editorial team
    --
    Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859

    --

    Mercè Crosas, Ph.D.

    Harvard University's Research Data Officer, Office of Vice Provost for Research

    Chief Data Science and Technology Officer, Institute for Quantitative Social Science

    mcrosas@g.harvard.edu | @mercecrosas | scholar.harvard.edu/mercecrosas

    --
    Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859

    --
    Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859

    --

    Ge Peng, PhD
    Research Scholar
    Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites - NC (CICS-NC)/NCSU at

    NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

    Center for Weather and Climate (CWC)

    151 Patton Ave, Asheville, NC 28801
    +1 828 257 3009; ge.peng@noaa.gov

    ORCID: http:// orcid.org/0000-0002-1986-9115

    Following CICS-NC on Facebook

  • Keith Jeffery's picture

    Author: Keith Jeffery

    Date: 20 Apr, 2019

    Makx –
    Although addressed to Barend I would answer ‘yes’. The problem is the specification of the measurement parameters to ensure the ‘spirit’ of FAIRness (in A1.2) is recorded for any instance in rich metadata that is actionable.
    Best
    Keith

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Keith G Jeffery Consultants
    Prof Keith G Jeffery
    E: keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk
    T: +44 7768 446088
    S: keithgjeffery
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the
    intended recipient only. If you are not one of the intended
    recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but
    return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From: mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org On Behalf Of makxdekkers
    Sent: 19 April 2019 16:52
    To: 'Barend Mons' ; 'FAIR Data Maturity Model WG'
    Cc: Keith Jeffery ; 'Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate' ; 'andrea.perego' ; margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se; 'Crosas@rda-groups.org; mcrosas@g.harvard.edu
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Barend,

    I see your point about ‘beyond FAIR’ implying that access rights are not covered in the four areas. Our intention was to include in this category anything that was not explicitly in the definitions of the individual principles.

    In this particular case, I think we looked at the title of the principle and overlooked the explanation of A1.2 (“one should provide the exact conditions under which the data are accessible”). So access rights and conditions should be covered under A1.2.

    Correct?

    Makx.

    From: barendmons=gmail.com@rda-groups.org On Behalf Of Barend Mons
    Sent: 19 April 2019 10:30
    To: Makx Dekkers ; FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
    Cc: Keith Jeffery ; Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate ; andrea.perego ; margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se; 'Crosas@rda-groups.org; mcrosas@g.harvard.edu
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    My two cents before Easter :)

    1. Is it important to include access rights and conditions in the evaluation of FAIRness?
    It is not only important, it is a critical issue, covered entirely -at high level of abstraction- in the FAIR guiding principles. Remember that FAIR is not a goal in itself, the key is the R: we want reusable workflows and data. Data and services without proper, machine actionable, metadata on access, license and instructions for proper reuse (both technically and legally) can be FAI and still Re-useless. (If this term is new to you, you have to admit you did not read the Cloudy, increasingly FAIR paper :)
    https://content.iospress.com/articles/information-services-and-use/isu824

    1.
    2. Under which area (F, A, I, R, beyond FAIR) or principle should it be evaluated?

    As I argued before, both under A and particularly R but I am a bit weary about the term ‘beyond’ FAIR, as it suggests that the principles do not cover certain aspects. So far, noone came up to me with aspects that are not covered -again at high level of abstraction- by F, A, I or R, especially R: For instance lageal aspects, quality of data etc. Are all related to acessibility under well defined conditions and ‘meaningful’ reusability. One example: totally fabricated data that are totally FAI: can be either R or not based on the use case. For example for testing model of software performance or to check VMs for their promised actions.

    So let’s indeed concentrate this group, as Edith keeps emphasizing, correctly imho’, on WHAT needs to be measured to -in the end- judge the R level of data and services and worry about the how/details of such measuments later and in other contexts.

    Prof. Barend Mons

    Leiden University Medical Center

    President of CODATA

    GO FAIR international Support and coordination office

    Mail: barend.mons@go-fair.org

    +31624879779

    [Image removed by sender.]

    ORCID: 0000-0003-3934-0072

    sent from my IPad

    On 19 Apr 2019, at 10:07, Makx Dekkers > wrote:
    Many thanks, Keith.

    Indeed, the details of access rights and conditions might be quite complex.

    For this moment, though, I’d like to propose that the groups does not dig into the details of this issue.

    Maybe we can establish: first, that expression of access rights and conditions is important for FAIRness, and, second, where it could be evaluated – under an existing principle, or alternatively, as Andrea Perego suggested, under the ‘Beyond FAIR’ category.

    The details of how exactly the access rights and conditions are expressed can then be discussed at a later stage. At that stage, it will indeed be very important to use what is already there and not reinvent the wheel.

    May I request that we limit the discussion on this issue to two questions:

    1. Is it important to include access rights and conditions in the evaluation of FAIRness?
    2. Under which area (F, A, I, R, beyond FAIR) or principle should it be evaluated?

    Kind regards, Makx

    From: Keith Jeffery >
    Sent: 19 April 2019 09:20
    To: Barend Mons >; Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate >; FAIR Data Maturity Model WG >
    Cc: andrea.perego >; margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se; makxdekkers >; 'Crosas@rda-groups.org; mcrosas@g.harvard.edu
    Subject: RE: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    All –
    I have been following the discussion with interest. Andrea is of course correct and references (updated) DCAT in this regard. I agree with Maggie’s suggested relationships of access to the relevant FAIR principles. I agree strongly with Barend on rich metadata that is actionable (implies formal syntax and declared semantics). I agree that licence conditions and access constraints (security, privacy, trust, cost…) are related but different. The tracking of correct re-use conditions (attribution, use without change…) is related to provenance although I haven’t seen any reliable solutions yet.

    From my perspective it is commonly difficult for any workflow/process to distinguish A, I and R in terms of access permissions. The problem is the multi-dimensionality. I suggest the basic access permission actually relates to a process (e.g. Webservice) acting on a dataset (generalised as any asset acting on or with any other asset – including lab equipment, sensors, software services, datasets, persons, organisations, publications…) but this is conditioned by who owns or manages each of the two assets involved and whom those organisations or persons delegate to execute the service on the dataset (or more generally the action of one asset on another). Thus if the basic permission being managed is then we have connected to each something like:

    (person in role user different from the manager and owner persons)

    Note that each should have a temporal duration (this allows for e.g. embargo periods or elapsing of copyright). There can be interesting problems when temporal intervals do not coincide – a well-known NP-hard problem from temporal database research.

    Furthermore, access conditions can be quite complex; depending on the asset the permission may be :
    [know the existence of | read | copy | update (amend, insert, delete) | delete | execute ……] and in a different dimension [cost (which may have complex sub-conditions)] in yet another dimension [attribution] and in yet another dimension [trust/security/privacy] and of course as well as the conventional assets (datasets, services etc) the metadata itself may be subject to access conditions.

    Hopefully most research can be open and free thus avoiding the need for such access controls, but I fear that we shall have to provide them – not least because of increasing regulation (e.g. GDPR in Europe).

    I am concerned that we do not re-invent the wheel. Years of research have provided production-strength access control systems for large-scale IT systems used all the time by commerce, industry, government. I believe the problem is to relate the capabilities of these access control systems to the FAIR principles using a form of logic notation representable in the metadata as formal syntax and declared semantics.

    Best
    Keith
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Keith G Jeffery Consultants
    Prof Keith G Jeffery
    E: keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk
    T: +44 7768 446088
    S: keithgjeffery
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the
    intended recipient only. If you are not one of the intended
    recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but
    return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From: barendmons=gmail.com@rda-groups.org > On Behalf Of Barend Mons
    Sent: 18 April 2019 18:09
    To: Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate >; FAIR Data Maturity Model WG >
    Cc: andrea.perego >; margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se; makxdekkers >; 'Crosas@rda-groups.org; mcrosas@g.harvard.edu
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Yes and as we support the statement: ‘as open as possible, as closed as necessary’, we could even put the most liberal license as ‘default’ UPRI in metadata templates, so that researchers would have to ‘increase restriction deliberately if they have good reasons for that, which the funder will accept (for instnace patient privacy).
    In that way ‘unlicensed’ and thereforwe in some circles re-useless data can be avoided?
    B

    Prof. Barend Mons

    Leiden University Medical Center

    President of CODATA

    GO FAIR international Support and coordination office

    Mail: barend.mons@go-fair.org

    +31624879779

    ORCID: 0000-0003-3934-0072

    sent from my IPad

    On 18 Apr 2019, at 19:01, Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate > wrote:
    Thanks, Barend, for bringing up the point of open-minded researchers. For them and many, if not all, US federal agencies, not having any restriction clauses on access and/or use in metadata record or website means there is no restriction, period. It has been on my mind but have not got a good time to mention so until now.

    However, requiring explicitly description of the license, access and use rights may be a good practice.

    Regards,

    --- Peng

    On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 12:31 PM Barend Mons > wrote:
    Good discussion (just landed from Nairobi, so was a bit out of the loop.

    Also there, access rights e.d. were a hot discussion topic.

    I concur with Maggie that the ‘A’ and part of R is implicitly requiring access rights and licensing (the machine need to know what it is technically able to do with the data as well as what it is ‘allowed’ to do). To me this is all covered by the generic principle of rich, machine actionable metadata for all FAIR digital objects. Measuring can imho include any further specification of that, and again, the requirements may vary per disciploine as we stated at the meeting.
    I know for instance from an earlier IMI project (Open PHACTS) that the pharma is unlikely to even ‘touch’ a data set without a clear license, even if the researcher is so ‘open minded’ that putting a license did not even occur to her/him...
    B

    Prof. Barend Mons

    Leiden University Medical Center

    President of CODATA

    GO FAIR international Support and coordination office

    Mail: barend.mons@go-fair.org

    +31624879779

    [cid:]

    ORCID: 0000-0003-3934-0072

    sent from my IPad

    On 18 Apr 2019, at 18:17, andrea.perego > wrote:
    Hi, Maggie.

    I agree access rights are implicitly related to the principles you mention. My concern is whether a conformance test could require compliance with requirements not explicitly stated in the FAIR principles.

    This is why I was considering the possibility of including a requirement on access rights the "Beyond FAIR" work – which, ideally, can be a useful feedback for a possible revision/extension to the FAIR principles, based on usage and implementation evidence.

    Andrea

    ----
    Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
    Scientific / Technical Project Officer
    European Commission DG JRC
    Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
    Unit B6 - Digital Economy
    Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
    21027 Ispra VA, Italy

    https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/

    ----
    The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
    not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
    position of the European Commission.

    From: Margareta Hellström [mailto:margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se]
    Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 6:00 PM
    To: makxdekkers; 'Crosas@rda-groups.org; Mercè'; PEREGO Andrea (JRC-ISPRA); FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Hi Makx,

    my immediate reaction to this was that the access rights are connected to principle A1.2 ("the protocol allows for an authentication and authorization procedure, where necessary", but that doesn't specifically address the issue of how to inform the user (human or machine) of what those restrictions are. I guess that would be covered by the "plurality of accurate and relevant attributes" of R.1 and possibly also the "domain-relevant community standards" of R1.3.

    Happy Easter!

    /Maggie

    ------------------
    Associate Professor Margareta Hellström
    ICOS Carbon Portal staff member
    margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se
    Lund University
    Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science
    Sölvegatan 12, SE-22362 Lund, Sweden
    Phone: +46-(0)46-2229683
    ________________________________

    ________________________________
    From: mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org > on behalf of makxdekkers >
    Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 17:46
    To: 'Crosas@rda-groups.org; Mercè'; 'andrea.perego'; FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Many thanks, Andrea and Mercè, for bringing this up.

    Should the expression of access rights, as opposed to the re-use licence, be covered under principle R1.1 or somewhere else?

    Kind regards, Makx

    From: Crosas, Mercè >
    Sent: 18 April 2019 15:58
    To: andrea.perego >
    Cc: makxdekkers >; fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    That's correct - I agree that it would be best to separate license metadata from access metadata. The Data Documentation Initiative (DDI) schema has this distinction, for example.

    Best,

    Merce

    On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 4:06 AM andrea.perego > wrote:

    Dear Makx, dear colleagues,

    Thanks for sharing the report.

    I would like to raise an issue on point (4) in slide 20:

    "(4) Does the licence permit access?"

    Strictly speaking, licences are just about *use* conditions, and not about who can access what. Of course, ad hoc licences happen to include access provisions as well, but this does not apply to standard ones (as the Creative Commons suite).

    For this reason, and to facilitate conformance testing, it would be desirable that access conditions/restrictions were assessed separately from the licence, and to require that this information be specified in a separate metadata field.

    Best,

    Andrea

    ----
    Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
    Scientific / Technical Project Officer
    European Commission DG JRC
    Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
    Unit B6 - Digital Economy
    Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
    21027 Ispra VA, Italy

    https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/

    ----
    The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
    not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
    position of the European Commission.

    ________________________________________
    From: mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org > on behalf of makxdekkers >
    Sent: 17 April 2019 10:24:54
    To: fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    Subject: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Dear members of the RDA FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group,

    We would like to thank you for attending the meeting of the Working Group in Philadelphia on 3 April 2019 and hope you found the meeting useful.
    The report of the meeting is now available for download from the WG page on the RDA site at https://www.rd-alliance.org/workshop-2.

    We are currently finalising a Google spreadsheet for your contributions to the development of the indicators for the FAIR principles following the approach presented at the meeting in Philadelphia, and we plan to share the spreadsheet with the Working Group in the coming days.

    Many thanks!

    Makx Dekkers
    Editorial team
    --
    Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859

    --

    Mercè Crosas, Ph.D.

    Harvard University's Research Data Officer, Office of Vice Provost for Research

    Chief Data Science and Technology Officer, Institute for Quantitative Social Science

    mcrosas@g.harvard.edu | @mercecrosas | scholar.harvard.edu/mercecrosas

    --
    Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859
    --
    Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859

    --

    Ge Peng, PhD
    Research Scholar
    Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites - NC (CICS-NC)/NCSU at

    NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

    Center for Weather and Climate (CWC)

    151 Patton Ave, Asheville, NC 28801
    +1 828 257 3009; ge.peng@noaa.gov

    ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1986-9115

    Following CICS-NC on Facebook

  • Keith Jeffery's picture

    Author: Keith Jeffery

    Date: 22 Apr, 2019

    Makx –

    I have now had time to re-read all the material from the last RDA Plenary session (unfortunately I had a clash with another meeting). I would like to make a few comments.

    1. Beyond FAIR. I believe the items here are all covered by the existing FAIR principles, however not necessarily one for one. (This raises another question about the intersections of concepts in the FAIR principles – see below). To take the Beyond FAIR list from the GitHub:
    * Data Repository: a dataset may reside in a repository but not necessarily. Consider streamed data from sensors or satellite. Some colleagues get excited about repository quality or ‘trusted repositories’; from m experience the only real criteria for FAIR use by a user concern the relevance and quality of the dataset for their purpose at that time (assuming no limitations on (re-)use) – and this can only be judged from the rich metadata describing the dataset.
    * Curation and maintenance: the DCC lifecycle (and associated DMP) is useful here. Curation involves difficult decisions based on the value of the dataset and the cost of curation. The real problem is the lack of economic models that deal with (potentially) infinite time. However, the FAIR requirement for an eternally persistent ID for the dataset implies curation (if a decision is taken to assign (manually or automatically) a persistent identifier an implicit decision is taken to preserve the dataset. Curation implies a DMP, repository (possibly more than one), appropriate metadata, management responsibility, ownership responsibility, licensing, usage rules/constraints… all largely covered by what I understand by rich metadata.
    * Open Data: this is a very difficult term to define. Many conflate open and free and confuse with open access. Open data strictly concerns government data made available to citizens although the term is used more widely and is generally used meaning open data, open access, free access (possibly subject to licence conditions such as acknowledgement). I believe the open data concept is covered by the FAIR principles.
    * Data Quality: as I suggest under (a) in my experience quality is determined by the end-user in the sense of appropriate quality for the current purpose. I suggest there is no absolute measure but only relative (to the purpose). Data quality is then determined by the intersection of the user requirement and the dataset quality as described by rich metadata. This is likely to include properties/attributes such as precision and accuracy although in some sciences the reputation of the experimental team is sufficient. The equipment used for data collection and the data collection/correction/summarisation method may also be relevant.
    * Others: this is of course not yet defined. I would hope that all could be accommodated by the existing FAIR principles because they are relatively abstract; as always the ‘devil is in the detail’ and this will be specified by interpretation towards concreteness of the FAIR principles.

    I am hopeful that as other potential ‘beyond FAIR’ concepts arise they will increase our understanding of the several more concrete interpretations of each of the FAIR principles.

    1. Intersections in FAIR principles:
    * I believe there is some confusion in the FAIR principles concerning data and metadata. Many of the principles start with (meta)data. While I subscribe to the principle that metadata is also data (library catalog cards are metadata to a researcher finding a particular paper but data to a librarian counting papers on the human genome) I fear the FAIR principles are not clear on what should be a property of the thing referred to(data) and what should be a property of the referring thing (metadata). The obvious example is persistent identifier (I prefer UUPID): while both a dataset and the metadata describing it should have a UUPID, A1 is relevant for data (where the UUPID is an attribute in the metadata as specified in F4) but not really for metadata where the retrieval is usually by user values for metadata attributes.
    * I believe F2 and R1 are – for metadata - really the same principle and although different sets of attributes may be used for F and R there is likely to be a large intersection. For example R1.2 provenance metadata may well be highly relevant for a user finding appropriate (relevance, quality) datasets.
    * It seems to me that I2 and I3 concern aspects of I1 and could equally be I1.1 (a formal language should have its semantics defined) and I1.2 (a formal language should support qualified references, this is, for example, the advantage of RDF over XML).

    I raise these concerns now because - as we define progressively the metrics for assessing FAIRness - we have to be clear on exactly what is being measured.

    Thanks for your patience!
    Best
    Keith
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Keith G Jeffery Consultants
    Prof Keith G Jeffery
    E: keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk
    T: +44 7768 446088
    S: keithgjeffery
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the
    intended recipient only. If you are not one of the intended
    recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but
    return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From: mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org On Behalf Of makxdekkers
    Sent: 17 April 2019 09:25
    To: fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    Subject: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Dear members of the RDA FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group,

    We would like to thank you for attending the meeting of the Working Group in Philadelphia on 3 April 2019 and hope you found the meeting useful.
    The report of the meeting is now available for download from the WG page on the RDA site at https://www.rd-alliance.org/workshop-2.

    We are currently finalising a Google spreadsheet for your contributions to the development of the indicators for the FAIR principles following the approach presented at the meeting in Philadelphia, and we plan to share the spreadsheet with the Working Group in the coming days.

    Many thanks!

    Makx Dekkers
    Editorial team

  • Ge Peng's picture

    Author: Ge Peng

    Date: 22 Apr, 2019

    Agree with Keith on we need to be clear on exactly what is being measured
    before defining the metrics to assess FAIRness.

    My two cents on quality and accessibility:

    The quality information about metadata and data may be covered under “rich
    metadata”. Unfortunately, I believe that “rich metadata” falls short in
    explicitly addressing data and information quality. Without good data and
    information quality, the data may not be useful. It does not make any sense
    to address its re-use. The question is: should this WG explicitly address
    quality of data and metadata in the metrics?

    It has been mentioned that FAIR does not mean OPEN. It is extremely hard
    for me to see how one can satisfy “FAIR”, especially, accessible,
    interoperable and reusable of data, without having its data available and
    obtainable. Am I missing something? If so, should the FAIR principles be
    amended?

    Regards,

    --- Peng

    On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 6:20 AM keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk
    wrote:

    > Makx –
    >
    >
    >
    > I have now had time to re-read all the material from the last RDA Plenary
    > session (unfortunately I had a clash with another meeting). I would like
    > to make a few comments.
    >
    >
    >
    > 1. Beyond FAIR. I believe the items here are all covered by the
    > existing FAIR principles, however not necessarily one for one. (This raises
    > another question about the intersections of concepts in the FAIR principles
    > – see below). To take the Beyond FAIR list from the GitHub:
    > 1. Data Repository: a dataset may reside in a repository but not
    > necessarily. Consider streamed data from sensors or satellite. Some
    > colleagues get excited about repository quality or ‘trusted repositories’;
    > from m experience the only real criteria for FAIR use by a user concern the
    > relevance and quality of the dataset for their purpose at that time
    > (assuming no limitations on (re-)use) – and this can only be judged from
    > the rich metadata describing the dataset.
    > 2. Curation and maintenance: the DCC lifecycle (and associated DMP)
    > is useful here. Curation involves difficult decisions based on the value of
    > the dataset and the cost of curation. The real problem is the lack of
    > economic models that deal with (potentially) infinite time. However, the
    > FAIR requirement for an *eternally *persistent ID for the dataset
    > implies curation (if a decision is taken to assign (manually or
    > automatically) a persistent identifier an implicit decision is taken to
    > preserve the dataset. Curation implies a DMP, repository (possibly more
    > than one), appropriate metadata, management responsibility, ownership
    > responsibility, licensing, usage rules/constraints… all largely covered by
    > what I understand by rich metadata.
    > 3. Open Data: this is a very difficult term to define. Many
    > conflate open and free and confuse with open access. Open data strictly
    > concerns government data made available to citizens although the term is
    > used more widely and is generally used meaning open data, open access, free
    > access (possibly subject to licence conditions such as acknowledgement). I
    > believe the open data concept is covered by the FAIR principles.
    > 4. Data Quality: as I suggest under (a) in my experience quality is
    > determined by the end-user in the sense of appropriate quality for the
    > current purpose. I suggest there is no absolute measure but only relative
    > (to the purpose). Data quality is then determined by the intersection of
    > the user requirement and the dataset quality as described by rich
    > metadata. This is likely to include properties/attributes such as
    > precision and accuracy although in some sciences the reputation of the
    > experimental team is sufficient. The equipment used for data collection
    > and the data collection/correction/summarisation method may also be
    > relevant.
    > 5. Others: this is of course not yet defined. I would hope that
    > all could be accommodated by the existing FAIR principles because they are
    > relatively abstract; as always the ‘devil is in the detail’ and this will
    > be specified by interpretation towards concreteness of the FAIR principles.
    >
    >
    >
    > I am hopeful that as other potential ‘beyond FAIR’ concepts arise they
    > will increase our understanding of the several more concrete
    > interpretations of each of the FAIR principles.
    >
    >
    >
    > 1. Intersections in FAIR principles:
    > 1. I believe there is some confusion in the FAIR principles
    > concerning data and metadata. Many of the principles start with
    > (meta)data. While I subscribe to the principle that metadata is also data
    > (library catalog cards are metadata to a researcher finding a particular
    > paper but data to a librarian counting papers on the human genome) I fear
    > the FAIR principles are not clear on what should be a property of the thing
    > referred to(data) and what should be a property of the referring thing
    > (metadata). The obvious example is persistent identifier (I prefer UUPID):
    > while both a dataset and the metadata describing it should have a UUPID, A1
    > is relevant for data (where the UUPID is an attribute in the metadata as
    > specified in F4) but not really for metadata where the retrieval is usually
    > by user values for metadata attributes.
    > 2. I believe F2 and R1 are – for metadata - really the same
    > principle and although different sets of attributes may be used for F and R
    > there is likely to be a large intersection. For example R1.2 provenance
    > metadata may well be highly relevant for a user finding appropriate
    > (relevance, quality) datasets.
    > 3. It seems to me that I2 and I3 concern aspects of I1 and could
    > equally be I1.1 (a formal language should have its semantics defined) and
    > I1.2 (a formal language should support qualified references, this is, for
    > example, the advantage of RDF over XML).
    >
    >
    >
    > I raise these concerns now because - as we define progressively the
    > metrics for assessing FAIRness - we have to be clear on exactly what is
    > being measured.
    >
    >
    >
    > Thanks for your patience!
    >
    > Best
    >
    > Keith
    >
    >
    > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > Keith G Jeffery Consultants
    >
    > Prof Keith G Jeffery
    >
    > E: keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk
    >
    > T: +44 7768 446088
    >
    > S: keithgjeffery
    >
    >
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the
    >
    > intended recipient only. If you are not one of the intended
    >
    > recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but
    >
    > return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it.
    >
    >
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > *From:* mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org> *On Behalf Of *makxdekkers
    > *Sent:* 17 April 2019 09:25
    > *To:* fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    > *Subject:* [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
    >
    >
    >
    > Dear members of the RDA FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group,
    >
    >
    >
    > We would like to thank you for attending the meeting of the Working Group
    > in Philadelphia on 3 April 2019 and hope you found the meeting useful.
    >
    > The report of the meeting is now available for download from the WG page
    > on the RDA site at https://www.rd-alliance.org/workshop-2.
    >
    >
    >
    > We are currently finalising a Google spreadsheet for your contributions to
    > the development of the indicators for the FAIR principles following the
    > approach presented at the meeting in Philadelphia, and we plan to share the
    > spreadsheet with the Working Group in the coming days.
    >
    >
    >
    > Many thanks!
    >
    >
    >
    > Makx Dekkers
    >
    > Editorial team
    > --
    > Full post:
    > https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    > Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    > Stop emails for this post:
    > https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859
    >

    --

    *Ge Peng, PhD*
    *Research Scholar*
    Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites - NC (CICS-NC)/NCSU at

    NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

    Center for Weather and Climate (CWC)

    151 Patton Ave, Asheville, NC 28801
    +1 828 257 3009; ge.peng@noaa.gov

    ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1986-9115

    Following CICS-NC on Facebook

  • Keith Jeffery's picture

    Author: Keith Jeffery

    Date: 22 Apr, 2019

    Peng –
    Many thanks for responding to my email.

    I agree quality (and relevance) is important and I believe the group has to answer the question on what FAIRness metrics apply. The paradox I was raising is that in my experience there is no absolute quality (or relevance) but only relative to the requirements of the (re-)using user – hence a generic FAIRness metric may be unreachable.

    I agree that FAIR implies somehow openness; however a DO can (with its metadata) be FAIR even – for example - if it is embargoed (for prior publication) but available after some defined (and documented) time. The only FAIR principle to mention openness is A1.1 which is the protocol to retrieve by identifier yet A1.2 allows for authentication (of the user or agent) and authorisation (permission to access). I suspect the ‘spirit’ of FAIR was open and free but practical realities required these wordings of the principles.

    Best
    Keith

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Keith G Jeffery Consultants
    Prof Keith G Jeffery
    E: keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk
    T: +44 7768 446088
    S: keithgjeffery
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the
    intended recipient only. If you are not one of the intended
    recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but
    return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From: Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate
    Sent: 22 April 2019 13:30
    To: Keith Jeffery
    Cc: fair_maturity@rda-groups.org; Ge Peng
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Agree with Keith on we need to be clear on exactly what is being measured before defining the metrics to assess FAIRness.

    My two cents on quality and accessibility:

    The quality information about metadata and data may be covered under “rich metadata”. Unfortunately, I believe that “rich metadata” falls short in explicitly addressing data and information quality. Without good data and information quality, the data may not be useful. It does not make any sense to address its re-use. The question is: should this WG explicitly address quality of data and metadata in the metrics?

    It has been mentioned that FAIR does not mean OPEN. It is extremely hard for me to see how one can satisfy “FAIR”, especially, accessible, interoperable and reusable of data, without having its data available and obtainable. Am I missing something? If so, should the FAIR principles be amended?

    Regards,

    --- Peng

    On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 6:20 AM keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk > wrote:
    Makx –

    I have now had time to re-read all the material from the last RDA Plenary session (unfortunately I had a clash with another meeting). I would like to make a few comments.

    1. Beyond FAIR. I believe the items here are all covered by the existing FAIR principles, however not necessarily one for one. (This raises another question about the intersections of concepts in the FAIR principles – see below). To take the Beyond FAIR list from the GitHub:

    * Data Repository: a dataset may reside in a repository but not necessarily. Consider streamed data from sensors or satellite. Some colleagues get excited about repository quality or ‘trusted repositories’; from m experience the only real criteria for FAIR use by a user concern the relevance and quality of the dataset for their purpose at that time (assuming no limitations on (re-)use) – and this can only be judged from the rich metadata describing the dataset.
    * Curation and maintenance: the DCC lifecycle (and associated DMP) is useful here. Curation involves difficult decisions based on the value of the dataset and the cost of curation. The real problem is the lack of economic models that deal with (potentially) infinite time. However, the FAIR requirement for an eternally persistent ID for the dataset implies curation (if a decision is taken to assign (manually or automatically) a persistent identifier an implicit decision is taken to preserve the dataset. Curation implies a DMP, repository (possibly more than one), appropriate metadata, management responsibility, ownership responsibility, licensing, usage rules/constraints… all largely covered by what I understand by rich metadata.
    * Open Data: this is a very difficult term to define. Many conflate open and free and confuse with open access. Open data strictly concerns government data made available to citizens although the term is used more widely and is generally used meaning open data, open access, free access (possibly subject to licence conditions such as acknowledgement). I believe the open data concept is covered by the FAIR principles.
    * Data Quality: as I suggest under (a) in my experience quality is determined by the end-user in the sense of appropriate quality for the current purpose. I suggest there is no absolute measure but only relative (to the purpose). Data quality is then determined by the intersection of the user requirement and the dataset quality as described by rich metadata. This is likely to include properties/attributes such as precision and accuracy although in some sciences the reputation of the experimental team is sufficient. The equipment used for data collection and the data collection/correction/summarisation method may also be relevant.
    * Others: this is of course not yet defined. I would hope that all could be accommodated by the existing FAIR principles because they are relatively abstract; as always the ‘devil is in the detail’ and this will be specified by interpretation towards concreteness of the FAIR principles.

    I am hopeful that as other potential ‘beyond FAIR’ concepts arise they will increase our understanding of the several more concrete interpretations of each of the FAIR principles.

    1. Intersections in FAIR principles:

    * I believe there is some confusion in the FAIR principles concerning data and metadata. Many of the principles start with (meta)data. While I subscribe to the principle that metadata is also data (library catalog cards are metadata to a researcher finding a particular paper but data to a librarian counting papers on the human genome) I fear the FAIR principles are not clear on what should be a property of the thing referred to(data) and what should be a property of the referring thing (metadata). The obvious example is persistent identifier (I prefer UUPID): while both a dataset and the metadata describing it should have a UUPID, A1 is relevant for data (where the UUPID is an attribute in the metadata as specified in F4) but not really for metadata where the retrieval is usually by user values for metadata attributes.
    * I believe F2 and R1 are – for metadata - really the same principle and although different sets of attributes may be used for F and R there is likely to be a large intersection. For example R1.2 provenance metadata may well be highly relevant for a user finding appropriate (relevance, quality) datasets.
    * It seems to me that I2 and I3 concern aspects of I1 and could equally be I1.1 (a formal language should have its semantics defined) and I1.2 (a formal language should support qualified references, this is, for example, the advantage of RDF over XML).

    I raise these concerns now because - as we define progressively the metrics for assessing FAIRness - we have to be clear on exactly what is being measured.

    Thanks for your patience!
    Best
    Keith
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Keith G Jeffery Consultants
    Prof Keith G Jeffery
    E: keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk
    T: +44 7768 446088
    S: keithgjeffery
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the
    intended recipient only. If you are not one of the intended
    recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but
    return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From: mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org > On Behalf Of makxdekkers
    Sent: 17 April 2019 09:25
    To: fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    Subject: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Dear members of the RDA FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group,

    We would like to thank you for attending the meeting of the Working Group in Philadelphia on 3 April 2019 and hope you found the meeting useful.
    The report of the meeting is now available for download from the WG page on the RDA site at https://www.rd-alliance.org/workshop-2.

    We are currently finalising a Google spreadsheet for your contributions to the development of the indicators for the FAIR principles following the approach presented at the meeting in Philadelphia, and we plan to share the spreadsheet with the Working Group in the coming days.

    Many thanks!

    Makx Dekkers
    Editorial team
    --
    Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859

    --

    Ge Peng, PhD
    Research Scholar
    Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites - NC (CICS-NC)/NCSU at

    NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

    Center for Weather and Climate (CWC)

    151 Patton Ave, Asheville, NC 28801
    +1 828 257 3009; ge.peng@noaa.gov

    ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1986-9115

    Following CICS-NC on Facebook

  • Ge Peng's picture

    Author: Ge Peng

    Date: 22 Apr, 2019

    Thank you, Keith, very much for your detailed and helpful reply.

    Regards,

    --- Peng

    On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 9:09 AM keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk
    wrote:

    > Peng –
    >
    > Many thanks for responding to my email.
    >
    >
    >
    > I agree quality (and relevance) is important and I believe the group has
    > to answer the question on what FAIRness metrics apply. The paradox I was
    > raising is that in my experience there is no absolute quality (or
    > relevance) but only relative to the requirements of the (re-)using user –
    > hence a generic FAIRness metric may be unreachable.
    >
    >
    >
    > I agree that FAIR implies somehow openness; however a DO can (with its
    > metadata) be FAIR even – for example - if it is embargoed (for prior
    > publication) but available after some defined (and documented) time. The
    > only FAIR principle to mention openness is A1.1 which is the protocol to
    > retrieve by identifier yet A1.2 allows for authentication (of the user or
    > agent) and authorisation (permission to access). I suspect the ‘spirit’ of
    > FAIR was open and free but practical realities required these wordings of
    > the principles.
    >
    >
    >
    > Best
    >
    > Keith
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > Keith G Jeffery Consultants
    >
    > Prof Keith G Jeffery
    >
    > E: keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk
    >
    > T: +44 7768 446088
    >
    > S: keithgjeffery
    >
    >
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the
    >
    > intended recipient only. If you are not one of the intended
    >
    > recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but
    >
    > return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it.
    >
    >
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > *From:* Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate
    > *Sent:* 22 April 2019 13:30
    > *To:* Keith Jeffery
    > *Cc:* fair_maturity@rda-groups.org; Ge Peng
    > *Subject:* Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
    >
    >
    >
    > Agree with Keith on we need to be clear on exactly what is being measured
    > before defining the metrics to assess FAIRness.
    >
    >
    >
    > My two cents on quality and accessibility:
    >
    >
    >
    > The quality information about metadata and data may be covered under “rich
    > metadata”. Unfortunately, I believe that “rich metadata” falls short in
    > explicitly addressing data and information quality. Without good data and
    > information quality, the data may not be useful. It does not make any sense
    > to address its re-use. The question is: should this WG explicitly address
    > quality of data and metadata in the metrics?
    >
    >
    >
    > It has been mentioned that FAIR does not mean OPEN. It is extremely hard
    > for me to see how one can satisfy “FAIR”, especially, accessible,
    > interoperable and reusable of data, without having its data available and
    > obtainable. Am I missing something? If so, should the FAIR principles be
    > amended?
    >
    >
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    >
    >
    > --- Peng
    >
    >
    >
    > On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 6:20 AM
    > keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk <
    > keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk> wrote:
    >
    > Makx –
    >
    >
    >
    > I have now had time to re-read all the material from the last RDA Plenary
    > session (unfortunately I had a clash with another meeting). I would like
    > to make a few comments.
    >
    >
    >
    > 1. Beyond FAIR. I believe the items here are all covered by the
    > existing FAIR principles, however not necessarily one for one. (This raises
    > another question about the intersections of concepts in the FAIR principles
    > – see below). To take the Beyond FAIR list from the GitHub:
    >
    >
    > 1. Data Repository: a dataset may reside in a repository but not
    > necessarily. Consider streamed data from sensors or satellite. Some
    > colleagues get excited about repository quality or ‘trusted repositories’;
    > from m experience the only real criteria for FAIR use by a user concern the
    > relevance and quality of the dataset for their purpose at that time
    > (assuming no limitations on (re-)use) – and this can only be judged from
    > the rich metadata describing the dataset.
    > 2. Curation and maintenance: the DCC lifecycle (and associated DMP)
    > is useful here. Curation involves difficult decisions based on the value of
    > the dataset and the cost of curation. The real problem is the lack of
    > economic models that deal with (potentially) infinite time. However, the
    > FAIR requirement for an *eternally *persistent ID for the dataset
    > implies curation (if a decision is taken to assign (manually or
    > automatically) a persistent identifier an implicit decision is taken to
    > preserve the dataset. Curation implies a DMP, repository (possibly more
    > than one), appropriate metadata, management responsibility, ownership
    > responsibility, licensing, usage rules/constraints… all largely covered by
    > what I understand by rich metadata.
    > 3. Open Data: this is a very difficult term to define. Many
    > conflate open and free and confuse with open access. Open data strictly
    > concerns government data made available to citizens although the term is
    > used more widely and is generally used meaning open data, open access, free
    > access (possibly subject to licence conditions such as acknowledgement). I
    > believe the open data concept is covered by the FAIR principles.
    > 4. Data Quality: as I suggest under (a) in my experience quality is
    > determined by the end-user in the sense of appropriate quality for the
    > current purpose. I suggest there is no absolute measure but only relative
    > (to the purpose). Data quality is then determined by the intersection of
    > the user requirement and the dataset quality as described by rich
    > metadata. This is likely to include properties/attributes such as
    > precision and accuracy although in some sciences the reputation of the
    > experimental team is sufficient. The equipment used for data collection
    > and the data collection/correction/summarisation method may also be
    > relevant.
    > 5. Others: this is of course not yet defined. I would hope that
    > all could be accommodated by the existing FAIR principles because they are
    > relatively abstract; as always the ‘devil is in the detail’ and this will
    > be specified by interpretation towards concreteness of the FAIR principles.
    >
    >
    >
    > I am hopeful that as other potential ‘beyond FAIR’ concepts arise they
    > will increase our understanding of the several more concrete
    > interpretations of each of the FAIR principles.
    >
    >
    >
    > 1. Intersections in FAIR principles:
    >
    >
    > 1. I believe there is some confusion in the FAIR principles concerning
    > data and metadata. Many of the principles start with (meta)data. While I
    > subscribe to the principle that metadata is also data (library catalog
    > cards are metadata to a researcher finding a particular paper but data to a
    > librarian counting papers on the human genome) I fear the FAIR principles
    > are not clear on what should be a property of the thing referred to(data)
    > and what should be a property of the referring thing (metadata). The
    > obvious example is persistent identifier (I prefer UUPID): while both a
    > dataset and the metadata describing it should have a UUPID, A1 is relevant
    > for data (where the UUPID is an attribute in the metadata as specified in
    > F4) but not really for metadata where the retrieval is usually by user
    > values for metadata attributes.
    > 2. I believe F2 and R1 are – for metadata - really the same
    > principle and although different sets of attributes may be used for F and R
    > there is likely to be a large intersection. For example R1.2 provenance
    > metadata may well be highly relevant for a user finding appropriate
    > (relevance, quality) datasets.
    > 3. It seems to me that I2 and I3 concern aspects of I1 and could
    > equally be I1.1 (a formal language should have its semantics defined) and
    > I1.2 (a formal language should support qualified references, this is, for
    > example, the advantage of RDF over XML).
    >
    >
    >
    > I raise these concerns now because - as we define progressively the
    > metrics for assessing FAIRness - we have to be clear on exactly what is
    > being measured.
    >
    >
    >
    > Thanks for your patience!
    >
    > Best
    >
    > Keith
    >
    >
    > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > Keith G Jeffery Consultants
    >
    > Prof Keith G Jeffery
    >
    > E: keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk
    >
    > T: +44 7768 446088
    >
    > S: keithgjeffery
    >
    >
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the
    >
    > intended recipient only. If you are not one of the intended
    >
    > recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but
    >
    > return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it.
    >
    >
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > *From:* mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org> *On Behalf Of *makxdekkers
    > *Sent:* 17 April 2019 09:25
    > *To:* fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    > *Subject:* [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
    >
    >
    >
    > Dear members of the RDA FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group,
    >
    >
    >
    > We would like to thank you for attending the meeting of the Working Group
    > in Philadelphia on 3 April 2019 and hope you found the meeting useful.
    >
    > The report of the meeting is now available for download from the WG page
    > on the RDA site at https://www.rd-alliance.org/workshop-2.
    >
    >
    >
    > We are currently finalising a Google spreadsheet for your contributions to
    > the development of the indicators for the FAIR principles following the
    > approach presented at the meeting in Philadelphia, and we plan to share the
    > spreadsheet with the Working Group in the coming days.
    >
    >
    >
    > Many thanks!
    >
    >
    >
    > Makx Dekkers
    >
    > Editorial team
    >
    > --
    > Full post:
    > https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    > Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    > Stop emails for this post:
    > https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > *Ge Peng, PhD*
    > *Research Scholar*
    > Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites - NC (CICS-NC)/NCSU at
    >
    > NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)
    >
    > Center for Weather and Climate (CWC)
    >
    > 151 Patton Ave, Asheville, NC 28801
    > +1 828 257 3009; ge.peng@noaa.gov
    >
    > ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1986-9115
    >
    > Following CICS-NC on *Facebook*
    >
    >
    > --
    > Full post:
    > https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    > Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    > Stop emails for this post:
    > https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859
    >

    --

    *Ge Peng, PhD*
    *Research Scholar*
    Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites - NC (CICS-NC)/NCSU at

    NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

    Center for Weather and Climate (CWC)

    151 Patton Ave, Asheville, NC 28801
    +1 828 257 3009; ge.peng@noaa.gov

    ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1986-9115

    Following CICS-NC on Facebook

  • Maggie Hellström's picture

    Author: Maggie Hellström

    Date: 22 Apr, 2019

    Hi Keith, Peng, et al,

    I found your comments more thought-provoking than provocative - and in any case, it is only by sharing ideas and then analysing and discussing disagreements that true progress can be made... ;-)

    A few quick comments:

    1) On PIDs as metadata attributes: Well, you are right in that PIDs are assigned to a DO, and therefore in some sense the PID (string) becomes part of the metadata about that object. I also agree that F1 relates to actions by the data curator (which could be a repository and/or the data producer), which is then responsible for uploading correct & relevant PID kernel information.

    But on the other hand, that particular, rather limited part of the metadata (at least the URI pointing to the location of the DO) is stored in a location - at the PID registry - that may or may not be (or remain) under the direct control of the curator of the data and the other metadata. In fact, "anyone" - not just the data curator - can in principle assign a persistent identifier to any DO, after which "they" are in control of the PID-related metadata. This raises interesting questions about who has the rights and/or possibility to update the PID registry kernel information, and how to ensure these capabilities are sustainable.

    2) Metadata as data: Well, one man's metadata is another man's data - so the context has to decide whether a piece of information is ancillary or primary. If we are following F1 strictly, then also - as prescribed by F3 - the block of information (key-value pairs, triple assertions or the like) that are considered to collectively form the rich metadata associated with a DO should be assigned a PID of its own - probably a "collection PID" which links to the PIDs of the individual source(s) and/or search queries that need to be executed to retrieve the said metadata information on the DO.

    This seems to indicate that we (i.e. the data producers and the repositories) need to become much more liberal with assigning PIDs than is currently the case - which means that there is an urgent need for domain- and/or community-specific recommendations on e.g. what types of (meta)data objects should be PID:ed and at what granularity. Without such at least domain-related standards (or best practices) for metadata, it is very difficult to define suitable (and fair) test criteria and scoring rules for e.g. F1 and F3.

    I also note that at least from an end user perspective, the R principles are reliant on the ability to efficiently link together a DO with all its different types of metadata. The old traditional concept of a single metadata catalogue, holding all relevant metadata (in whatever form) and hosted by the repository/archive instritution that also holds the data, is becoming obsolete very fast - which raises concerns on the accuracy of the "rich metadata", and stresses the need for some kind of objective assessment of not only the degree of "completeness" of metadata (e.g. looking at how many of the fields of an ISO standard are filled in) but also at what's written in there. Should there be a R-related metric for this as well?

    3) Examples of non-traditional metadata sources include stores for provenance information in separate central registries (to make it faster to search), the RDA recommendation to extend the metadata stored in the PID registry to support "pre-filtering" of DOs depending on types already at the PID resolution step, the trend to use "external" catalogues such as DataCite to store more and more non-administrative metadata, and finally initiatives to set up independent "annotation stores" for storing e.g. end user comments on data usability. All these represent a variety of "metadata sources", with various degrees of trustability and sustainability associated with them

    As long as care is taken to maintain an authoritative "master copy" of all the metadata that is originating from the original data producers, then this plurality is a good thing that can give data-intensive science a big boost. But at the same time, can see many issues, especially with smaller-scale research projects and groups - these often lack adequate data management support or resoources, and therefore resort to storing the only existing copies of both their data and metadata using the cheapest possible means available to them. That could give them a high FAIRness compliance score for their DMP evaluation, but it won't be sustainable in the long run.

    OK, sorry for this long outpouring of ideas - I'll go back to lurking mode now!

    Cheers,

    Maggie

    ------------------
    Associate Professor Margareta Hellström
    ICOS Carbon Portal staff member

    margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se
    Lund University
    Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science
    Sölvegatan 12, SE-22362 Lund, Sweden
    Phone: +46-(0)46-2229683

    ________________________________

    ________________________________
    From: keith.jeffery=keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk@rda-groups.org on behalf of keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk
    Sent: Monday, April 22, 2019 15:08
    To: fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Peng –

    Many thanks for responding to my email.

    I agree quality (and relevance) is important and I believe the group has to answer the question on what FAIRness metrics apply. The paradox I was raising is that in my experience there is no absolute quality (or relevance) but only relative to the requirements of the (re-)using user – hence a generic FAIRness metric may be unreachable.

    I agree that FAIR implies somehow openness; however a DO can (with its metadata) be FAIR even – for example - if it is embargoed (for prior publication) but available after some defined (and documented) time. The only FAIR principle to mention openness is A1.1 which is the protocol to retrieve by identifier yet A1.2 allows for authentication (of the user or agent) and authorisation (permission to access). I suspect the ‘spirit’ of FAIR was open and free but practical realities required these wordings of the principles.

    Best

    Keith

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Keith G Jeffery Consultants

    Prof Keith G Jeffery

    E: keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk

    T: +44 7768 446088

    S: keithgjeffery

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the

    intended recipient only. If you are not one of the intended

    recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but

    return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From: Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate
    Sent: 22 April 2019 13:30
    To: Keith Jeffery
    Cc: fair_maturity@rda-groups.org; Ge Peng
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Agree with Keith on we need to be clear on exactly what is being measured before defining the metrics to assess FAIRness.

    My two cents on quality and accessibility:

    The quality information about metadata and data may be covered under “rich metadata”. Unfortunately, I believe that “rich metadata” falls short in explicitly addressing data and information quality. Without good data and information quality, the data may not be useful. It does not make any sense to address its re-use. The question is: should this WG explicitly address quality of data and metadata in the metrics?

    It has been mentioned that FAIR does not mean OPEN. It is extremely hard for me to see how one can satisfy “FAIR”, especially, accessible, interoperable and reusable of data, without having its data available and obtainable. Am I missing something? If so, should the FAIR principles be amended?

    Regards,

    --- Peng

    On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 6:20 AM keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk > wrote:

    Makx –

    I have now had time to re-read all the material from the last RDA Plenary session (unfortunately I had a clash with another meeting). I would like to make a few comments.

    1. Beyond FAIR. I believe the items here are all covered by the existing FAIR principles, however not necessarily one for one. (This raises another question about the intersections of concepts in the FAIR principles – see below). To take the Beyond FAIR list from the GitHub:

    * Data Repository: a dataset may reside in a repository but not necessarily. Consider streamed data from sensors or satellite. Some colleagues get excited about repository quality or ‘trusted repositories’; from m experience the only real criteria for FAIR use by a user concern the relevance and quality of the dataset for their purpose at that time (assuming no limitations on (re-)use) – and this can only be judged from the rich metadata describing the dataset.
    * Curation and maintenance: the DCC lifecycle (and associated DMP) is useful here. Curation involves difficult decisions based on the value of the dataset and the cost of curation. The real problem is the lack of economic models that deal with (potentially) infinite time. However, the FAIR requirement for an eternally persistent ID for the dataset implies curation (if a decision is taken to assign (manually or automatically) a persistent identifier an implicit decision is taken to preserve the dataset. Curation implies a DMP, repository (possibly more than one), appropriate metadata, management responsibility, ownership responsibility, licensing, usage rules/constraints… all largely covered by what I understand by rich metadata.
    * Open Data: this is a very difficult term to define. Many conflate open and free and confuse with open access. Open data strictly concerns government data made available to citizens although the term is used more widely and is generally used meaning open data, open access, free access (possibly subject to licence conditions such as acknowledgement). I believe the open data concept is covered by the FAIR principles.
    * Data Quality: as I suggest under (a) in my experience quality is determined by the end-user in the sense of appropriate quality for the current purpose. I suggest there is no absolute measure but only relative (to the purpose). Data quality is then determined by the intersection of the user requirement and the dataset quality as described by rich metadata. This is likely to include properties/attributes such as precision and accuracy although in some sciences the reputation of the experimental team is sufficient. The equipment used for data collection and the data collection/correction/summarisation method may also be relevant.
    * Others: this is of course not yet defined. I would hope that all could be accommodated by the existing FAIR principles because they are relatively abstract; as always the ‘devil is in the detail’ and this will be specified by interpretation towards concreteness of the FAIR principles.

    I am hopeful that as other potential ‘beyond FAIR’ concepts arise they will increase our understanding of the several more concrete interpretations of each of the FAIR principles.

    1. Intersections in FAIR principles:

    * I believe there is some confusion in the FAIR principles concerning data and metadata. Many of the principles start with (meta)data. While I subscribe to the principle that metadata is also data (library catalog cards are metadata to a researcher finding a particular paper but data to a librarian counting papers on the human genome) I fear the FAIR principles are not clear on what should be a property of the thing referred to(data) and what should be a property of the referring thing (metadata). The obvious example is persistent identifier (I prefer UUPID): while both a dataset and the metadata describing it should have a UUPID, A1 is relevant for data (where the UUPID is an attribute in the metadata as specified in F4) but not really for metadata where the retrieval is usually by user values for metadata attributes.
    * I believe F2 and R1 are – for metadata - really the same principle and although different sets of attributes may be used for F and R there is likely to be a large intersection. For example R1.2 provenance metadata may well be highly relevant for a user finding appropriate (relevance, quality) datasets.
    * It seems to me that I2 and I3 concern aspects of I1 and could equally be I1.1 (a formal language should have its semantics defined) and I1.2 (a formal language should support qualified references, this is, for example, the advantage of RDF over XML).

    I raise these concerns now because - as we define progressively the metrics for assessing FAIRness - we have to be clear on exactly what is being measured.

    Thanks for your patience!

    Best

    Keith

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Keith G Jeffery Consultants

    Prof Keith G Jeffery

    E: keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk

    T: +44 7768 446088

    S: keithgjeffery

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the

    intended recipient only. If you are not one of the intended

    recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but

    return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From: mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org > On Behalf Of makxdekkers
    Sent: 17 April 2019 09:25
    To: fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    Subject: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Dear members of the RDA FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group,

    We would like to thank you for attending the meeting of the Working Group in Philadelphia on 3 April 2019 and hope you found the meeting useful.

    The report of the meeting is now available for download from the WG page on the RDA site at https://www.rd-alliance.org/workshop-2.

    We are currently finalising a Google spreadsheet for your contributions to the development of the indicators for the FAIR principles following the approach presented at the meeting in Philadelphia, and we plan to share the spreadsheet with the Working Group in the coming days.

    Many thanks!

    Makx Dekkers

    Editorial team

    --
    Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859

    --

    Ge Peng, PhD
    Research Scholar
    Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites - NC (CICS-NC)/NCSU at

    NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

    Center for Weather and Climate (CWC)

    151 Patton Ave, Asheville, NC 28801
    +1 828 257 3009; ge.peng@noaa.gov

    ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1986-9115

    Following CICS-NC on Facebook

  • Keith Jeffery's picture

    Author: Keith Jeffery

    Date: 23 Apr, 2019

    Maggie -

    Thanks for the continuing discussion. Using your numbering:

    1. Good that we have a great deal of agreement. However, I am very much against the concept of PID registry (or PID kernel metadata) since (a) it is a subset of the rich metadata [F2; R1] associated directly or via qualified references [I3] ; (b) the registry implies some form of human management and this is unsustainable at scale. The use of generated IDs (e.g. UUIDs) allows for scaling but - of course - does not need a PID registry, PID kernel attributes etc.
    2. I am with you that each DO (a collection of instances with the same attributes) should have an ID. However, I am firmly against 'collection IDs' unless they are strictly temporary, the reason being that 'upstream' definition of a collection by person A may be irrelevant | unrepresentative | inhibiting to a 'downstream' user B. In my experience an end-user wishes to associate dynamically various DOs into a grouping for the current purpose (e.g. composition of a workflow). Or, to take a very different example, an anthology of poetry collected by Person A is likely to be very different from that collected by person B.

    I do not see too much difficulty in assessment of F1 and F3; for F1 the abstract principle can be concretised to universally unique, eternally persistent identifier (preferably with a defined syntax and no semantics else it is likely to transgress the integrity of the rich metadata) and so scored 'is it unique (Y/N)'; 'is it eternally persistent (Y/N)'. F3 concerns the mechanism for finding (searching / indexing) DOs and particularly the rich metadata of F2 (which presumably includes the ID of the metadata (its 'primary key') and the ID of the DO described by the metadata [F4]. Moving from abstract principle to concrete realisation FAIRness criteria might be 'is the (meta)data indexed in a searchable resource (Y/N)'. There could be further discussion on the ease or efficacy of the searching which depends on richness of metadata [F2] and plurality of attributes [R1].

    I agree with you that there may be multiple DOs acting as metadata for a particular DO for a particular purpose at a particular time. I am sure we agree that we are far from the 'library catalog card' concept of metadata. The key, I believe, is rich semantics in the qualified references [I3] and for me this means ontology-based role definitions and temporal range. This could form the basis of a FAIRness score. However, you raise the really challenging question of 'completeness' of metadata. Personally, I do not believe this can be defined absolutely but only relatively - based on the metadata required for the purpose of the end-user at a particular time. It is to be hoped that the rich metadata [F2; R1] will allow the end-user to judge if the metadata is sufficiently complete for their purpose.

    1. I agree these types of DOs exist and may be more or less useful depending on the end-user requirement. In the measuring of FAIRness we need to find a way to take into account these additional sources. If they are 'attached' by qualified references [I3] then presumably they can be scored under this principle.

    In your last paragraph I think you are reaching for something that is very difficult; how to differentiate the 'high score but useless' assessment of FAIRness from the 'low score but useful'. Hopefully the group has sufficient wisdom to define appropriate criteria - although usefulness (like in many of my comments above) depends on the requirements of the end-user for a particular purpose at a particular time, Your 'master copy' should be the first curated/provenanced version. The problem of management of multiple versioned related metadata DOs can be made manageable, I believe, through support (using something like GitHub) and automation of incremental metadata creation within the scientific processes/workflows.

    To save everybody's inbox perhaps I should also go into 'lurk' mode
    Best
    Keith
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Keith G Jeffery Consultants
    Prof Keith G Jeffery
    E: keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk
    T: +44 7768 446088
    S: keithgjeffery
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the
    intended recipient only. If you are not one of the intended
    recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but
    return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From: margareta.hellstrom=nateko.lu.se@rda-groups.org On Behalf Of Maggie.Hellstrom
    Sent: 22 April 2019 15:45
    To: fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Hi Keith, Peng, et al,

    I found your comments more thought-provoking than provocative - and in any case, it is only by sharing ideas and then analysing and discussing disagreements that true progress can be made... ;-)

    A few quick comments:

    1) On PIDs as metadata attributes: Well, you are right in that PIDs are assigned to a DO, and therefore in some sense the PID (string) becomes part of the metadata about that object. I also agree that F1 relates to actions by the data curator (which could be a repository and/or the data producer), which is then responsible for uploading correct & relevant PID kernel information.

    But on the other hand, that particular, rather limited part of the metadata (at least the URI pointing to the location of the DO) is stored in a location - at the PID registry - that may or may not be (or remain) under the direct control of the curator of the data and the other metadata. In fact, "anyone" - not just the data curator - can in principle assign a persistent identifier to any DO, after which "they" are in control of the PID-related metadata. This raises interesting questions about who has the rights and/or possibility to update the PID registry kernel information, and how to ensure these capabilities are sustainable.

    2) Metadata as data: Well, one man's metadata is another man's data - so the context has to decide whether a piece of information is ancillary or primary. If we are following F1 strictly, then also - as prescribed by F3 - the block of information (key-value pairs, triple assertions or the like) that are considered to collectively form the rich metadata associated with a DO should be assigned a PID of its own - probably a "collection PID" which links to the PIDs of the individual source(s) and/or search queries that need to be executed to retrieve the said metadata information on the DO.

    This seems to indicate that we (i.e. the data producers and the repositories) need to become much more liberal with assigning PIDs than is currently the case - which means that there is an urgent need for domain- and/or community-specific recommendations on e.g. what types of (meta)data objects should be PID:ed and at what granularity. Without such at least domain-related standards (or best practices) for metadata, it is very difficult to define suitable (and fair) test criteria and scoring rules for e.g. F1 and F3.

    I also note that at least from an end user perspective, the R principles are reliant on the ability to efficiently link together a DO with all its different types of metadata. The old traditional concept of a single metadata catalogue, holding all relevant metadata (in whatever form) and hosted by the repository/archive instritution that also holds the data, is becoming obsolete very fast - which raises concerns on the accuracy of the "rich metadata", and stresses the need for some kind of objective assessment of not only the degree of "completeness" of metadata (e.g. looking at how many of the fields of an ISO standard are filled in) but also at what's written in there. Should there be a R-related metric for this as well?

    3) Examples of non-traditional metadata sources include stores for provenance information in separate central registries (to make it faster to search), the RDA recommendation to extend the metadata stored in the PID registry to support "pre-filtering" of DOs depending on types already at the PID resolution step, the trend to use "external" catalogues such as DataCite to store more and more non-administrative metadata, and finally initiatives to set up independent "annotation stores" for storing e.g. end user comments on data usability. All these represent a variety of "metadata sources", with various degrees of trustability and sustainability associated with them

    As long as care is taken to maintain an authoritative "master copy" of all the metadata that is originating from the original data producers, then this plurality is a good thing that can give data-intensive science a big boost. But at the same time, can see many issues, especially with smaller-scale research projects and groups - these often lack adequate data management support or resoources, and therefore resort to storing the only existing copies of both their data and metadata using the cheapest possible means available to them. That could give them a high FAIRness compliance score for their DMP evaluation, but it won't be sustainable in the long run.

    OK, sorry for this long outpouring of ideas - I'll go back to lurking mode now!

    Cheers,

    Maggie

    ------------------
    Associate Professor Margareta Hellström
    ICOS Carbon Portal staff member
    margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se
    Lund University
    Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science
    Sölvegatan 12, SE-22362 Lund, Sweden
    Phone: +46-(0)46-2229683
    ________________________________

    ________________________________
    From: keith.jeffery=keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk@rda-groups.org > on behalf of keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk >
    Sent: Monday, April 22, 2019 15:08
    To: fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Peng -

    Many thanks for responding to my email.

    I agree quality (and relevance) is important and I believe the group has to answer the question on what FAIRness metrics apply. The paradox I was raising is that in my experience there is no absolute quality (or relevance) but only relative to the requirements of the (re-)using user - hence a generic FAIRness metric may be unreachable.

    I agree that FAIR implies somehow openness; however a DO can (with its metadata) be FAIR even - for example - if it is embargoed (for prior publication) but available after some defined (and documented) time. The only FAIR principle to mention openness is A1.1 which is the protocol to retrieve by identifier yet A1.2 allows for authentication (of the user or agent) and authorisation (permission to access). I suspect the 'spirit' of FAIR was open and free but practical realities required these wordings of the principles.

    Best

    Keith

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Keith G Jeffery Consultants

    Prof Keith G Jeffery

    E: keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk

    T: +44 7768 446088

    S: keithgjeffery

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the

    intended recipient only. If you are not one of the intended

    recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but

    return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From: Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate >
    Sent: 22 April 2019 13:30
    To: Keith Jeffery >
    Cc: fair_maturity@rda-groups.org; Ge Peng >
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Agree with Keith on we need to be clear on exactly what is being measured before defining the metrics to assess FAIRness.

    My two cents on quality and accessibility:

    The quality information about metadata and data may be covered under "rich metadata". Unfortunately, I believe that "rich metadata" falls short in explicitly addressing data and information quality. Without good data and information quality, the data may not be useful. It does not make any sense to address its re-use. The question is: should this WG explicitly address quality of data and metadata in the metrics?

    It has been mentioned that FAIR does not mean OPEN. It is extremely hard for me to see how one can satisfy "FAIR", especially, accessible, interoperable and reusable of data, without having its data available and obtainable. Am I missing something? If so, should the FAIR principles be amended?

    Regards,

    --- Peng

    On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 6:20 AM keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk > wrote:

    Makx -

    I have now had time to re-read all the material from the last RDA Plenary session (unfortunately I had a clash with another meeting). I would like to make a few comments.

    1. Beyond FAIR. I believe the items here are all covered by the existing FAIR principles, however not necessarily one for one. (This raises another question about the intersections of concepts in the FAIR principles - see below). To take the Beyond FAIR list from the GitHub:

    * Data Repository: a dataset may reside in a repository but not necessarily. Consider streamed data from sensors or satellite. Some colleagues get excited about repository quality or 'trusted repositories'; from m experience the only real criteria for FAIR use by a user concern the relevance and quality of the dataset for their purpose at that time (assuming no limitations on (re-)use) - and this can only be judged from the rich metadata describing the dataset.
    * Curation and maintenance: the DCC lifecycle (and associated DMP) is useful here. Curation involves difficult decisions based on the value of the dataset and the cost of curation. The real problem is the lack of economic models that deal with (potentially) infinite time. However, the FAIR requirement for an eternally persistent ID for the dataset implies curation (if a decision is taken to assign (manually or automatically) a persistent identifier an implicit decision is taken to preserve the dataset. Curation implies a DMP, repository (possibly more than one), appropriate metadata, management responsibility, ownership responsibility, licensing, usage rules/constraints... all largely covered by what I understand by rich metadata.
    * Open Data: this is a very difficult term to define. Many conflate open and free and confuse with open access. Open data strictly concerns government data made available to citizens although the term is used more widely and is generally used meaning open data, open access, free access (possibly subject to licence conditions such as acknowledgement). I believe the open data concept is covered by the FAIR principles.
    * Data Quality: as I suggest under (a) in my experience quality is determined by the end-user in the sense of appropriate quality for the current purpose. I suggest there is no absolute measure but only relative (to the purpose). Data quality is then determined by the intersection of the user requirement and the dataset quality as described by rich metadata. This is likely to include properties/attributes such as precision and accuracy although in some sciences the reputation of the experimental team is sufficient. The equipment used for data collection and the data collection/correction/summarisation method may also be relevant.
    * Others: this is of course not yet defined. I would hope that all could be accommodated by the existing FAIR principles because they are relatively abstract; as always the 'devil is in the detail' and this will be specified by interpretation towards concreteness of the FAIR principles.

    I am hopeful that as other potential 'beyond FAIR' concepts arise they will increase our understanding of the several more concrete interpretations of each of the FAIR principles.

    1. Intersections in FAIR principles:

    * I believe there is some confusion in the FAIR principles concerning data and metadata. Many of the principles start with (meta)data. While I subscribe to the principle that metadata is also data (library catalog cards are metadata to a researcher finding a particular paper but data to a librarian counting papers on the human genome) I fear the FAIR principles are not clear on what should be a property of the thing referred to(data) and what should be a property of the referring thing (metadata). The obvious example is persistent identifier (I prefer UUPID): while both a dataset and the metadata describing it should have a UUPID, A1 is relevant for data (where the UUPID is an attribute in the metadata as specified in F4) but not really for metadata where the retrieval is usually by user values for metadata attributes.
    * I believe F2 and R1 are - for metadata - really the same principle and although different sets of attributes may be used for F and R there is likely to be a large intersection. For example R1.2 provenance metadata may well be highly relevant for a user finding appropriate (relevance, quality) datasets.
    * It seems to me that I2 and I3 concern aspects of I1 and could equally be I1.1 (a formal language should have its semantics defined) and I1.2 (a formal language should support qualified references, this is, for example, the advantage of RDF over XML).

    I raise these concerns now because - as we define progressively the metrics for assessing FAIRness - we have to be clear on exactly what is being measured.

    Thanks for your patience!

    Best

    Keith

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Keith G Jeffery Consultants

    Prof Keith G Jeffery

    E: keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk

    T: +44 7768 446088

    S: keithgjeffery

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the

    intended recipient only. If you are not one of the intended

    recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but

    return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From: mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org > On Behalf Of makxdekkers
    Sent: 17 April 2019 09:25
    To: fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    Subject: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Dear members of the RDA FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group,

    We would like to thank you for attending the meeting of the Working Group in Philadelphia on 3 April 2019 and hope you found the meeting useful.

    The report of the meeting is now available for download from the WG page on the RDA site at https://www.rd-alliance.org/workshop-2.

    We are currently finalising a Google spreadsheet for your contributions to the development of the indicators for the FAIR principles following the approach presented at the meeting in Philadelphia, and we plan to share the spreadsheet with the Working Group in the coming days.

    Many thanks!

    Makx Dekkers

    Editorial team

    --
    Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859

    --

    Ge Peng, PhD
    Research Scholar
    Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites - NC (CICS-NC)/NCSU at

    NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

    Center for Weather and Climate (CWC)

    151 Patton Ave, Asheville, NC 28801
    +1 828 257 3009; ge.peng@noaa.gov

    ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1986-9115

    Following CICS-NC on Facebook

  • Barend Mons's picture

    Author: Barend Mons

    Date: 23 Apr, 2019

    I think al lot of that we discuss here is ‘how’ rather than ‘what’
    So maybe we should start a separate thread because the discussion as such is very valuable.
    I also address the UPRI /Handle issue a bit in http://www.data-intelligence-journal.org/p/10/1/
    I believe a prefix registry is scalable, and with automatically generated (hash for instance) suffixes, we should be fine
    B

    Prof. Barend Mons
    Leiden University Medical Center
    President of CODATA
    GO FAIR International Support and Coordination Office

    Visiting address:
    Poortgebouw N-01
    Rijnsburgerweg 10
    2333 AA Leiden
    The Netherlands

    E-mail: barend.mons@go-fair.org
    Mobile: +31 6 24879779
    Skype: dnerab
    www.go-fair.org
    flyer
    ORCID: 0000-0003-3934-0072

    > On 23 Apr 2019, at 10:02, keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk wrote:
    >
    > Maggie –
    >
    > Thanks for the continuing discussion. Using your numbering:
    > Good that we have a great deal of agreement. However, I am very much against the concept of PID registry (or PID kernel metadata) since (a) it is a subset of the rich metadata [F2; R1] associated directly or via qualified references [I3] ; (b) the registry implies some form of human management and this is unsustainable at scale. The use of generated IDs (e.g. UUIDs) allows for scaling but – of course – does not need a PID registry, PID kernel attributes etc.
    > I am with you that each DO (a collection of instances with the same attributes) should have an ID. However, I am firmly against ‘collection IDs’ unless they are strictly temporary, the reason being that ‘upstream’ definition of a collection by person A may be irrelevant | unrepresentative | inhibiting to a ‘downstream’ user B. In my experience an end-user wishes to associate dynamically various DOs into a grouping for the current purpose (e.g. composition of a workflow). Or, to take a very different example, an anthology of poetry collected by Person A is likely to be very different from that collected by person B.
    >
    > I do not see too much difficulty in assessment of F1 and F3; for F1 the abstract principle can be concretised to universally unique, eternally persistent identifier (preferably with a defined syntax and no semantics else it is likely to transgress the integrity of the rich metadata) and so scored ‘is it unique (Y/N)’; ‘is it eternally persistent (Y/N)’. F3 concerns the mechanism for finding (searching / indexing) DOs and particularly the rich metadata of F2 (which presumably includes the ID of the metadata (its ‘primary key’) and the ID of the DO described by the metadata [F4]. Moving from abstract principle to concrete realisation FAIRness criteria might be ‘is the (meta)data indexed in a searchable resource (Y/N)’. There could be further discussion on the ease or efficacy of the searching which depends on richness of metadata [F2] and plurality of attributes [R1].
    >
    > I agree with you that there may be multiple DOs acting as metadata for a particular DO for a particular purpose at a particular time. I am sure we agree that we are far from the ‘library catalog card’ concept of metadata. The key, I believe, is rich semantics in the qualified references [I3] and for me this means ontology-based role definitions and temporal range. This could form the basis of a FAIRness score. However, you raise the really challenging question of ‘completeness’ of metadata. Personally, I do not believe this can be defined absolutely but only relatively – based on the metadata required for the purpose of the end-user at a particular time. It is to be hoped that the rich metadata [F2; R1] will allow the end-user to judge if the metadata is sufficiently complete for their purpose.
    >
    > I agree these types of DOs exist and may be more or less useful depending on the end-user requirement. In the measuring of FAIRness we need to find a way to take into account these additional sources. If they are ‘attached’ by qualified references [I3] then presumably they can be scored under this principle.
    >
    > In your last paragraph I think you are reaching for something that is very difficult; how to differentiate the ‘high score but useless’ assessment of FAIRness from the ‘low score but useful’. Hopefully the group has sufficient wisdom to define appropriate criteria – although usefulness (like in many of my comments above) depends on the requirements of the end-user for a particular purpose at a particular time, Your ‘master copy’ should be the first curated/provenanced version. The problem of management of multiple versioned related metadata DOs can be made manageable, I believe, through support (using something like GitHub) and automation of incremental metadata creation within the scientific processes/workflows.
    >
    > To save everybody’s inbox perhaps I should also go into ‘lurk’ mode
    > Best
    > Keith
    > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > Keith G Jeffery Consultants
    > Prof Keith G Jeffery
    > E: keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk
    > T: +44 7768 446088
    > S: keithgjeffery
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the
    > intended recipient only. If you are not one of the intended
    > recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but
    > return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it.
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    >
    > From: margareta.hellstrom=nateko.lu.se@rda-groups.org >On Behalf Of Maggie.Hellstrom
    > Sent: 22 April 2019 15:45
    > To: fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    > Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
    >
    > Hi Keith, Peng, et al,
    >
    >
    >
    > I found your comments more thought-provoking than provocative - and in any case, it is only by sharing ideas and then analysing and discussing disagreements that true progress can be made... ;-)
    >
    >
    >
    > A few quick comments:
    >
    > 1) On PIDs as metadata attributes: Well, you are right in that PIDs are assigned to a DO, and therefore in some sense the PID (string) becomes part of the metadata about that object. I also agree that F1 relates to actions by the data curator (which could be a repository and/or the data producer), which is then responsible for uploading correct & relevant PID kernel information.
    >
    >
    > But on the other hand, that particular, rather limited part of the metadata (at least the URI pointing to the location of the DO) is stored in a location - at the PID registry - that may or may not be (or remain) under the direct control of the curator of the data and the other metadata. In fact, "anyone" - not just the data curator - can in principle assign a persistent identifier to any DO, after which "they" are in control of the PID-related metadata. This raises interesting questions about who has the rights and/or possibility to update the PID registry kernel information, and how to ensure these capabilities are sustainable.
    >
    >
    >
    > 2) Metadata as data: Well, one man's metadata is another man's data - so the context has to decide whether a piece of information is ancillary or primary. If we are following F1 strictly, then also - as prescribed by F3 - the block of information (key-value pairs, triple assertions or the like) that are considered to collectively form the rich metadata associated with a DO should be assigned a PID of its own - probably a "collection PID" which links to the PIDs of the individual source(s) and/or search queries that need to be executed to retrieve the said metadata information on the DO.
    >
    >
    >
    > This seems to indicate that we (i.e. the data producers and the repositories) need to become much more liberal with assigning PIDs than is currently the case - which means that there is an urgent need for domain- and/or community-specific recommendations on e.g. what types of (meta)data objects should be PID:ed and at what granularity. Without such at least domain-related standards (or best practices) for metadata, it is very difficult to define suitable (and fair) test criteria and scoring rules for e.g. F1 and F3.
    >
    >
    >
    > I also note that at least from an end user perspective, the R principles are reliant on the ability to efficiently link together a DO with all its different types of metadata. The old traditional concept of a single metadata catalogue, holding all relevant metadata (in whatever form) and hosted by the repository/archive instritution that also holds the data, is becoming obsolete very fast - which raises concerns on the accuracy of the "rich metadata", and stresses the need for some kind of objective assessment of not only the degree of "completeness" of metadata (e.g. looking at how many of the fields of an ISO standard are filled in) but also at what's written in there. Should there be a R-related metric for this as well?
    >
    >
    >
    > 3) Examples of non-traditional metadata sources include stores for provenance information in separate central registries (to make it faster to search), the RDA recommendation to extend the metadata stored in the PID registry to support "pre-filtering" of DOs depending on types already at the PID resolution step, the trend to use "external" catalogues such as DataCite to store more and more non-administrative metadata, and finally initiatives to set up independent "annotation stores" for storing e.g. end user comments on data usability. All these represent a variety of "metadata sources", with various degrees of trustability and sustainability associated with them
    >
    >
    >
    > As long as care is taken to maintain an authoritative "master copy" of all the metadata that is originating from the original data producers, then this plurality is a good thing that can give data-intensive science a big boost. But at the same time, can see many issues, especially with smaller-scale research projects and groups - these often lack adequate data management support or resoources, and therefore resort to storing the only existing copies of both their data and metadata using the cheapest possible means available to them. That could give them a high FAIRness compliance score for their DMP evaluation, but it won't be sustainable in the long run.
    >
    >
    >
    > OK, sorry for this long outpouring of ideas - I'll go back to lurking mode now!
    >
    >
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Maggie
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > ------------------
    > Associate Professor Margareta Hellström
    > ICOS Carbon Portal staff member
    >
    > margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se
    > Lund University
    > Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science
    > Sölvegatan 12, SE-22362 Lund, Sweden
    > Phone: +46-(0)46-2229683
    >
    >
    >
    > From: keith.jeffery=keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk@rda-groups.org > on behalf of keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk >
    > Sent: Monday, April 22, 2019 15:08
    > To: fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    > Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
    >
    > Peng –
    >
    > Many thanks for responding to my email.
    >
    >
    >
    > I agree quality (and relevance) is important and I believe the group has to answer the question on what FAIRness metrics apply. The paradox I was raising is that in my experience there is no absolute quality (or relevance) but only relative to the requirements of the (re-)using user – hence a generic FAIRness metric may be unreachable.
    >
    >
    >
    > I agree that FAIR implies somehow openness; however a DO can (with its metadata) be FAIR even – for example - if it is embargoed (for prior publication) but available after some defined (and documented) time. The only FAIR principle to mention openness is A1.1 which is the protocol to retrieve by identifier yet A1.2 allows for authentication (of the user or agent) and authorisation (permission to access). I suspect the ‘spirit’ of FAIR was open and free but practical realities required these wordings of the principles.
    >
    >
    >
    > Best
    >
    > Keith
    >
    >
    >
    > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > Keith G Jeffery Consultants
    >
    > Prof Keith G Jeffery
    >
    > E: keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk
    > T: +44 7768 446088
    >
    > S: keithgjeffery
    >
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the
    >
    > intended recipient only. If you are not one of the intended
    >
    > recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but
    >
    > return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it.
    >
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > From: Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate >
    > Sent: 22 April 2019 13:30
    > To: Keith Jeffery >
    > Cc: fair_maturity@rda-groups.org ; Ge Peng >
    > Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
    >
    >
    >
    > <>Agree with Keith on we need to be clear on exactly what is being measured before defining the metrics to assess FAIRness.
    >
    >
    >
    > My two cents on quality and accessibility:
    >
    >
    >
    > The quality information about metadata and data may be covered under “rich metadata”. Unfortunately, I believe that “rich metadata” falls short in explicitly addressing data and information quality. Without good data and information quality, the data may not be useful. It does not make any sense to address its re-use. The question is: should this WG explicitly address quality of data and metadata in the metrics?
    >
    >
    >
    > It has been mentioned that FAIR does not mean OPEN. It is extremely hard for me to see how one can satisfy “FAIR”, especially, accessible, interoperable and reusable of data, without having its data available and obtainable. Am I missing something? If so, should the FAIR principles be amended?
    >
    >
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    >
    >
    > --- Peng
    >
    >
    >
    > On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 6:20 AM keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk > wrote:
    >
    > Makx –
    >
    >
    >
    > I have now had time to re-read all the material from the last RDA Plenary session (unfortunately I had a clash with another meeting). I would like to make a few comments.
    >
    >
    >
    > Beyond FAIR. I believe the items here are all covered by the existing FAIR principles, however not necessarily one for one. (This raises another question about the intersections of concepts in the FAIR principles – see below). To take the Beyond FAIR list from the GitHub:
    > Data Repository: a dataset may reside in a repository but not necessarily. Consider streamed data from sensors or satellite. Some colleagues get excited about repository quality or ‘trusted repositories’; from m experience the only real criteria for FAIR use by a user concern the relevance and quality of the dataset for their purpose at that time (assuming no limitations on (re-)use) – and this can only be judged from the rich metadata describing the dataset.
    > Curation and maintenance: the DCC lifecycle (and associated DMP) is useful here. Curation involves difficult decisions based on the value of the dataset and the cost of curation. The real problem is the lack of economic models that deal with (potentially) infinite time. However, the FAIR requirement for an eternally persistent ID for the dataset implies curation (if a decision is taken to assign (manually or automatically) a persistent identifier an implicit decision is taken to preserve the dataset. Curation implies a DMP, repository (possibly more than one), appropriate metadata, management responsibility, ownership responsibility, licensing, usage rules/constraints… all largely covered by what I understand by rich metadata.
    > Open Data: this is a very difficult term to define. Many conflate open and free and confuse with open access. Open data strictly concerns government data made available to citizens although the term is used more widely and is generally used meaning open data, open access, free access (possibly subject to licence conditions such as acknowledgement). I believe the open data concept is covered by the FAIR principles.
    > Data Quality: as I suggest under (a) in my experience quality is determined by the end-user in the sense of appropriate quality for the current purpose. I suggest there is no absolute measure but only relative (to the purpose). Data quality is then determined by the intersection of the user requirement and the dataset quality as described by rich metadata. This is likely to include properties/attributes such as precision and accuracy although in some sciences the reputation of the experimental team is sufficient. The equipment used for data collection and the data collection/correction/summarisation method may also be relevant.
    > Others: this is of course not yet defined. I would hope that all could be accommodated by the existing FAIR principles because they are relatively abstract; as always the ‘devil is in the detail’ and this will be specified by interpretation towards concreteness of the FAIR principles.
    >
    >
    > I am hopeful that as other potential ‘beyond FAIR’ concepts arise they will increase our understanding of the several more concrete interpretations of each of the FAIR principles.
    >
    >
    >
    > Intersections in FAIR principles:
    > I believe there is some confusion in the FAIR principles concerning data and metadata. Many of the principles start with (meta)data. While I subscribe to the principle that metadata is also data (library catalog cards are metadata to a researcher finding a particular paper but data to a librarian counting papers on the human genome) I fear the FAIR principles are not clear on what should be a property of the thing referred to(data) and what should be a property of the referring thing (metadata). The obvious example is persistent identifier (I prefer UUPID): while both a dataset and the metadata describing it should have a UUPID, A1 is relevant for data (where the UUPID is an attribute in the metadata as specified in F4) but not really for metadata where the retrieval is usually by user values for metadata attributes.
    > I believe F2 and R1 are – for metadata - really the same principle and although different sets of attributes may be used for F and R there is likely to be a large intersection. For example R1.2 provenance metadata may well be highly relevant for a user finding appropriate (relevance, quality) datasets.
    > It seems to me that I2 and I3 concern aspects of I1 and could equally be I1.1 (a formal language should have its semantics defined) and I1.2 (a formal language should support qualified references, this is, for example, the advantage of RDF over XML).
    >
    >
    > I raise these concerns now because - as we define progressively the metrics for assessing FAIRness - we have to be clear on exactly what is being measured.
    >
    >
    >
    > Thanks for your patience!
    >
    > Best
    >
    > Keith
    >
    > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > Keith G Jeffery Consultants
    >
    > Prof Keith G Jeffery
    >
    > E: keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk
    > T: +44 7768 446088
    >
    > S: keithgjeffery
    >
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the
    >
    > intended recipient only. If you are not one of the intended
    >
    > recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but
    >
    > return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it.
    >
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > From: mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org > On Behalf Of makxdekkers
    > Sent: 17 April 2019 09:25
    > To: fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    > Subject: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
    >
    >
    >
    > Dear members of the RDA FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group,
    >
    >
    >
    > We would like to thank you for attending the meeting of the Working Group in Philadelphia on 3 April 2019 and hope you found the meeting useful.
    >
    > The report of the meeting is now available for download from the WG page on the RDA site at https://www.rd-alliance.org/workshop-2 .
    >
    >
    >
    > We are currently finalising a Google spreadsheet for your contributions to the development of the indicators for the FAIR principles following the approach presented at the meeting in Philadelphia, and we plan to share the spreadsheet with the Working Group in the coming days.
    >
    >
    >
    > Many thanks!
    >
    >
    >
    > Makx Dekkers
    >
    > Editorial team
    >
    > --
    > Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    > Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    > Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > Ge Peng, PhD
    > Research Scholar
    > Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites - NC (CICS-NC)/NCSU at
    >
    > NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)
    >
    > Center for Weather and Climate (CWC)
    >
    > 151 Patton Ave, Asheville, NC 28801
    > +1 828 257 3009; ge.peng@noaa.gov
    > ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1986-9115
    > Following CICS-NC on Facebook
    >
    >
    > --
    > Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    > Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    > Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859

  • Makx Dekkers's picture

    Author: Makx Dekkers

    Date: 23 Apr, 2019

    Excellent point Barend.

    I would like to suggest possible ways to handle these threads.

    First, I am hoping that members are willing to contribute to the collaborative document at [1] by proposing specific indicators and maturity levels for the FAIR principles. Furthermore, on specific points, like what is ‘persistence’ and what is ‘rich metadata’, such indicators could include whether or not data is identified with DOIs or other commonly used identifier schemes, and whether metadata is provided conformant to DataCite kernel or some other standard set – it would be good to point to common or best practice in order to make sure that we’re not re-inventing any wheels.

    Second, for any further discussion, issues could be raised on the mailing list. In that case, I would suggest that an e-mail (a) is about one issue and (b) has a sensible subject line, so that it is easier to follow the thread. Maybe people could also cut off some of the long tail of messages in the replies.

    It is also possible to raise issues on GitHub at [2]. GitHub makes it easier to follow individual discussions and see how discussions lead to consensus, but if people are more comfortable with e-mail that is OK too. The editorial team will keep an eye on both e-mail and GitHub and will try to summarise every now and again how the discussions are progressing.

    Many thanks, Makx.

    [1] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gvMfbw46oV1idztsr586aG6-teSn2cPW...

    [2] https://github.com/RDA-FAIR/FAIR-data-maturity-model-WG/issues

    From: barendmons=gmail.com@rda-groups.org On Behalf Of Barend Mons
    Sent: 23 April 2019 11:48
    To: Keith Jeffery ; FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    I think al lot of that we discuss here is ‘how’ rather than ‘what’

    So maybe we should start a separate thread because the discussion as such is very valuable.

    I also address the UPRI /Handle issue a bit in http://www.data-intelligence-journal.org/p/10/1/

    I believe a prefix registry is scalable, and with automatically generated (hash for instance) suffixes, we should be fine

    B

  • Joseph Wafula's picture

    Author: Joseph Wafula

    Date: 24 Apr, 2019

    Yes Barend, I am interested in this discussion and hopefully contribute and
    learn from others.

    Joseph

    *Prof Muliaro Wafula PhD,FCCS,FCSK*
    Director
    ICT Centre of Excellence & Open Data -iCEOD
    JKUAT
    www.jkuat.ac.ke/directorates/iceod/

    On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 10:39 AM Barend Mons wrote:

    > Hear hear, especially the ‘not reinventing wheels’ comment is very
    > important, there has been al lot of thinking and development on generic
    > data and software access and licensing.
    > The major thing we have to resolve her is that (again) that now ‘the
    > machine knows what we mean’. Also the detailed tracking thing is new but
    > has emerged as a scale problem before, so let’s make sure we reuse whatever
    > we can. I cc two Kenyan colleagues with a special interest and expertise in
    > the latter.
    > Best
    > Barend
    >
    > Prof. Barend Mons
    >
    > Leiden University Medical Center
    >
    > President of CODATA
    >
    > GO FAIR international Support and coordination office
    >
    >
    > Mail: barend.mons@go-fair.org
    >
    > +31624879779
    >
    > ORCID: 0000-0003-3934-0072
    >
    > sent from my IPhone
    >
    >
    > Op 19 apr. 2019 om 09:19 heeft Keith Jeffery <
    > Keith.Jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk> het volgende geschreven:
    >
    > All –
    >
    > I have been following the discussion with interest. Andrea is of course
    > correct and references (updated) DCAT in this regard. I agree with Maggie’s
    > suggested relationships of access to the relevant FAIR principles. I agree
    > strongly with Barend on rich metadata that is actionable (implies formal
    > syntax and declared semantics). I agree that licence conditions and access
    > constraints (security, privacy, trust, cost…) are related but different.
    > The tracking of correct re-use conditions (attribution, use without
    > change…) is related to provenance although I haven’t seen any reliable
    > solutions yet.
    >
    >
    >
    > From my perspective it is commonly difficult for any workflow/process to
    > distinguish A, I and R in terms of access permissions. The problem is the
    > multi-dimensionality. I suggest the basic access permission actually
    > relates to a process (e.g. Webservice) acting on a dataset (generalised as
    > any asset acting on or with any other asset – including lab equipment,
    > sensors, software services, datasets, persons, organisations,
    > publications…) but this is conditioned by who owns or manages each of the
    > two assets involved and whom those organisations or persons delegate to
    > execute the service on the dataset (or more generally the action of one
    > asset on another). Thus if the basic permission being managed is
    > <*relationship*> then we have connected to each
    > something like:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > (person in role user different from
    > the manager and owner persons)
    >
    >
    >
    > Note that each should have a temporal duration (this allows for e.g.
    > embargo periods or elapsing of copyright). There can be interesting
    > problems when temporal intervals do not coincide – a well-known NP-hard
    > problem from temporal database research.
    >
    >
    >
    > Furthermore, access conditions can be quite complex; depending on the
    > asset the permission may be :
    >
    > [know the existence of | read | copy | update (amend, insert, delete) |
    > delete | execute ……] and in a different dimension [cost (which may have
    > complex sub-conditions)] in yet another dimension [attribution] and in yet
    > another dimension [trust/security/privacy] and of course as well as the
    > conventional assets (datasets, services etc) the metadata itself may be
    > subject to access conditions.
    >
    >
    >
    > Hopefully most research can be open and free thus avoiding the need for
    > such access controls, but I fear that we shall have to provide them – not
    > least because of increasing regulation (e.g. GDPR in Europe).
    >
    >
    >
    > I am concerned that we do not re-invent the wheel. Years of research
    > have provided production-strength access control systems for large-scale IT
    > systems used all the time by commerce, industry, government. I believe the
    > problem is to relate the capabilities of these access control systems to
    > the FAIR principles using a form of logic notation representable in the
    > metadata as formal syntax and declared semantics.
    >
    >
    >
    > Best
    >
    > Keith
    >
    >
    > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > Keith G Jeffery Consultants
    >
    > Prof Keith G Jeffery
    >
    > E: keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk
    >
    > T: +44 7768 446088
    >
    > S: keithgjeffery
    >
    >
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the
    >
    > intended recipient only. If you are not one of the intended
    >
    > recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but
    >
    > return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it.
    >
    >
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > *From:* barendmons=gmail.com@rda-groups.org <
    > barendmons=gmail.com@rda-groups.org> *On Behalf Of *Barend Mons
    > *Sent:* 18 April 2019 18:09
    > *To:* Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate ; FAIR Data Maturity
    > Model WG
    > *Cc:* andrea.perego ;
    > margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se; makxdekkers ; '
    > Crosas@rda-groups.org; mcrosas@g.harvard.edu
    > *Subject:* Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
    >
    >
    >
    > Yes and as we support the statement: ‘as open as possible, as closed as
    > necessary’, we could even put the most liberal license as ‘default’ UPRI in
    > metadata templates, so that researchers would have to ‘increase restriction
    > deliberately if they have good reasons for that, which the funder will
    > accept (for instnace patient privacy).
    >
    > In that way ‘unlicensed’ and thereforwe in some circles re-useless data
    > can be avoided?
    >
    > B
    >
    >
    >
    > *Prof. Barend Mons*
    >
    > Leiden University Medical Center
    >
    > President of CODATA
    >
    > GO FAIR international Support and coordination office
    >
    >
    >
    > Mail: *barend.mons@go-fair.org *
    >
    > +31624879779
    >
    > [image: Image removed by sender.]
    >
    >
    >
    > ORCID: 0000-0003-3934-0072
    >
    > sent from my IPad
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > On 18 Apr 2019, at 19:01, Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate
    > wrote:
    >
    > Thanks, Barend, for bringing up the point of open-minded researchers. For
    > them and many, if not all, US federal agencies, not having any restriction
    > clauses on access and/or use in metadata record or website means there is
    > no restriction, period. It has been on my mind but have not got a good time
    > to mention so until now.
    >
    >
    >
    > However, requiring explicitly description of the license, access and use
    > rights may be a good practice.
    >
    >
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    >
    >
    > --- Peng
    >
    >
    >
    > On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 12:31 PM Barend Mons wrote:
    >
    > Good discussion (just landed from Nairobi, so was a bit out of the loop.
    >
    >
    >
    > Also there, access rights e.d. were a hot discussion topic.
    >
    >
    >
    > I concur with Maggie that the ‘A’ and part of R is implicitly requiring
    > access rights and licensing (the machine need to know what it is
    > technically able to do with the data as well as what it is ‘allowed’ to
    > do). To me this is all covered by the generic principle of rich, machine
    > actionable metadata for all FAIR digital objects. Measuring can imho
    > include any further specification of that, and again, the requirements may
    > vary per disciploine as we stated at the meeting.
    >
    > I know for instance from an earlier IMI project (Open PHACTS) that the
    > pharma is unlikely to even ‘touch’ a data set without a clear license, even
    > if the researcher is so ‘open minded’ that putting a license did not even
    > occur to her/him...
    >
    > B
    >
    >
    >
    > *Prof. Barend Mons*
    >
    > Leiden University Medical Center
    >
    > President of CODATA
    >
    > GO FAIR international Support and coordination office
    >
    >
    >
    > Mail: *barend.mons@go-fair.org *
    >
    > +31624879779
    >
    >
    >
    > ORCID: 0000-0003-3934-0072
    >
    > sent from my IPad
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > On 18 Apr 2019, at 18:17, andrea.perego
    > wrote:
    >
    > Hi, Maggie.
    >
    >
    >
    > I agree access rights are implicitly related to the principles you
    > mention. My concern is whether a conformance test could require compliance
    > with requirements not explicitly stated in the FAIR principles.
    >
    >
    >
    > This is why I was considering the possibility of including a requirement
    > on access rights the "Beyond FAIR" work – which, ideally, can be a useful
    > feedback for a possible revision/extension to the FAIR principles, based on
    > usage and implementation evidence.
    >
    >
    >
    > Andrea
    >
    >
    >
    > ----
    >
    > Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
    >
    > Scientific / Technical Project Officer
    >
    > European Commission DG JRC
    >
    > Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
    >
    > Unit B6 - Digital Economy
    >
    > Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
    >
    > 21027 Ispra VA, Italy
    >
    >
    >
    > https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/
    >
    >
    >
    > ----
    >
    > The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
    >
    > not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
    >
    > position of the European Commission.
    >
    >
    >
    > *From:* Margareta Hellström [mailto:margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se
    > ]
    > *Sent:* Thursday, April 18, 2019 6:00 PM
    > *To:* makxdekkers; 'Crosas@rda-groups.org; Mercè'; PEREGO Andrea
    > (JRC-ISPRA); FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
    > *Subject:* Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
    >
    >
    >
    > Hi Makx,
    >
    >
    >
    > my immediate reaction to this was that the access rights are
    > connected to principle A1.2 ("the protocol allows for an authentication and
    > authorization procedure, where necessary", but that doesn't specifically
    > address the issue of how to inform the user (human or machine) of what
    > those restrictions are. I guess that would be covered by the "plurality of
    > accurate and relevant attributes" of R.1 and possibly also the
    > "domain-relevant community standards" of R1.3.
    >
    >
    >
    > Happy Easter!
    >
    > /Maggie
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > ------------------
    > Associate Professor Margareta Hellström
    >
    > ICOS Carbon Portal staff member
    >
    > margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se
    >
    > Lund University
    >
    > Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science
    > Sölvegatan 12, SE-22362 Lund, Sweden
    > Phone: +46-(0)46-2229683
    > ------------------------------
    >
    >
    > ------------------------------
    >
    > *From:* mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org <
    > mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org> on behalf of makxdekkers <
    > mail@makxdekkers.com>
    > *Sent:* Thursday, April 18, 2019 17:46
    > *To:* 'Crosas@rda-groups.org; Mercè'; 'andrea.perego'; FAIR Data Maturity
    > Model WG
    > *Subject:* Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
    >
    >
    >
    > Many thanks, Andrea and Mercè, for bringing this up.
    >
    >
    >
    > Should the expression of access rights, as opposed to the re-use licence,
    > be covered under principle R1.1
    >
    > or somewhere else?
    >
    >
    >
    > Kind regards, Makx
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > *From:* Crosas, Mercè
    > *Sent:* 18 April 2019 15:58
    > *To:* andrea.perego
    > *Cc:* makxdekkers ; fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    > *Subject:* Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
    >
    >
    >
    > That's correct - I agree that it would be best to separate license
    > metadata from access metadata. The Data Documentation Initiative (DDI)
    > schema has this
    > distinction, for example.
    >
    >
    >
    > Best,
    >
    > Merce
    >
    >
    >
    > On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 4:06 AM andrea.perego
    > wrote:
    >
    > Dear Makx, dear colleagues,
    >
    > Thanks for sharing the report.
    >
    > I would like to raise an issue on point (4) in slide 20:
    >
    > "(4) Does the licence permit access?"
    >
    > Strictly speaking, licences are just about *use* conditions, and not about
    > who can access what. Of course, ad hoc licences happen to include access
    > provisions as well, but this does not apply to standard ones (as the
    > Creative Commons suite).
    >
    > For this reason, and to facilitate conformance testing, it would be
    > desirable that access conditions/restrictions were assessed separately from
    > the licence, and to require that this information be specified in a
    > separate metadata field.
    >
    > Best,
    >
    > Andrea
    >
    > ----
    > Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
    > Scientific / Technical Project Officer
    > European Commission DG JRC
    > Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
    > Unit B6 - Digital Economy
    > Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
    > 21027 Ispra VA, Italy
    >
    > https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/
    >
    > ----
    > The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
    > not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
    > position of the European Commission.
    >
    >
    > ________________________________________
    > From: mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org> on behalf of makxdekkers <
    > mail@makxdekkers.com>
    > Sent: 17 April 2019 10:24:54
    > To: fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    > Subject: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
    >
    > Dear members of the RDA FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group,
    >
    > We would like to thank you for attending the meeting of the Working Group
    > in Philadelphia on 3 April 2019 and hope you found the meeting useful.
    > The report of the meeting is now available for download from the WG page
    > on the RDA site at https://www.rd-alliance.org/workshop-2.
    >
    > We are currently finalising a Google spreadsheet for your contributions to
    > the development of the indicators for the FAIR principles following the
    > approach presented at the meeting in Philadelphia, and we plan to share the
    > spreadsheet with the Working Group in the coming days.
    >
    > Many thanks!
    >
    > Makx Dekkers
    > Editorial team
    > --
    > Full post:
    > https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    > Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    > Stop emails for this post:
    > https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > Mercè Crosas, Ph.D.
    >
    > Harvard University's Research Data Officer, Office of Vice Provost for
    > Research
    >
    > Chief Data Science and Technology Officer, Institute for Quantitative
    > Social Science
    >
    > mcrosas@g.harvard.edu | @mercecrosas |
    > scholar.harvard.edu/mercecrosas
    >
    > --
    > Full post:
    > https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    > Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    > Stop emails for this post:
    > https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859
    >
    > --
    > Full post:
    > https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    > Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    > Stop emails for this post:
    > https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > *Ge Peng, PhD*
    > *Research Scholar*
    > Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites - NC (CICS-NC)/NCSU at
    >
    > NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)
    >
    > Center for Weather and Climate (CWC)
    >
    > 151 Patton Ave, Asheville, NC 28801
    > +1 828 257 3009; ge.peng@noaa.gov
    >
    > ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1986-9115
    >
    > Following CICS-NC on *Facebook*
    >
    >
    >
    >

    --

  • Joseph Wafula's picture

    Author: Joseph Wafula

    Date: 24 Apr, 2019

    Yes Barend, I am interested in this discussion and hopefully contribute and
    learn from others.

    Joseph

    *Prof Muliaro Wafula PhD,FCCS,FCSK*
    Director
    ICT Centre of Excellence & Open Data -iCEOD
    JKUAT
    www.jkuat.ac.ke/directorates/iceod/

    On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 10:39 AM Barend Mons wrote:

    > Hear hear, especially the ‘not reinventing wheels’ comment is very
    > important, there has been al lot of thinking and development on generic
    > data and software access and licensing.
    > The major thing we have to resolve her is that (again) that now ‘the
    > machine knows what we mean’. Also the detailed tracking thing is new but
    > has emerged as a scale problem before, so let’s make sure we reuse whatever
    > we can. I cc two Kenyan colleagues with a special interest and expertise in
    > the latter.
    > Best
    > Barend
    >
    > Prof. Barend Mons
    >
    > Leiden University Medical Center
    >
    > President of CODATA
    >
    > GO FAIR international Support and coordination office
    >
    >
    > Mail: barend.mons@go-fair.org
    >
    > +31624879779
    >
    > ORCID: 0000-0003-3934-0072
    >
    > sent from my IPhone
    >
    >
    > Op 19 apr. 2019 om 09:19 heeft Keith Jeffery <
    > Keith.Jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk> het volgende geschreven:
    >
    > All –
    >
    > I have been following the discussion with interest. Andrea is of course
    > correct and references (updated) DCAT in this regard. I agree with Maggie’s
    > suggested relationships of access to the relevant FAIR principles. I agree
    > strongly with Barend on rich metadata that is actionable (implies formal
    > syntax and declared semantics). I agree that licence conditions and access
    > constraints (security, privacy, trust, cost…) are related but different.
    > The tracking of correct re-use conditions (attribution, use without
    > change…) is related to provenance although I haven’t seen any reliable
    > solutions yet.
    >
    >
    >
    > From my perspective it is commonly difficult for any workflow/process to
    > distinguish A, I and R in terms of access permissions. The problem is the
    > multi-dimensionality. I suggest the basic access permission actually
    > relates to a process (e.g. Webservice) acting on a dataset (generalised as
    > any asset acting on or with any other asset – including lab equipment,
    > sensors, software services, datasets, persons, organisations,
    > publications…) but this is conditioned by who owns or manages each of the
    > two assets involved and whom those organisations or persons delegate to
    > execute the service on the dataset (or more generally the action of one
    > asset on another). Thus if the basic permission being managed is
    > <*relationship*> then we have connected to each
    > something like:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > (person in role user different from
    > the manager and owner persons)
    >
    >
    >
    > Note that each should have a temporal duration (this allows for e.g.
    > embargo periods or elapsing of copyright). There can be interesting
    > problems when temporal intervals do not coincide – a well-known NP-hard
    > problem from temporal database research.
    >
    >
    >
    > Furthermore, access conditions can be quite complex; depending on the
    > asset the permission may be :
    >
    > [know the existence of | read | copy | update (amend, insert, delete) |
    > delete | execute ……] and in a different dimension [cost (which may have
    > complex sub-conditions)] in yet another dimension [attribution] and in yet
    > another dimension [trust/security/privacy] and of course as well as the
    > conventional assets (datasets, services etc) the metadata itself may be
    > subject to access conditions.
    >
    >
    >
    > Hopefully most research can be open and free thus avoiding the need for
    > such access controls, but I fear that we shall have to provide them – not
    > least because of increasing regulation (e.g. GDPR in Europe).
    >
    >
    >
    > I am concerned that we do not re-invent the wheel. Years of research
    > have provided production-strength access control systems for large-scale IT
    > systems used all the time by commerce, industry, government. I believe the
    > problem is to relate the capabilities of these access control systems to
    > the FAIR principles using a form of logic notation representable in the
    > metadata as formal syntax and declared semantics.
    >
    >
    >
    > Best
    >
    > Keith
    >
    >
    > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > Keith G Jeffery Consultants
    >
    > Prof Keith G Jeffery
    >
    > E: keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk
    >
    > T: +44 7768 446088
    >
    > S: keithgjeffery
    >
    >
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the
    >
    > intended recipient only. If you are not one of the intended
    >
    > recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but
    >
    > return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it.
    >
    >
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > *From:* barendmons=gmail.com@rda-groups.org <
    > barendmons=gmail.com@rda-groups.org> *On Behalf Of *Barend Mons
    > *Sent:* 18 April 2019 18:09
    > *To:* Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate ; FAIR Data Maturity
    > Model WG
    > *Cc:* andrea.perego ;
    > margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se; makxdekkers ; '
    > Crosas@rda-groups.org; mcrosas@g.harvard.edu
    > *Subject:* Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
    >
    >
    >
    > Yes and as we support the statement: ‘as open as possible, as closed as
    > necessary’, we could even put the most liberal license as ‘default’ UPRI in
    > metadata templates, so that researchers would have to ‘increase restriction
    > deliberately if they have good reasons for that, which the funder will
    > accept (for instnace patient privacy).
    >
    > In that way ‘unlicensed’ and thereforwe in some circles re-useless data
    > can be avoided?
    >
    > B
    >
    >
    >
    > *Prof. Barend Mons*
    >
    > Leiden University Medical Center
    >
    > President of CODATA
    >
    > GO FAIR international Support and coordination office
    >
    >
    >
    > Mail: *barend.mons@go-fair.org *
    >
    > +31624879779
    >
    > [image: Image removed by sender.]
    >
    >
    >
    > ORCID: 0000-0003-3934-0072
    >
    > sent from my IPad
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > On 18 Apr 2019, at 19:01, Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate
    > wrote:
    >
    > Thanks, Barend, for bringing up the point of open-minded researchers. For
    > them and many, if not all, US federal agencies, not having any restriction
    > clauses on access and/or use in metadata record or website means there is
    > no restriction, period. It has been on my mind but have not got a good time
    > to mention so until now.
    >
    >
    >
    > However, requiring explicitly description of the license, access and use
    > rights may be a good practice.
    >
    >
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    >
    >
    > --- Peng
    >
    >
    >
    > On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 12:31 PM Barend Mons wrote:
    >
    > Good discussion (just landed from Nairobi, so was a bit out of the loop.
    >
    >
    >
    > Also there, access rights e.d. were a hot discussion topic.
    >
    >
    >
    > I concur with Maggie that the ‘A’ and part of R is implicitly requiring
    > access rights and licensing (the machine need to know what it is
    > technically able to do with the data as well as what it is ‘allowed’ to
    > do). To me this is all covered by the generic principle of rich, machine
    > actionable metadata for all FAIR digital objects. Measuring can imho
    > include any further specification of that, and again, the requirements may
    > vary per disciploine as we stated at the meeting.
    >
    > I know for instance from an earlier IMI project (Open PHACTS) that the
    > pharma is unlikely to even ‘touch’ a data set without a clear license, even
    > if the researcher is so ‘open minded’ that putting a license did not even
    > occur to her/him...
    >
    > B
    >
    >
    >
    > *Prof. Barend Mons*
    >
    > Leiden University Medical Center
    >
    > President of CODATA
    >
    > GO FAIR international Support and coordination office
    >
    >
    >
    > Mail: *barend.mons@go-fair.org *
    >
    > +31624879779
    >
    >
    >
    > ORCID: 0000-0003-3934-0072
    >
    > sent from my IPad
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > On 18 Apr 2019, at 18:17, andrea.perego
    > wrote:
    >
    > Hi, Maggie.
    >
    >
    >
    > I agree access rights are implicitly related to the principles you
    > mention. My concern is whether a conformance test could require compliance
    > with requirements not explicitly stated in the FAIR principles.
    >
    >
    >
    > This is why I was considering the possibility of including a requirement
    > on access rights the "Beyond FAIR" work – which, ideally, can be a useful
    > feedback for a possible revision/extension to the FAIR principles, based on
    > usage and implementation evidence.
    >
    >
    >
    > Andrea
    >
    >
    >
    > ----
    >
    > Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
    >
    > Scientific / Technical Project Officer
    >
    > European Commission DG JRC
    >
    > Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
    >
    > Unit B6 - Digital Economy
    >
    > Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
    >
    > 21027 Ispra VA, Italy
    >
    >
    >
    > https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/
    >
    >
    >
    > ----
    >
    > The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
    >
    > not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
    >
    > position of the European Commission.
    >
    >
    >
    > *From:* Margareta Hellström [mailto:margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se
    > ]
    > *Sent:* Thursday, April 18, 2019 6:00 PM
    > *To:* makxdekkers; 'Crosas@rda-groups.org; Mercè'; PEREGO Andrea
    > (JRC-ISPRA); FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
    > *Subject:* Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
    >
    >
    >
    > Hi Makx,
    >
    >
    >
    > my immediate reaction to this was that the access rights are
    > connected to principle A1.2 ("the protocol allows for an authentication and
    > authorization procedure, where necessary", but that doesn't specifically
    > address the issue of how to inform the user (human or machine) of what
    > those restrictions are. I guess that would be covered by the "plurality of
    > accurate and relevant attributes" of R.1 and possibly also the
    > "domain-relevant community standards" of R1.3.
    >
    >
    >
    > Happy Easter!
    >
    > /Maggie
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > ------------------
    > Associate Professor Margareta Hellström
    >
    > ICOS Carbon Portal staff member
    >
    > margareta.hellstrom@nateko.lu.se
    >
    > Lund University
    >
    > Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science
    > Sölvegatan 12, SE-22362 Lund, Sweden
    > Phone: +46-(0)46-2229683
    > ------------------------------
    >
    >
    > ------------------------------
    >
    > *From:* mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org <
    > mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org> on behalf of makxdekkers <
    > mail@makxdekkers.com>
    > *Sent:* Thursday, April 18, 2019 17:46
    > *To:* 'Crosas@rda-groups.org; Mercè'; 'andrea.perego'; FAIR Data Maturity
    > Model WG
    > *Subject:* Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
    >
    >
    >
    > Many thanks, Andrea and Mercè, for bringing this up.
    >
    >
    >
    > Should the expression of access rights, as opposed to the re-use licence,
    > be covered under principle R1.1
    >
    > or somewhere else?
    >
    >
    >
    > Kind regards, Makx
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > *From:* Crosas, Mercè
    > *Sent:* 18 April 2019 15:58
    > *To:* andrea.perego
    > *Cc:* makxdekkers ; fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    > *Subject:* Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
    >
    >
    >
    > That's correct - I agree that it would be best to separate license
    > metadata from access metadata. The Data Documentation Initiative (DDI)
    > schema has this
    > distinction, for example.
    >
    >
    >
    > Best,
    >
    > Merce
    >
    >
    >
    > On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 4:06 AM andrea.perego
    > wrote:
    >
    > Dear Makx, dear colleagues,
    >
    > Thanks for sharing the report.
    >
    > I would like to raise an issue on point (4) in slide 20:
    >
    > "(4) Does the licence permit access?"
    >
    > Strictly speaking, licences are just about *use* conditions, and not about
    > who can access what. Of course, ad hoc licences happen to include access
    > provisions as well, but this does not apply to standard ones (as the
    > Creative Commons suite).
    >
    > For this reason, and to facilitate conformance testing, it would be
    > desirable that access conditions/restrictions were assessed separately from
    > the licence, and to require that this information be specified in a
    > separate metadata field.
    >
    > Best,
    >
    > Andrea
    >
    > ----
    > Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
    > Scientific / Technical Project Officer
    > European Commission DG JRC
    > Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
    > Unit B6 - Digital Economy
    > Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
    > 21027 Ispra VA, Italy
    >
    > https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/
    >
    > ----
    > The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
    > not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
    > position of the European Commission.
    >
    >
    > ________________________________________
    > From: mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org> on behalf of makxdekkers <
    > mail@makxdekkers.com>
    > Sent: 17 April 2019 10:24:54
    > To: fair_maturity@rda-groups.org
    > Subject: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
    >
    > Dear members of the RDA FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group,
    >
    > We would like to thank you for attending the meeting of the Working Group
    > in Philadelphia on 3 April 2019 and hope you found the meeting useful.
    > The report of the meeting is now available for download from the WG page
    > on the RDA site at https://www.rd-alliance.org/workshop-2.
    >
    > We are currently finalising a Google spreadsheet for your contributions to
    > the development of the indicators for the FAIR principles following the
    > approach presented at the meeting in Philadelphia, and we plan to share the
    > spreadsheet with the Working Group in the coming days.
    >
    > Many thanks!
    >
    > Makx Dekkers
    > Editorial team
    > --
    > Full post:
    > https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    > Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    > Stop emails for this post:
    > https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > Mercè Crosas, Ph.D.
    >
    > Harvard University's Research Data Officer, Office of Vice Provost for
    > Research
    >
    > Chief Data Science and Technology Officer, Institute for Quantitative
    > Social Science
    >
    > mcrosas@g.harvard.edu | @mercecrosas |
    > scholar.harvard.edu/mercecrosas
    >
    > --
    > Full post:
    > https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    > Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    > Stop emails for this post:
    > https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859
    >
    > --
    > Full post:
    > https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
    > Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    > Stop emails for this post:
    > https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > *Ge Peng, PhD*
    > *Research Scholar*
    > Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites - NC (CICS-NC)/NCSU at
    >
    > NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)
    >
    > Center for Weather and Climate (CWC)
    >
    > 151 Patton Ave, Asheville, NC 28801
    > +1 828 257 3009; ge.peng@noaa.gov
    >
    > ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1986-9115
    >
    > Following CICS-NC on *Facebook*
    >
    >
    >
    >

    --

  • Keith Jeffery's picture

    Author: Keith Jeffery

    Date: 25 Apr, 2019

    Makx –
    I agree these are excellent mechanisms – and we should preserve the discussions which – I believe – have been illuminating.
    For me the problem persists: how to take abstract FAIR principles and turn them into concrete assertions to be challenged or questions which can be tested leading to metric values (binary or scalar)?
    Your excellent landscape study indicates some approaches. The FAIRMetrics work (Go FAIR, FAIRSharing) seems very relevant.
    I find the paper ‘FAIR Metrics Evaluation Results’ at ZIP at https://zenodo.org/record/1305060#.XMHGFehKhnI useful. However, many (most) of the answers are pointers to documents (and in some cases general documents not specific to the question or FAIR principle) and not a clear metric value. However the structure of the questions (and the sub-questions) is – I believe – relevant. Could we perhaps use their question structure as a basis and elaborate from there to specific assertions or questions to which the answers could be empirical metric values?
    Best
    Keith

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Keith G Jeffery Consultants
    Prof Keith G Jeffery
    E: keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk
    T: +44 7768 446088
    S: keithgjeffery
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the
    intended recipient only. If you are not one of the intended
    recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but
    return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From: mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org On Behalf Of makxdekkers
    Sent: 23 April 2019 12:59
    To: 'FAIR Data Maturity Model WG'
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Excellent point Barend.

    I would like to suggest possible ways to handle these threads.

    First, I am hoping that members are willing to contribute to the collaborative document at [1] by proposing specific indicators and maturity levels for the FAIR principles. Furthermore, on specific points, like what is ‘persistence’ and what is ‘rich metadata’, such indicators could include whether or not data is identified with DOIs or other commonly used identifier schemes, and whether metadata is provided conformant to DataCite kernel or some other standard set – it would be good to point to common or best practice in order to make sure that we’re not re-inventing any wheels.

    Second, for any further discussion, issues could be raised on the mailing list. In that case, I would suggest that an e-mail (a) is about one issue and (b) has a sensible subject line, so that it is easier to follow the thread. Maybe people could also cut off some of the long tail of messages in the replies.

    It is also possible to raise issues on GitHub at [2]. GitHub makes it easier to follow individual discussions and see how discussions lead to consensus, but if people are more comfortable with e-mail that is OK too. The editorial team will keep an eye on both e-mail and GitHub and will try to summarise every now and again how the discussions are progressing.

    Many thanks, Makx.

    [1] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gvMfbw46oV1idztsr586aG6-teSn2cPW...
    [2] https://github.com/RDA-FAIR/FAIR-data-maturity-model-WG/issues

    From: barendmons=gmail.com@rda-groups.org > On Behalf Of Barend Mons
    Sent: 23 April 2019 11:48
    To: Keith Jeffery >; FAIR Data Maturity Model WG >
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    I think al lot of that we discuss here is ‘how’ rather than ‘what’
    So maybe we should start a separate thread because the discussion as such is very valuable.
    I also address the UPRI /Handle issue a bit in http://www.data-intelligence-journal.org/p/10/1/
    I believe a prefix registry is scalable, and with automatically generated (hash for instance) suffixes, we should be fine
    B

  • Makx Dekkers's picture

    Author: Makx Dekkers

    Date: 25 Apr, 2019

    Keith,

    Thanks for your suggestion.

    Actually, what you suggest is what we try to do with the collaborative sheet at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gvMfbw46oV1idztsr586aG6-teSn2cPW....

    The ‘specific assertions’ that you mention are more or less what we call ‘indicators’ in sheet 3. Development, with suggestions for ‘maturity levels’ for the indicators. These levels could act as ‘metrics’, although most of them would probably be qualitative rather than quantitative.

    The idea is that we wouldn’t try to come up with a fixed set of questions – which would be yet-another-set-of-questions – but a set of indicators for which anyone could formulate questions, and in many cases, the existing questionnaires will already include questions related to the indicators.

    Feel free to try and derive some ‘specific assertions’ or ‘indicators’ from the existing work and enter them in the sheet!

    Makx.

    From: keith.jeffery=keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk@rda-groups.org On Behalf Of keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk
    Sent: 25 April 2019 17:02
    To: 'FAIR Data Maturity Model WG'
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Makx –

    I agree these are excellent mechanisms – and we should preserve the discussions which – I believe – have been illuminating.

    For me the problem persists: how to take abstract FAIR principles and turn them into concrete assertions to be challenged or questions which can be tested leading to metric values (binary or scalar)?

    Your excellent landscape study indicates some approaches. The FAIRMetrics work (Go FAIR, FAIRSharing) seems very relevant.

    I find the paper ‘FAIR Metrics Evaluation Results’ at ZIP at https://zenodo.org/record/1305060#.XMHGFehKhnI useful. However, many (most) of the answers are pointers to documents (and in some cases general documents not specific to the question or FAIR principle) and not a clear metric value. However the structure of the questions (and the sub-questions) is – I believe – relevant. Could we perhaps use their question structure as a basis and elaborate from there to specific assertions or questions to which the answers could be empirical metric values?

    Best

    Keith

  • Keith Jeffery's picture

    Author: Keith Jeffery

    Date: 26 Apr, 2019

    Makx –
    Thanks. I have made some suggestions for F1, F2, F3 (in red). Can you guide me – is this the sort of thing you had in mind?
    On a practical point; can the spreadsheet be edited in ‘suggestion mode’ – I could not find a way to do that.
    Best
    Keith

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Keith G Jeffery Consultants
    Prof Keith G Jeffery
    E: keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk
    T: +44 7768 446088
    S: keithgjeffery
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the
    intended recipient only. If you are not one of the intended
    recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but
    return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From: mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org On Behalf Of makxdekkers
    Sent: 25 April 2019 16:23
    To: 'FAIR Data Maturity Model WG'
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Keith,

    Thanks for your suggestion.

    Actually, what you suggest is what we try to do with the collaborative sheet at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gvMfbw46oV1idztsr586aG6-teSn2cPW....

    The ‘specific assertions’ that you mention are more or less what we call ‘indicators’ in sheet 3. Development, with suggestions for ‘maturity levels’ for the indicators. These levels could act as ‘metrics’, although most of them would probably be qualitative rather than quantitative.

    The idea is that we wouldn’t try to come up with a fixed set of questions – which would be yet-another-set-of-questions – but a set of indicators for which anyone could formulate questions, and in many cases, the existing questionnaires will already include questions related to the indicators.

    Feel free to try and derive some ‘specific assertions’ or ‘indicators’ from the existing work and enter them in the sheet!

    Makx.

    From: keith.jeffery=keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk@rda-groups.org > On Behalf Of keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk
    Sent: 25 April 2019 17:02
    To: 'FAIR Data Maturity Model WG' >
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Makx –
    I agree these are excellent mechanisms – and we should preserve the discussions which – I believe – have been illuminating.
    For me the problem persists: how to take abstract FAIR principles and turn them into concrete assertions to be challenged or questions which can be tested leading to metric values (binary or scalar)?
    Your excellent landscape study indicates some approaches. The FAIRMetrics work (Go FAIR, FAIRSharing) seems very relevant.
    I find the paper ‘FAIR Metrics Evaluation Results’ at ZIP at https://zenodo.org/record/1305060#.XMHGFehKhnI useful. However, many (most) of the answers are pointers to documents (and in some cases general documents not specific to the question or FAIR principle) and not a clear metric value. However the structure of the questions (and the sub-questions) is – I believe – relevant. Could we perhaps use their question structure as a basis and elaborate from there to specific assertions or questions to which the answers could be empirical metric values?
    Best
    Keith

  • Makx Dekkers's picture

    Author: Makx Dekkers

    Date: 27 Apr, 2019

    Keith,

    Thanks for this. Your suggestions are fine. Anyone should feel free to propose whatever indicator they think makes sense.

    However, I would like to suggest that you do not change indicators or maturity levels proposed by others but just add yours.

    The editor team will use all the suggestions in step 3, grouping and consolidating the suggestions, to be discussed in the online meeting on 18 June.

    Kind regards, Makx

    De: keith.jeffery=keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk@rda-groups.org [mailto:keith.jeffery=keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk@rda-groups.org] En nombre de keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk
    Enviado el: viernes, 26 de abril de 2019 11:29
    Para: 'FAIR Data Maturity Model WG'
    Asunto: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Makx –

    Thanks. I have made some suggestions for F1, F2, F3 (in red). Can you guide me – is this the sort of thing you had in mind?

    On a practical point; can the spreadsheet be edited in ‘suggestion mode’ – I could not find a way to do that.

    Best

    Keith

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Keith G Jeffery Consultants

    Prof Keith G Jeffery

    E: keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk

    T: +44 7768 446088

    S: keithgjeffery

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the

    intended recipient only. If you are not one of the intended

    recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but

    return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From: mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org > On Behalf Of makxdekkers
    Sent: 25 April 2019 16:23
    To: 'FAIR Data Maturity Model WG' >
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Keith,

    Thanks for your suggestion.

    Actually, what you suggest is what we try to do with the collaborative sheet at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gvMfbw46oV1idztsr586aG6-teSn2cPW....

    The ‘specific assertions’ that you mention are more or less what we call ‘indicators’ in sheet 3. Development, with suggestions for ‘maturity levels’ for the indicators. These levels could act as ‘metrics’, although most of them would probably be qualitative rather than quantitative.

    The idea is that we wouldn’t try to come up with a fixed set of questions – which would be yet-another-set-of-questions – but a set of indicators for which anyone could formulate questions, and in many cases, the existing questionnaires will already include questions related to the indicators.

    Feel free to try and derive some ‘specific assertions’ or ‘indicators’ from the existing work and enter them in the sheet!

    Makx.

    From: keith.jeffery=keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk@rda-groups.org > On Behalf Of keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk
    Sent: 25 April 2019 17:02
    To: 'FAIR Data Maturity Model WG' >
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Makx –

    I agree these are excellent mechanisms – and we should preserve the discussions which – I believe – have been illuminating.

    For me the problem persists: how to take abstract FAIR principles and turn them into concrete assertions to be challenged or questions which can be tested leading to metric values (binary or scalar)?

    Your excellent landscape study indicates some approaches. The FAIRMetrics work (Go FAIR, FAIRSharing) seems very relevant.

    I find the paper ‘FAIR Metrics Evaluation Results’ at ZIP at https://zenodo.org/record/1305060#.XMHGFehKhnI useful. However, many (most) of the answers are pointers to documents (and in some cases general documents not specific to the question or FAIR principle) and not a clear metric value. However the structure of the questions (and the sub-questions) is – I believe – relevant. Could we perhaps use their question structure as a basis and elaborate from there to specific assertions or questions to which the answers could be empirical metric values?

    Best

    Keith

  • Keith Jeffery's picture

    Author: Keith Jeffery

    Date: 27 Apr, 2019

    Makx –
    Thanks for the guidance. I have restored pre-exiting entries to their former state and added my entries.
    When I get a moment I’ll look beyond F1,2,3
    Best
    Keith

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Keith G Jeffery Consultants
    Prof Keith G Jeffery
    E: keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk
    T: +44 7768 446088
    S: keithgjeffery
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the
    intended recipient only. If you are not one of the intended
    recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but
    return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From: mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org On Behalf Of makxdekkers
    Sent: 27 April 2019 08:07
    To: 'FAIR Data Maturity Model WG'
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Keith,

    Thanks for this. Your suggestions are fine. Anyone should feel free to propose whatever indicator they think makes sense.
    However, I would like to suggest that you do not change indicators or maturity levels proposed by others but just add yours.
    The editor team will use all the suggestions in step 3, grouping and consolidating the suggestions, to be discussed in the online meeting on 18 June.

    Kind regards, Makx

    De: keith.jeffery=keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk@rda-groups.org [mailto:keith.jeffery=keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk@rda-groups.org] En nombre de keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk
    Enviado el: viernes, 26 de abril de 2019 11:29
    Para: 'FAIR Data Maturity Model WG' >
    Asunto: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Makx –
    Thanks. I have made some suggestions for F1, F2, F3 (in red). Can you guide me – is this the sort of thing you had in mind?
    On a practical point; can the spreadsheet be edited in ‘suggestion mode’ – I could not find a way to do that.
    Best
    Keith

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Keith G Jeffery Consultants
    Prof Keith G Jeffery
    E: keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk
    T: +44 7768 446088
    S: keithgjeffery
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the
    intended recipient only. If you are not one of the intended
    recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but
    return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From: mail=makxdekkers.com@rda-groups.org > On Behalf Of makxdekkers
    Sent: 25 April 2019 16:23
    To: 'FAIR Data Maturity Model WG' >
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Keith,

    Thanks for your suggestion.

    Actually, what you suggest is what we try to do with the collaborative sheet at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gvMfbw46oV1idztsr586aG6-teSn2cPW....

    The ‘specific assertions’ that you mention are more or less what we call ‘indicators’ in sheet 3. Development, with suggestions for ‘maturity levels’ for the indicators. These levels could act as ‘metrics’, although most of them would probably be qualitative rather than quantitative.

    The idea is that we wouldn’t try to come up with a fixed set of questions – which would be yet-another-set-of-questions – but a set of indicators for which anyone could formulate questions, and in many cases, the existing questionnaires will already include questions related to the indicators.

    Feel free to try and derive some ‘specific assertions’ or ‘indicators’ from the existing work and enter them in the sheet!

    Makx.

    From: keith.jeffery=keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk@rda-groups.org > On Behalf Of keith.jeffery@keithgjefferyconsultants.co.uk
    Sent: 25 April 2019 17:02
    To: 'FAIR Data Maturity Model WG' >
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

    Makx –
    I agree these are excellent mechanisms – and we should preserve the discussions which – I believe – have been illuminating.
    For me the problem persists: how to take abstract FAIR principles and turn them into concrete assertions to be challenged or questions which can be tested leading to metric values (binary or scalar)?
    Your excellent landscape study indicates some approaches. The FAIRMetrics work (Go FAIR, FAIRSharing) seems very relevant.
    I find the paper ‘FAIR Metrics Evaluation Results’ at ZIP at https://zenodo.org/record/1305060#.XMHGFehKhnI useful. However, many (most) of the answers are pointers to documents (and in some cases general documents not specific to the question or FAIR principle) and not a clear metric value. However the structure of the questions (and the sub-questions) is – I believe – relevant. Could we perhaps use their question structure as a basis and elaborate from there to specific assertions or questions to which the answers could be empirical metric values?
    Best
    Keith

submit a comment