RDA FAIR data maturity model: Invitation to contribute!

14 Oct 2019
Groups audience: 

Dear members of the RDA FAIR data maturity model Working Group,
The date of our next workshop, which will take place at the 14th RDA
plenary in Helsinki, is fast approaching. Two weeks ago, we shared with you
a survey with the aim to propose a final set of priorities at our next
workshop. We already thank those of you who responded, we certainly can see
that some trends are emerging.
Yet, as we seek to have priorities to be accepted by the largest number of
people and communities, we encourage those of you who did not respond yet
to *share your opinion about the prioritisation of indicators *[1]. We
thank you in advance for devoting 5 minutes of your time to the survey and
we remind you that no account nor registration is needed. *Please note
that, the survey will be closed the 20th of October 2019*.
As a next step towards a common set of assessment criteria, we started to
explore a scoring mechanism relying on the FAIRness indicators and their
prioritisation. The underlying idea is to assess and objectively score the
implementation level of the FAIR principles. This idea is currently being
discussed on the GitHub [2]. Please don’t hesitate to comment on that
proposal and suggest any change in the approach.
Lastly, we will soon post the presentation for the workshop on the RDA FAIR
data maturity model web page. The workshop will be held *on the 23rd of
October* in the Dipoli Bldg - Kaleva room during the Breakout 2 from *14:30
to 16:00 local Helsinki time* (11:30 to 13:00 UTC). If you cannot
physically attend the meeting a remote access is available [3].
Kind regards,
The editorial team
[1] https://forms.gle/uWXpT27i2RiSei5V7
[2] https://github.com/RDA-FAIR/FAIR-data-maturity-model-WG/issues/34
[3] https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/708547405
--
This e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed.
If
an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail,
please
notify the author by replying to this e-mail. If you are not
the intended
recipient you must not use, disclose, copy, print or
rely on this e-mail.
PwC may monitor outgoing and incoming e-mails andother
telecommunications on its e-mail and telecommunications systems.

  • Siri Jodha Khalsa's picture

    Author: Siri Jodha Khalsa

    Date: 15 Oct, 2019

    Hello All,
    I'm okay with the prioritization of the indicators as shown in
    the survey. However, indicator R1.2-01M,
    "Metadata includes provenance information according to
    community-specific guidelines", uses the term "guidelines" while
    the term "standards" is used when referring to community
    conventions in all the other indicators. I think some
    clarification on when conformance to standards (presumably de jure
    standards) is needed and when guidelines suffice. Moreover, how
    the latter are codified and deemed to be community endorsed.
    Cheers,
    SiriJodha

    On 10/14/19 2:17 PM, ChrisB via FAIR
    Data Maturity Model WG wrote:

    cite="mid:***@***.***">

    0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
    lang="EN">Dear members of the RDA FAIR data maturity
    model Working Group,

    0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
    lang="EN"> 

    0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
    lang="EN">The date of our
    next workshop, which will take place at the 14th RDA
    plenary in Helsinki, is
    fast approaching. Two weeks ago, we shared with you a
    survey with the aim to
    propose a final set of priorities at our next workshop. We
    already thank those
    of you who responded, we certainly can see that some
    trends are emerging.

    0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
    lang="EN"> 

    0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
    lang="EN">Yet, as we seek to
    have priorities to be accepted by the largest number of
    people and communities,
    we encourage those of you who did not respond yet to share
    your opinion about the prioritisation of indicators [1].
    We
    thank you in advance for devoting 5 minutes of your time
    to the survey and we
    remind you that no account nor registration is needed. Please
    note that, the survey will be closed the 20th
    of
    October 2019.

    0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
    lang="EN"> 

    0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
    lang="EN">As a next step
    towards a common set of assessment criteria, we started to
    explore a scoring
    mechanism relying on the FAIRness indicators and their
    prioritisation. The
    underlying idea is to assess and objectively score the
    implementation level of
    the FAIR principles. This idea is currently being
    discussed on the GitHub [2].
    Please don’t hesitate to comment on that proposal and
    suggest any change in the
    approach.

    0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
    lang="EN"> 

    0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
    lang="EN">Lastly, we will
    soon post the presentation for the workshop on the RDA
    FAIR data maturity model
    web page. The workshop will be held on
    the 23rd of October in the Dipoli Bldg -
    Kaleva room during the
    Breakout 2 from 14:30 to 16:00 local
    Helsinki time (11:30 to 13:00 UTC). If you cannot
    physically attend the
    meeting a remote access is available [3].

    0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
    lang="EN"> 

    0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
    lang="EN">Kind regards,

    0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
    lang="EN"> 

    0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
    lang="EN">The editorial team

    0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
    lang="EN"> 

    0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
    style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"
    lang="EN">[1]
    href="https://forms.gle/uWXpT27i2RiSei5V7"
    style="color:blue" moz-do-not-send="true">
    style="color:rgb(17,85,204);background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">https://forms.gle/uWXpT27i2RiSei5V7
    style="color:rgb(17,85,204);background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">

    0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
    style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"
    lang="EN">[2]
    href="https://github.com/RDA-FAIR/FAIR-data-maturity-model-WG/issues/34"
    style="color:blue" moz-do-not-send="true">
    style="color:rgb(17,85,204);background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">https://github.com/RDA-FAIR/FAIR-data-maturity-model-WG/issues/34
    style="color:rgb(17,85,204)">

    0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
    lang="EN">[3]
    href="https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/708547405"
    style="color:blue" moz-do-not-send="true">https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/708547405

    style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">This e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed.

    style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail,

    style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">please notify the author by replying to this e-mail. If you are not

    style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy, print or

    style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">rely on this e-mail.

    style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">

    style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">PwC may monitor outgoing and incoming e-mails and
    other telecommunications on its e-mail and telecommunications systems.

    --
    Full post:
    https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/rda-fair-data-maturity-model-invitation-contribute
    Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post:
    https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/65835

    --
    Siri-Jodha Singh KHALSA, Ph.D., SMIEEE
    National Snow and Ice Data Center
    University of Colorado
    Boulder, CO 80309-0449 Phone: 1-303-492-1445 GV: 1-303-736-9976
    http://cires.colorado.edu/~khalsa
    http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9217-5550

  • Makx Dekkers's picture

    Author: Makx Dekkers

    Date: 15 Oct, 2019

    Dear SiriJodha,
    We’ll take your comment into account and use ‘standard’ consistently.
    However, we do still have a discussion about how formal a ‘standard’ needs to be. See for example https://github.com/RDA-FAIR/FAIR-data-maturity-model-WG/issues/29#issuec.... Whenever they exist, it should be recommended to conform to de-jure standards but it may also be necessary to allow for de-facto standards, and even specifications that may become standards in the future – for example to allow for research in new and innovative areas that are so young that there has been no time to develop standards.
    Would you agree?
    Kind regards, Makx.
    - Show quoted text -From: ***@***.***-groups.org <***@***.***-groups.org>
    Sent: 15 October 2019 09:28
    To: ***@***.***-groups.org
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] RDA FAIR data maturity model: Invitation to contribute!
    Hello All,
    I'm okay with the prioritization of the indicators as shown in the survey. However, indicator R1.2-01M,
    "Metadata includes provenance information according to community-specific guidelines", uses the term "guidelines" while the term "standards" is used when referring to community conventions in all the other indicators. I think some clarification on when conformance to standards (presumably de jure standards) is needed and when guidelines suffice. Moreover, how the latter are codified and deemed to be community endorsed.
    Cheers,
    SiriJodha
    On 10/14/19 2:17 PM, ChrisB via FAIR Data Maturity Model WG wrote:
    Dear members of the RDA FAIR data maturity model Working Group,
    The date of our next workshop, which will take place at the 14th RDA plenary in Helsinki, is fast approaching. Two weeks ago, we shared with you a survey with the aim to propose a final set of priorities at our next workshop. We already thank those of you who responded, we certainly can see that some trends are emerging.
    Yet, as we seek to have priorities to be accepted by the largest number of people and communities, we encourage those of you who did not respond yet to share your opinion about the prioritisation of indicators [1]. We thank you in advance for devoting 5 minutes of your time to the survey and we remind you that no account nor registration is needed. Please note that, the survey will be closed the 20th of October 2019.
    As a next step towards a common set of assessment criteria, we started to explore a scoring mechanism relying on the FAIRness indicators and their prioritisation. The underlying idea is to assess and objectively score the implementation level of the FAIR principles. This idea is currently being discussed on the GitHub [2]. Please don’t hesitate to comment on that proposal and suggest any change in the approach.
    Lastly, we will soon post the presentation for the workshop on the RDA FAIR data maturity model web page. The workshop will be held on the 23rd of October in the Dipoli Bldg - Kaleva room during the Breakout 2 from 14:30 to 16:00 local Helsinki time (11:30 to 13:00 UTC). If you cannot physically attend the meeting a remote access is available [3].
    Kind regards,
    The editorial team
    [1] https://forms.gle/uWXpT27i2RiSei5V7
    [2] https://github.com/RDA-FAIR/FAIR-data-maturity-model-WG/issues/34
    [3] https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/708547405
    This e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed.
    If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail,
    please notify the author by replying to this e-mail. If you are not
    the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy, print or
    rely on this e-mail.
    PwC may monitor outgoing and incoming e-mails and
    other telecommunications on its e-mail and telecommunications systems.
    --
    Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/rda-f...
    Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/65835
    --
    Siri-Jodha Singh KHALSA, Ph.D., SMIEEE
    National Snow and Ice Data Center
    University of Colorado
    Boulder, CO 80309-0449 Phone: 1-303-492-1445 GV: 1-303-736-9976
    http://cires.colorado.edu/~khalsa
    http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9217-5550

  • Siri Jodha Khalsa's picture

    Author: Siri Jodha Khalsa

    Date: 15 Oct, 2019

    Dear Makx,
    Thanks for the reply, and apologies for not having followed all
    of the discussion on github (I am watching it, but the volume of
    messages is more than I can keep up with).
    Certainly, it is undesirable to require that all metadata conform
    to a de jure standard. The crux of the issue I was raising is
    contained in the following questions. When does a community
    guideline become a community standard? if a repository that serves
    a particular community develops a custom metadata standard, they
    can declare that a "community standard", no?  But this would not
    advance interoperability or reuse outside of that community. What
    is the minimal size of a community that can declare its own
    standard? What is the process for achieving and verifying
    community endorsement?
    I rather liked Michel Dumontier's suggested requirement that
    every community specification is encoded in a manner that allows
    computational verification of 1) syntax, and 2) content
    expectations. I may have missed some replies, but apparently this
    suggestion did not fly, perhaps because it was deemed too onerous.
    Cheers,
    SiriJodha

    On 10/15/19 12:50 PM, Makx Dekkers
    wrote:

    cite="mid:***@***.***">

    medium)">

    style="color:windowtext;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Dear
    SiriJodha,

    style="color:windowtext;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"> 

    style="color:windowtext;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">We’ll
    take your comment into account and use ‘standard’
    consistently.

    style="color:windowtext;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"> 

    style="color:windowtext;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">However,
    we do still have a discussion about how formal a ‘standard’
    needs to be. See for example
    href="https://github.com/RDA-FAIR/FAIR-data-maturity-model-WG/issues/29#issuecomment-522873345"
    moz-do-not-send="true">https://github.com/RDA-FAIR/FAIR-data-maturity-model-WG/issues/29#issuecomment-522873345.
    Whenever they exist, it should be recommended to conform to
    de-jure standards but it may also be necessary to
    allow for de-facto standards, and even
    specifications that may become standards in the future – for
    example to allow for research in new and innovative areas
    that are so young that there has been no time to develop
    standards.

    style="color:windowtext;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"> 

    style="color:windowtext;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Would
    you agree?

    style="color:windowtext;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"> 

    style="color:windowtext;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Kind
    regards, Makx.

    style="color:windowtext;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"> 

    style="color:windowtext;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"> 

    1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">

    lang="EN-US">From:
    style="color:windowtext" lang="EN-US">
    ***@***.***-groups.org
    <***@***.***-groups.org>
    Sent: 15 October 2019 09:28
    To: ***@***.***-groups.org
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] RDA FAIR data
    maturity model: Invitation to contribute!

     
    Hello All,
    I'm okay with the prioritization of the indicators as shown
    in the survey. However, indicator R1.2-01M,
    "Metadata includes provenance information according to
    community-specific guidelines", uses the term "guidelines"
    while the term "standards" is used when referring to community
    conventions in all the other indicators. I think some
    clarification on when conformance to standards (presumably de
    jure standards) is needed and when guidelines suffice.
    Moreover, how the latter are codified and deemed to be
    community endorsed.
    Cheers,
    SiriJodha

    On 10/14/19 2:17 PM, ChrisB via FAIR Data
    Maturity Model WG wrote:

    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"
    lang="EN">Dear members of the RDA FAIR data maturity
    model Working Group,
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">

    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"
    lang="EN"> 
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">

    style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"
    lang="EN">The date of our next workshop, which will
    take place at the 14th RDA plenary in Helsinki, is
    fast approaching. Two weeks ago, we shared with you a
    survey with the aim to propose a final set of
    priorities at our next workshop. We already thank
    those of you who responded, we certainly can see that
    some trends are emerging.
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">

    style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"
    lang="EN"> 
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">

    style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"
    lang="EN">Yet, as we seek to have priorities to be
    accepted by the largest number of people and
    communities, we encourage those of you who did not
    respond yet to share your opinion about the
    prioritisation of indicators [1]. We thank you
    in advance for devoting 5 minutes of your time to the
    survey and we remind you that no account nor
    registration is needed. Please note that, the
    survey will be closed the 20th of October
    2019.
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">

    style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"
    lang="EN"> 
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">

    style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"
    lang="EN">As a next step towards a common set of
    assessment criteria, we started to explore a scoring
    mechanism relying on the FAIRness indicators and their
    prioritisation. The underlying idea is to assess and
    objectively score the implementation level of the FAIR
    principles. This idea is currently being discussed on
    the GitHub [2]. Please don’t hesitate to comment on
    that proposal and suggest any change in the approach.

    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">

    style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"
    lang="EN"> 
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">

    style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"
    lang="EN">Lastly, we will soon post the presentation
    for the workshop on the RDA FAIR data maturity model
    web page. The workshop will be held on the 23rd
    of October in the Dipoli Bldg - Kaleva room
    during the Breakout 2 from 14:30 to 16:00 local
    Helsinki time (11:30 to 13:00 UTC). If you
    cannot physically attend the meeting a remote access
    is available [3].
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">

    style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"
    lang="EN"> 
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">

    style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"
    lang="EN">Kind regards,
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">

    style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"
    lang="EN"> 
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">

    style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"
    lang="EN">The editorial team
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">

    style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"
    lang="EN"> 
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">

    style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"
    lang="EN">[1]
    href="https://forms.gle/uWXpT27i2RiSei5V7"
    moz-do-not-send="true">https://forms.gle/uWXpT27i2RiSei5V7
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">

    style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"
    lang="EN">[2]
    href="https://github.com/RDA-FAIR/FAIR-data-maturity-model-WG/issues/34"
    moz-do-not-send="true">https://github.com/RDA-FAIR/FAIR-data-maturity-model-WG/issues/34
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">

    style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"
    lang="EN">[3]
    href="https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/708547405"
    moz-do-not-send="true">https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/708547405
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">

     

    style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222;background:white">This
    e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is
    addressed.

    style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222;background:white">If
    an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this
    e-mail,

    style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222;background:white">please
    notify the author by replying to this e-mail. If you are
    not

    style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222;background:white">the
    intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy, print
    or

    style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222;background:white">rely
    on this e-mail.

    style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222;background:white">PwC
    may monitor outgoing and incoming e-mails and

    style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222;background:white">other
    telecommunications on its e-mail and telecommunications
    systems.
    --
    Full post:
    href="https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/rda-fair-data-maturity-model-invitation-contribute"
    moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/rda-fair-data-maturity-model-invitation-contribute
    Manage my subscriptions:
    href="https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist"
    moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post:
    href="https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/65835"
    moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/65835

    -- Siri-Jodha Singh KHALSA, Ph.D., SMIEEENational Snow and Ice Data CenterUniversity of ColoradoBoulder, CO 80309-0449 Phone: 1-303-492-1445 GV: 1-303-736-9976http://cires.colorado.edu/~khalsahttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-9217-5550

    --
    Siri-Jodha Singh KHALSA, Ph.D., SMIEEE
    National Snow and Ice Data Center
    University of Colorado
    Boulder, CO 80309-0449 Phone: 1-303-492-1445 GV: 1-303-736-9976
    http://cires.colorado.edu/~khalsa
    http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9217-5550

  • Leyla Garcia's picture

    Author: Leyla Garcia

    Date: 15 Oct, 2019

    Dear all,
    I like Michel's idea, shared here by SiriJodha. Just to keep record of
    this, I have added a comment to the GitHub thread (
    https://github.com/RDA-FAIR/FAIR-data-maturity-model-WG/issues/29#issuec...
    )
    Regards,
    On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 1:55 PM sjskhalsa via FAIR Data Maturity Model WG <
    ***@***.***-groups.org> wrote:

  • Susanna-Assunta Sansone's picture

    Author: Susanna-Assunta...

    Date: 15 Oct, 2019

    Hi all,
    Understanding the status and evolution of a community standards is what FAIRsharing (https://fairsharing.org) does: tracking standards life cycle (in development, ready, deprecated) and interlink them to which repositories (if one of more, hence its real uptake) implement them is a way to see in practice what standards are actually used in various disciplines.
    My regards
    Susanna
    (Sent from my phone)
    --
    Prof. Susanna-Assunta Sansone, PhD
    Associate Director, Oxford e-Research Centre
    Associate Professor, Dep of Engineering Science
    University of Oxford, UK
    https://sansonegroup.eng.ox.ac.uk
    ORCiD: 0000-0001-5306-5690
    @SusannaASansone
    --

  • Siri Jodha Khalsa's picture

    Author: Siri Jodha Khalsa

    Date: 15 Oct, 2019

    Hi Susanna,
    Thanks for referring to the fairsharing.org standards registry,
    of which I am only vaguely familiar. Ambitious effort, to be sure.
    I can't tell how many of the entries are metadata standards, since
    this is not one of the "standard type" classifications:

    • Terminology Artifact
    • Model/Format
    • Reporting Guideline
    • Metric
    • Identifier Schema

    However, under "Domain" there is the category "Resource
    Metadata", of which there are 59 records, only 4 of which are
    "recommended" (which begs the question, how is the "recommended"
    status attained?). SPARQL (a protocol) seems to be mislabeled.

    I would expect the
    href="https://fairsharing.org/FAIRsharing.hp9s46">Climate and
    Forecast (CF) metadata conventions to be tagged as resource
    metadata, but instead the standard type is "model/format".
    Moreover, I wonder why it is not "recommended". Also, it is
    certainly maintained, but not tagged as such.

    Okay, the registry is imperfect, but still a valuable resource.
    Would we suggest that in order to comply with R1-01M, R1.2-01M,
    R1.3-01M, R1.3-01D, R1.3-02M, and R1.3-02D the standard be entered
    in the FAIRSharing registry?
    Cheers,
    SiriJodha

    On 10/15/19 5:33 PM, SAS Sansone wrote:

    cite="mid:***@***.***">

    Hi all,

    Understanding the status and evolution of a community
    standards is what FAIRsharing (
    href="https://fairsharing.org/" moz-do-not-send="true">https://fairsharing.org) does:
    tracking standards life cycle (in development, ready,
    deprecated) and interlink them to which repositories (if one
    of more, hence its real uptake) implement them is a way to see
    in practice what standards are actually used in various
    disciplines.
    My regards 
    Susanna 

    (Sent from my phone)

    0);">-- 

    Prof. Susanna-Assunta Sansone, PhD
    Associate Director, Oxford e-Research Centre
    Associate Professor, Dep of Engineering Science
    University of Oxford, UK


    moz-do-not-send="true">https://sansonegroup.eng.ox.ac.uk
    ORCiD: 0000-0001-5306-5690
    @SusannaASansone
    --

    On 15 Oct 2019, at 17:02, ljgarcia via FAIR Data Maturity
    Model WG <
    moz-do-not-send="true">***@***.***-groups.org>
    wrote:

    Dear all,

    I like Michel's idea, shared here by SiriJodha.
    Just to keep record of this, I have added a comment to
    the GitHub thread (
    href="https://github.com/RDA-FAIR/FAIR-data-maturity-model-WG/issues/29#issuecomment-542256600"
    moz-do-not-send="true">https://github.com/RDA-FAIR/FAIR-data-maturity-model-WG/issues/29#issuecomment-542256600)

    Regards,

    On Tue, Oct 15, 2019
    at 1:55 PM sjskhalsa via FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
    <
    moz-do-not-send="true">***@***.***-groups.org>
    wrote:

    0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
    rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
    Dear Makx,
    Thanks for the reply, and apologies for not
    having followed all of the discussion on github (I
    am watching it, but the volume of messages is more
    than I can keep up with).
    Certainly, it is undesirable to require that all
    metadata conform to a de jure standard. The crux
    of the issue I was raising is contained in the
    following questions. When does a community
    guideline become a community standard? if a
    repository that serves a particular community
    develops a custom metadata standard, they can
    declare that a "community standard", no?  But this
    would not advance interoperability or reuse
    outside of that community. What is the minimal
    size of a community that can declare its own
    standard? What is the process for achieving and
    verifying community endorsement?
    I rather liked Michel Dumontier's suggested
    requirement that every community specification is
    encoded in a manner that allows computational
    verification of 1) syntax, and 2) content
    expectations. I may have missed some replies, but
    apparently this suggestion did not fly, perhaps
    because it was deemed too onerous.
    Cheers,
    SiriJodha

    On 10/15/19 12:50 PM, Makx Dekkers wrote:

    style="color:windowtext">Dear SiriJodha,

    style="color:windowtext"> 

    style="color:windowtext">We’ll take your
    comment into account and use ‘standard’
    consistently.

    style="color:windowtext"> 

    style="color:windowtext">However, we do
    still have a discussion about how formal a
    ‘standard’ needs to be. See for example
    href="https://github.com/RDA-FAIR/FAIR-data-maturity-model-WG/issues/29#issuecomment-522873345"
    target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://github.com/RDA-FAIR/FAIR-data-maturity-model-WG/issues/29#issuecomment-522873345.
    Whenever they exist, it should be
    recommended to conform to de-jure
    standards but it may also be necessary to
    allow for de-facto standards, and
    even specifications that may become
    standards in the future – for example to
    allow for research in new and innovative
    areas that are so young that there has been
    no time to develop standards.

    style="color:windowtext"> 

    style="color:windowtext">Would you agree?

    style="color:windowtext"> 

    style="color:windowtext">Kind regards, Makx.

    style="color:windowtext"> 

    style="color:windowtext"> 

    currentcolor currentcolor;border-style:solid
    none none;border-width:1pt medium
    medium;padding:3pt 0cm 0cm">

    style="color:windowtext" lang="EN-US">From:
    style="color:windowtext" lang="EN-US">
    href="mailto:***@***.***-groups.org" target="_blank"
    moz-do-not-send="true">***@***.***-groups.org

    href="mailto:***@***.***-groups.org"
    target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><***@***.***-groups.org>

    Sent: 15 October 2019 09:28
    To:
    href="mailto:***@***.***-groups.org"
    target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">***@***.***-groups.org
    Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] RDA
    FAIR data maturity model: Invitation to
    contribute!

     
    Hello All,
    I'm okay with the prioritization of the
    indicators as shown in the survey. However,
    indicator R1.2-01M,
    "Metadata includes provenance information
    according to community-specific guidelines",
    uses the term "guidelines" while the term
    "standards" is used when referring to
    community conventions in all the other
    indicators. I think some clarification on when
    conformance to standards (presumably de jure
    standards) is needed and when guidelines
    suffice. Moreover, how the latter are codified
    and deemed to be community endorsed.
    Cheers,
    SiriJodha

    On 10/14/19 2:17 PM,
    ChrisB via FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
    wrote:

    style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">

    style="line-height:115%">
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"
    lang="EN">Dear members of the RDA FAIR
    data maturity model Working Group,
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">

    style="line-height:115%">
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"
    lang="EN"> 
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">

    style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN">The date of
    our next workshop, which will take
    place at the 14th RDA plenary in
    Helsinki, is fast approaching. Two
    weeks ago, we shared with you a survey
    with the aim to propose a final set of
    priorities at our next workshop. We
    already thank those of you who
    responded, we certainly can see that
    some trends are emerging.
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">

    style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN"> 
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">

    style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN">Yet, as we
    seek to have priorities to be accepted
    by the largest number of people and
    communities, we encourage those of you
    who did not respond yet to share
    your opinion about the
    prioritisation of indicators [1].
    We thank you in advance for devoting 5
    minutes of your time to the survey and
    we remind you that no account nor
    registration is needed. Please
    note that, the survey will be closed
    the 20th of October 2019.

    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">

    style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN"> 
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">

    style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN">As a next
    step towards a common set of
    assessment criteria, we started to
    explore a scoring mechanism relying on
    the FAIRness indicators and their
    prioritisation. The underlying idea is
    to assess and objectively score the
    implementation level of the FAIR
    principles. This idea is currently
    being discussed on the GitHub [2].
    Please don’t hesitate to comment on
    that proposal and suggest any change
    in the approach.
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">

    style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN"> 
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">

    style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN">Lastly, we
    will soon post the presentation for
    the workshop on the RDA FAIR data
    maturity model web page. The workshop
    will be held on the 23rd
    of October in the Dipoli Bldg -
    Kaleva room during the Breakout 2 from
    14:30 to 16:00 local Helsinki time
    (11:30 to 13:00 UTC). If you cannot
    physically attend the meeting a remote
    access is available [3].
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">

    style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN"> 
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">

    style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN">Kind regards,

    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">

    style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN"> 
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">

    style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN">The editorial
    team
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">

    style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN"> 
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">

    style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN">[1]
    href="https://forms.gle/uWXpT27i2RiSei5V7"
    target="_blank"
    moz-do-not-send="true">
    style="color:rgb(17,85,204)">https://forms.gle/uWXpT27i2RiSei5V7
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">

    style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN">[2]
    href="https://github.com/RDA-FAIR/FAIR-data-maturity-model-WG/issues/34"
    target="_blank"
    moz-do-not-send="true">
    style="color:rgb(17,85,204)">https://github.com/RDA-FAIR/FAIR-data-maturity-model-WG/issues/34
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">

    style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN">[3]
    href="https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/708547405"
    target="_blank"
    moz-do-not-send="true">https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/708547405
    style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">

     

    style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:rgb(34,34,34);background:white
    none repeat scroll 0% 0%">This e-mail is
    intended only for the person to whom it is
    addressed.

    style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:rgb(34,34,34);background:white
    none repeat scroll 0% 0%">If an addressing
    or transmission error has misdirected this
    e-mail,

    style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:rgb(34,34,34);background:white
    none repeat scroll 0% 0%">please notify
    the author by replying to this e-mail. If
    you are not

    style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:rgb(34,34,34);background:white
    none repeat scroll 0% 0%">the intended
    recipient you must not use, disclose,
    copy, print or

    style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:rgb(34,34,34);background:white
    none repeat scroll 0% 0%">rely on this
    e-mail.

    style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:rgb(34,34,34);background:white
    none repeat scroll 0% 0%">PwC may monitor
    outgoing and incoming e-mails and

    style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:rgb(34,34,34);background:white
    none repeat scroll 0% 0%">other
    telecommunications on its e-mail and
    telecommunications systems.
    --
    Full post:
    href="https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/rda-fair-data-maturity-model-invitation-contribute"
    target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/rda-fair-data-maturity-model-invitation-contribute
    Manage my subscriptions:
    href="https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist"
    target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post:
    href="https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/65835"
    target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/65835

    -- Siri-Jodha Singh KHALSA, Ph.D., SMIEEENational Snow and Ice Data CenterUniversity of ColoradoBoulder, CO 80309-0449 Phone: 1-303-492-1445 GV: 1-303-736-9976http://cires.colorado.edu/~khalsahttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-9217-5550

    --
    Siri-Jodha Singh KHALSA, Ph.D., SMIEEE
    National Snow and Ice Data Center
    University of Colorado
    Boulder, CO 80309-0449 Phone: 1-303-492-1445 GV: 1-303-736-9976
    http://cires.colorado.edu/~khalsa
    http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9217-5550

    --
    Full post:
    href="https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/rda-fair-data-maturity-model-invitation-contribute"
    target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/rda-fair-data-maturity-model-invitation-contribute
    Manage my subscriptions:
    href="https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist"
    target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post:
    href="https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/65835"
    target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/65835

    --
    Full post:
    href="https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/rda-fair-data-maturity-model-invitation-contribute"
    moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/rda-fair-data-maturity-model-invitation-contribute
    Manage my subscriptions:
    href="https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist"
    moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post:
    href="https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/65835"
    moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/65835

    --
    Siri-Jodha Singh KHALSA, Ph.D., SMIEEE
    National Snow and Ice Data Center
    University of Colorado
    Boulder, CO 80309-0449 Phone: 1-303-492-1445 GV: 1-303-736-9976
    http://cires.colorado.edu/~khalsa
    http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9217-5550

  • Susanna-Assunta Sansone's picture

    Author: Susanna-Assunta...

    Date: 15 Oct, 2019

    Dear SiriJodha
    Those you list are types of metadata and data standards; yes we will also make that clearer in FAIRsharing, thanks for pointing this out. Actually one of the issue (which I detail in a couple of my comments on the GitHub thread) is that there are no (globally) agreed ways/labels to classify data and metadata standards.
    FAIRsharing is also and RDA WG*, and even if our output, the FAIRsharing registry has already been delivered (and approved as one of the flagship outputs), we are still actively engaging with the community** therefore we are also happy to lead on this harmonisation of labels if it helps. We could this in collaboration with the Maturity Model WG peraphs.
    Feel free also to added one of our joint session at RDA next week, if you are around.
    My regards
    Susanna
    * https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fairsharing-registry-connecting-data-p...
    ** https://fairsharing.org/communities
    (Sent from my phone)
    --
    Prof. Susanna-Assunta Sansone, PhD
    Associate Director, Oxford e-Research Centre
    Associate Professor, Dep of Engineering Science
    University of Oxford, UK
    https://sansonegroup.eng.ox.ac.uk
    ORCiD: 0000-0001-5306-5690
    @SusannaASansone
    --

submit a comment