Skip to main content

Notice

We are in the process of rolling out a soft launch of the RDA website, which includes a new member platform. Existing RDA members PLEASE REACTIVATE YOUR ACCOUNT using this link: https://rda-login.wicketcloud.com/users/confirmation. Visitors may encounter functionality issues with group pages, navigation, missing content, broken links, etc. As you explore the new site, please provide your feedback using the UserSnap tool on the bottom right corner of each page. Thank you for your understanding and support as we work through all issues as quickly as possible. Stay updated about upcoming features and functionalities: https://www.rd-alliance.org/rda-web-platform-upcoming-features-and-functionalities/

#130658

RDA Admin
Administrator

Dear Ge Peng,
Many thanks for your comments and suggestions.
Yes, it would be very good if you could post your comments on GitHub.
I would suggest to separate the issues per FAIR area.
From your file GePeng_ReviewComments_RDA-FAIR_Findable_Accessible_v0.02 you could create issues with the following issue titles:
* F1: should we recommend the use of universally or globally unique identifier (GUID/UUID)?
* F2: what does it mean to have rich metadata?
* A2: does metadata need to remain accessible for all versions of a dataset?
And you could provide some further details, including your opinion so that others can comment and contribute to the issues.
The other document GePeng_WhatDoesItMean_ToBeFindable_v01r00_20190324 could also be attached to an issue, for example:
* Findable: what does it mean?
The team can then classify the issues under the main heading, e.g. “Findable” and, if relevant, under the appropriate principle, e.g. “F1”. Your second document can also be classified under a label “Levels” and/or “Pathways”.
Kind regards, Makx.
From: Ge Peng – NOAA Affiliate
Sent: 24 March 2019 16:52
To: makxdekkers
Cc: ***@***.***-groups.org; Ge Peng ; Ge Peng
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Further information and GitHub issues
Dear Makx and the editor team,
Thank you very much for the preliminary analysis of all approaches contributed to the survey so far.
I have reviewed the analysis results for findable and accessible and summarized my comments in the attached file. I am not sure if my comments should be considered as a new issue on GitHub: https://github.com/RDA-FAIR/FAIR-data-maturity-model-WG/issues
Please let me know if you would prefer me to upload the file to the site as a new issue.
Dear all: Going through the summary of current approaches and the facets for the FAIR principles multiple times, I share the similar concerns listed on the GitHub and challenges brought up at the telecons. Addressing those issues will help us finalize the scope of the FAIR data MM. Along that line, I have put together a slide for Findable to help me think about potential implementation issues and different use cases.
Since it could also be of help to some of you, I am attaching it here for your reference. I am sure that it does not capture everything. Please feel free to let me know any question or comment you may have – I am more than happy to update it.
Hope my feedbacks are helpful and I am looking to meeting some, if not all, of you at Philadelphia.
Regards,
Ge Peng
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 2:33 PM makxdekkers wrote:
Dear members of the RDA FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group,
Since the first online meetings on 21 and 22 February 2019 (slides and report here ), the editor team has continued working on analysing existing FAIR assessment approaches.
Based on further contributions to the survey , we have taken into account are the NCEI/CICS-NC Data Stewardship Maturity Matrix , the WMO Stewardship Maturity Matrix for Climate Data (SMM-CD) and the NCEI/ESIP-DSC Data Use and Services Maturity Matrix . These additional approaches have been included in the five slide decks on GitHub :
* Findable
* Accessible
* Interoperable
* Reusable
* Beyond the FAIR principles
You are very welcome to review these documents and create issues on GitHub if you have comments or suggestions or if you see anything that we have misunderstood in classifying the questions under the FAIR principles.
I would also like to remind you that we created issues on GitHub that are open for comments in order to gather ideas and opinions on:
* What would be the format of the assessment?
* To whom would the results be targeted?
* What will be the profile of the respondent?
* What would be the essential criteria to be FAIR?
* RDA FAIR data maturity model WG: Methodology & Timeline
* What will be the nature of the assessment?
* When will the FAIRness be assessed?
* What would be the assessed entity?
We will summarise the contributions on these issues, and any further issues created on GitHub, before the face-to-face meeting in Philadelphia on 3 April 2019, in order for the group to take decisions on the scope and the methodology for the work going forward.
Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns.
Many thanks for your consideration!
Kind regards, Makx Dekkers and the editor team

Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/furth
Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62440

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; ***@***.***
ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1986-9115
Following CICS-NC on Facebook