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/

#130548

Ge Peng
Member

Dear Makx,
Thank you for your response. Yes, my proposed indicators and therefore the
maturity levels can be further modified to be more granular. For examples,
PI/PIL_11 can be modified to evaluate metadata and data separately, while
PI/PIL_46 can be modified to evaluate data and associated information
separately; and the associated information can be further separated into
software package, provenance, quality descriptive information, etc.
I am, however, concerned that we could potentially end up with too many
individual indicators for practical reason. On the other hand, it is
necessary to have sufficient indicators to cover all aspects to ensure the
compliance to the FAIR data principles.
Many of those individual indicators may be related to each other to some
degrees. Striking a balance between sufficient but *not too many*
indicators will likely be challenging but it is something we may have to
do.
Having said all that, I am fine with both approaches and willing to work
with the WG and the editorial team towards finalizing the maturity levels
for selected indicators if needed.
Best regards,
— Peng