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/

#130441

Ge Peng
Member

Dear Makx and Christophe,
Excellent work by the editorial team. I have complied all the mandatory
indicators and reviewed if they are sufficient for ensuring FAIR data and
if there may be any issue with implementing them.
Attached file in pdf contains a list of the mandatory indicators and my
comments for consideration. Please feel free to correct me if I have missed
or misrepresented anything.
Here is a recap:
*Aspect*
*Comments*
F
Is it necessary to have two individual indicators from the
machine-assessment perspective?
If not, perhaps F1-01D and F1-02D can be combined as one: “Data is
identified by a universally
unique and persistent identifier”
I
There is no mandatory indicator for interoperability. I do not see any
mandatory indicator from
this list for ensuring data to be interoperable, perhaps R1.3-01D but see
my comment below.
R
R1.3-01D is ambiguous. There are well-established community metadata
standards. Are there
any well-established community data standards? What community standards
does it refer to for data to be
compliant with: file naming conventions, file formats, file structures,
standard variable names, …?
Implementation of this indicator may be extremely arbitrary.
Hope it helps.
Ge Peng