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/

#130355

RDA Admin
Administrator

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
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