Skip to main content


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: 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:


Keith –
I may not be available 18th June unfortunately but if I can shuffle things I’ll attend. In case of my non-attendance I’d like to make some comments.
Slide 15: in my opinion use of a landing page invalidates FAIR because it requires a human intervention step between the initial metadata (which points to the landing page, not the asset) and access to the asset. This precludes (unless one does clever tricks with MIME types and the like) autonomic access to the asset based on a query on the metadata.
Slide 22 there is a difference between machine-readable and machine-understandable; I suggest the latter is also required for autonomic processing.
Slide23: I support Andrea’s comment. Does FAIR compliance mean that the vocabulary is all of F,A,I,R – in which case it probably needs to be an ontology.
Slide24: qualification of references: since vocabularies and terms change should this not have a temporal range for validity? Two terms with different lexical representations with the same meaning (but a change in common usage) may be distinguished by different time ranges.
Slide 25: although guidelines may be useful surely the question concerns whether there are sufficient attributes (rich metadata) presumably with formal syntax and declared semantics to allow re-use (or for that matter F, A and I)
Slide 27: I believe this is insufficient. Surely the end-user (or a software agent acting on their behalf) needs to know if there is machine readable or machine understandable provenance information since this is essential for contextualisation (relevance, quality) of the asset based on the available metadata
Slide28: should it not be following a schema rather than a template? This would imply constraints to ensure conformance.
Keith G Jeffery Consultants
Prof Keith G Jeffery
E: ***@***.***
T: +44 7768 446088
S: keithgjeffery
The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the
intended recipient only. If you are not one of the intended
recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but
return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it.
– Show quoted text -From: keith.russell=***@***.*** On Behalf Of kgrussell
Sent: 12 June 2019 01:27
To: ***@***.***
Subject: [fair_maturity] Reminder for online meeting, 18 June 2019
Dear members of the RDA FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group,
This is a reminder for the next online meeting of the Working Group will take place on 18 June 2019, as usual in two sessions, the first at 0700UTC (local times) and the second at 1500UTC (local times).
In the call, we intend to discuss the interim results of the collaborative work on the Google spreadsheet [1]. We will also talk about a possible approach to the next phase of the development, aiming to consolidate the proposed indicators and maturity levels. Finally, we will gather opinions on the structure and contents of a face-to-face meeting at the 14th RDA Plenary in Finland in October 2019.
In order to give the members the opportunity to look at what we will present at the online meeting, we have published the draft slide deck to be used on the Working Group page at RDA [2].
The next online meeting of the Working Group after the one next week is scheduled for 12 September 2019. In the period between 18 June and 12 September, we would like to invite the Working Group to:
* Provide feedback to the proposals presented at the meeting of 18 June – if at all possible, by the 30th of June
* Contribute more indicators and maturity levels – until the 31st of August
* Share ideas about consolidation and weighting of indicators and maturity levels
The Google spreadsheet will remain open for contributions, and the GitHub repository [3] is still available for your feedback and suggestions.
By the time of the next online meeting on 12 September, we are hoping to present a more stable set of indicators to be included in a first draft of the maturity model. Towards that goal, the editorial team will summarise the contributions received until the 31st of August in the first week of September in preparation for the call.
We are looking forward to discussing the current status and further work with many of you next week!
Kind regards,
Edit and Keith and the editorial team,
Keith Russell
Manager Engagements
P +61 3 9905 6273
M +61 427 452 342
[Image removed by sender.]
Monash University
Building T, Ground Floor
100 Sir John Monash Drive, Caulfield East VIC 3145, AUSTRALIA
PO Box 197, Caulfield East VIC 3145, AUSTRALIA
[Image removed by sender.]
[Image removed by sender.]
[Image removed by sender.]
ARDC acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the lands
that we live and work on across Australia and pays its respect
to Elders past and present.
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.