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/

#130526

Thanks, Max.
Looking at which FAIR principles may apply to (meta)data vocabularies, my first impression is that the following could all be relevant:
F1. (Meta)data are assigned a globally unique and persistent identifier
F2. Data are described with rich metadata (defined by R1 below)
F3. Metadata clearly and explicitly include the identifier of the data they describe
I1. (Meta)data use a formal, accessible, shared, and broadly applicable language for knowledge representation.
I2. (Meta)data use vocabularies that follow FAIR principles
I3. (Meta)data include qualified references to other (meta)data
R1. Meta(data) are richly described with a plurality of accurate and relevant attributes
R1.1. (Meta)data are released with a clear and accessible data usage license
R1.2. (Meta)data are associated with detailed provenance
R1.3. (Meta)data meet domain-relevant community standards
The problem is to clarify how these principles should be applied to and tested on vocabularies.
For instance (and just thinking aloud):
F1. -> the (meta)data vocabulary requires the use of global and persistent identifiers
F2. -> no clue, also because the notion of “rich metadata” is relative
F3. -> this could be somehow covered by F1, otherwise: the (meta)data vocabulary requires (or just supports) the specification of the resource identifier(s)
I1. -> I think here the first point is that (meta)data are machine-understandable, but I’m not sure about what is an acceptable language for knowledge representation (unless the plan is to limit this to RDF / OWL et similia)
I2. -> the (meta)data vocabulary complies with all the FAIR principles listed here
I3. -> I wonder whether this may be tested by checking if, e.g., a metadata record about a dataset includes relationships with related resources (e.g., a publication, input data, software)
R1. -> same point of F2.: “richly described with a plurality of accurate and relevant attributes” is relative – so how can it be tested?
R1.1. -> the (meta)data vocabulary must include use conditions / licence as a mandatory field
R1.2. -> the (meta)data vocabulary must include the specification of authors / contributors, publishers (, other information?) as mandatory fields
R1.3. -> the (meta)data vocabulary is widely used in specific domain(s) or across domains – should this require a register to be testable?
Cheers,
Andrea
—-
Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
Scientific Project Officer
European Commission DG JRC
Directorate B – Growth and Innovation
Unit B6 – Digital Economy
Via E. Fermi, 2749 – TP 262
21027 Ispra VA, Italy
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/
—-
The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
position of the European Commission.
– Show quoted text -From: Makx Dekkers
Sent: 13 June 2019 12:04:43
To: PEREGO Andrea (JRC-ISPRA); ***@***.***; ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: RE: [fair_maturity] Reminder for online meeting, 18 June 2019
Andrea,
Excellent point. As the editorial team was analysing the contribution to the Google doc, we did note that this principle I2 involves recursion, as it implies that all FAIR principles need to be tested against the used vocabularies.
The GO-FAIR clarification seems to limit it to Findable and Accessible:
“The controlled vocabulary used to describe datasets needs to be documented and resolvable using globally unique and persistent identifiers. This documentation needs to be easily findable and accessible by anyone who uses the dataset.”
Although it could be argued that Interoperable and (especially) Reusable are often also important aspects of the use of vocabularies.
Makx.
From: andrea.perego=***@***.***-groups.org On Behalf Of andrea.perego
Sent: 12 June 2019 09:28
To: ***@***.***; ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Reminder for online meeting, 18 June 2019
Dear Edit, dear Keith,
If I may, I would like to raise a point in relation to slide 23, concerning I.2 – “(meta)data use vocabularies that follow FAIR principles”.
The issue here is that it is not explicit which of the FAIR principles should be tested, and how, to determine if (and how much) a (meta)data vocabulary complies with FAIR principles.
I wonder whether providing clear guidelines on this topic is in scope with the WG.
I think it would be very much helpful for (meta)data providers to be able to verify if the vocabularies they use are or not FAIR-compliant. In case they are still deciding which vocabulary to use, FAIR-compliance could be one of the criteria to be taken into account. Moreover, I see benefits also on the side of standard bodies and/or communities managing vocabularies: in such a case, FAIR principles can be taken into account when designing or revising a vocabulary.
Thanks
Andrea
Thanks, Max.
Looking at which FAIR principles may apply to (meta)data vocabularies, my first impression is that the following could all be relevant:
F1. (Meta)data are assigned a globally unique and persistent identifier
F2. Data are described with rich metadata (defined by R1 below)
F3. Metadata clearly and explicitly include the identifier of the data they describe
I1. (Meta)data use a formal, accessible, shared, and broadly applicable language for knowledge representation.
I2. (Meta)data use vocabularies that follow FAIR principles
I3. (Meta)data include qualified references to other (meta)data
R1. Meta(data) are richly described with a plurality of accurate and relevant attributes
R1.1. (Meta)data are released with a clear and accessible data usage license
R1.2. (Meta)data are associated with detailed provenance
R1.3. (Meta)data meet domain-relevant community standards
The problem is to clarify how these principles should be applied to and tested on vocabularies.
For instance (and just thinking aloud):
F1. -> the (meta)data vocabulary requires the use of global and persistent identifiers
F2. -> no clue, also because the notion of “rich metadata” is relative
F3. -> this could be somehow covered by F1, otherwise: the (meta)data vocabulary requires (or just supports) the specification of the resource identifier(s)
I1. -> I think here the first point is that (meta)data are machine-understandable, but I’m not sure about what is an acceptable language for knowledge representation (unless the plan is to limit this to RDF / OWL et similia)
I2. -> the (meta)data vocabulary complies with all the FAIR principles listed here
I3. -> I wonder whether this may be tested by checking if, e.g., a metadata record about a dataset includes relationships with related resources (e.g., a publication, input data, software)
R1. -> same point of F2.: “richly described with a plurality of accurate and relevant attributes” is relative – so how can it be tested?
R1.1. -> the (meta)data vocabulary must include use conditions / licence as a mandatory field
R1.2. -> the (meta)data vocabulary must include the specification of authors / contributors, publishers (, other information?) as mandatory fields
R1.3. -> the (meta)data vocabulary is widely used in specific domain(s) or across domains – should this require a register to be testable?
Cheers,
Andrea
—-
Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
Scientific Project Officer
European Commission DG JRC
Directorate B – Growth and Innovation
Unit B6 – Digital Economy
Via E. Fermi, 2749 – TP 262
21027 Ispra VA, Italy
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/
—-
The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
position of the European Commission.
________________________________________
From: Makx Dekkers
Sent: 13 June 2019 12:04:43
To: PEREGO Andrea (JRC-ISPRA); ***@***.***; ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: RE: [fair_maturity] Reminder for online meeting, 18 June 2019
Andrea,
Excellent point. As the editorial team was analysing the contribution to the Google doc, we did note that this principle I2 involves recursion, as it implies that all FAIR principles need to be tested against the used vocabularies.
The GO-FAIR clarification seems to limit it to Findable and Accessible:
“The controlled vocabulary used to describe datasets needs to be documented and resolvable using globally unique and persistent identifiers. This documentation needs to be easily findable and accessible by anyone who uses the dataset.”
Although it could be argued that Interoperable and (especially) Reusable are often also important aspects of the use of vocabularies.
Makx.
– Show quoted text -From: andrea.perego=***@***.***-groups.org On Behalf Of andrea.perego
Sent: 12 June 2019 09:28
To: ***@***.***; ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Reminder for online meeting, 18 June 2019
Dear Edit, dear Keith,
If I may, I would like to raise a point in relation to slide 23, concerning I.2 – “(meta)data use vocabularies that follow FAIR principles”.
The issue here is that it is not explicit which of the FAIR principles should be tested, and how, to determine if (and how much) a (meta)data vocabulary complies with FAIR principles.
I wonder whether providing clear guidelines on this topic is in scope with the WG.
I think it would be very much helpful for (meta)data providers to be able to verify if the vocabularies they use are or not FAIR-compliant. In case they are still deciding which vocabulary to use, FAIR-compliance could be one of the criteria to be taken into account. Moreover, I see benefits also on the side of standard bodies and/or communities managing vocabularies: in such a case, FAIR principles can be taken into account when designing or revising a vocabulary.
Thanks
Andrea