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/

#130602

Ge Peng
Member

Agree with Keith on we need to be clear on exactly what is being measured
before defining the metrics to assess FAIRness.
My two cents on quality and accessibility:
The quality information about metadata and data may be covered under “rich
metadata”. Unfortunately, I believe that “rich metadata” falls short in
explicitly addressing data and information quality. Without good data and
information quality, the data may not be useful. It does not make any sense
to address its re-use. The question is: should this WG explicitly address
quality of data and metadata in the metrics?
It has been mentioned that FAIR does not mean OPEN. It is extremely hard
for me to see how one can satisfy “FAIR”, especially, accessible,
interoperable and reusable of data, without having its data available and
obtainable. Am I missing something? If so, should the FAIR principles be
amended?
Regards,
— Peng
On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 6:20 AM ***@***.***
wrote: