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:


RDA Admin

Thanks for your suggestion.
Actually, what you suggest is what we try to do with the collaborative sheet at….
The ‘specific assertions’ that you mention are more or less what we call ‘indicators’ in sheet 3. Development, with suggestions for ‘maturity levels’ for the indicators. These levels could act as ‘metrics’, although most of them would probably be qualitative rather than quantitative.
The idea is that we wouldn’t try to come up with a fixed set of questions – which would be yet-another-set-of-questions – but a set of indicators for which anyone could formulate questions, and in many cases, the existing questionnaires will already include questions related to the indicators.
Feel free to try and derive some ‘specific assertions’ or ‘indicators’ from the existing work and enter them in the sheet!
– Show quoted text -From: keith.jeffery=***@***.*** On Behalf Of ***@***.***
Sent: 25 April 2019 17:02
To: ‘FAIR Data Maturity Model WG’
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
Makx –
I agree these are excellent mechanisms – and we should preserve the discussions which – I believe – have been illuminating.
For me the problem persists: how to take abstract FAIR principles and turn them into concrete assertions to be challenged or questions which can be tested leading to metric values (binary or scalar)?
Your excellent landscape study indicates some approaches. The FAIRMetrics work (Go FAIR, FAIRSharing) seems very relevant.
I find the paper ‘FAIR Metrics Evaluation Results’ at ZIP at useful. However, many (most) of the answers are pointers to documents (and in some cases general documents not specific to the question or FAIR principle) and not a clear metric value. However the structure of the questions (and the sub-questions) is – I believe – relevant. Could we perhaps use their question structure as a basis and elaborate from there to specific assertions or questions to which the answers could be empirical metric values?