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/

#130584

Makx –
Thanks for the guidance. I have restored pre-exiting entries to their former state and added my entries.
When I get a moment I’ll look beyond F1,2,3
Best
Keith
——————————————————————————–
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: mail=***@***.***-groups.org On Behalf Of makxdekkers
Sent: 27 April 2019 08:07
To: ‘FAIR Data Maturity Model WG’
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
Keith,
Thanks for this. Your suggestions are fine. Anyone should feel free to propose whatever indicator they think makes sense.
However, I would like to suggest that you do not change indicators or maturity levels proposed by others but just add yours.
The editor team will use all the suggestions in step 3, grouping and consolidating the suggestions, to be discussed in the online meeting on 18 June.
Kind regards, Makx
De: keith.jeffery=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] En nombre de ***@***.***
Enviado el: viernes, 26 de abril de 2019 11:29
Para: ‘FAIR Data Maturity Model WG’
Asunto: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
Makx –
Thanks. I have made some suggestions for F1, F2, F3 (in red). Can you guide me – is this the sort of thing you had in mind?
On a practical point; can the spreadsheet be edited in ‘suggestion mode’ – I could not find a way to do that.
Best
Keith
——————————————————————————–
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.
———————————————————————————————————————————-
From: mail=***@***.***-groups.org On Behalf Of makxdekkers
Sent: 25 April 2019 16:23
To: ‘FAIR Data Maturity Model WG’
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
Keith,
Thanks for your suggestion.
Actually, what you suggest is what we try to do with the collaborative sheet at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gvMfbw46oV1idztsr586aG6-teSn2cPW….
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!
Makx.
From: keith.jeffery=***@***.***-groups.org 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 https://zenodo.org/record/1305060#.XMHGFehKhnI 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?
Best
Keith
Makx –
Thanks for the guidance. I have restored pre-exiting entries to their former state and added my entries.
When I get a moment I’ll look beyond F1,2,3
Best
Keith
——————————————————————————–
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.
———————————————————————————————————————————-
From: mail=***@***.***-groups.org On Behalf Of makxdekkers
Sent: 27 April 2019 08:07
To: ‘FAIR Data Maturity Model WG’
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
Keith,
Thanks for this. Your suggestions are fine. Anyone should feel free to propose whatever indicator they think makes sense.
However, I would like to suggest that you do not change indicators or maturity levels proposed by others but just add yours.
The editor team will use all the suggestions in step 3, grouping and consolidating the suggestions, to be discussed in the online meeting on 18 June.
Kind regards, Makx
De: keith.jeffery=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] En nombre de ***@***.***
Enviado el: viernes, 26 de abril de 2019 11:29
Para: ‘FAIR Data Maturity Model WG’
Asunto: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
Makx –
Thanks. I have made some suggestions for F1, F2, F3 (in red). Can you guide me – is this the sort of thing you had in mind?
On a practical point; can the spreadsheet be edited in ‘suggestion mode’ – I could not find a way to do that.
Best
Keith
——————————————————————————–
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: mail=***@***.***-groups.org On Behalf Of makxdekkers
Sent: 25 April 2019 16:23
To: ‘FAIR Data Maturity Model WG’
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
Keith,
Thanks for your suggestion.
Actually, what you suggest is what we try to do with the collaborative sheet at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gvMfbw46oV1idztsr586aG6-teSn2cPW….
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!
Makx.
From: keith.jeffery=***@***.***-groups.org 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 https://zenodo.org/record/1305060#.XMHGFehKhnI 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?
Best
Keith
Makx –
Thanks for the guidance. I have restored pre-exiting entries to their former state and added my entries.
When I get a moment I’ll look beyond F1,2,3
Best
Keith
——————————————————————————–
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.
———————————————————————————————————————————-
From: mail=***@***.***-groups.org On Behalf Of makxdekkers
Sent: 27 April 2019 08:07
To: ‘FAIR Data Maturity Model WG’
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
Keith,
Thanks for this. Your suggestions are fine. Anyone should feel free to propose whatever indicator they think makes sense.
However, I would like to suggest that you do not change indicators or maturity levels proposed by others but just add yours.
The editor team will use all the suggestions in step 3, grouping and consolidating the suggestions, to be discussed in the online meeting on 18 June.
Kind regards, Makx
De: keith.jeffery=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] En nombre de ***@***.***
Enviado el: viernes, 26 de abril de 2019 11:29
Para: ‘FAIR Data Maturity Model WG’
Asunto: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
Makx –
Thanks. I have made some suggestions for F1, F2, F3 (in red). Can you guide me – is this the sort of thing you had in mind?
On a practical point; can the spreadsheet be edited in ‘suggestion mode’ – I could not find a way to do that.
Best
Keith
——————————————————————————–
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.
———————————————————————————————————————————-
From: mail=***@***.***-groups.org On Behalf Of makxdekkers
Sent: 25 April 2019 16:23
To: ‘FAIR Data Maturity Model WG’
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
Keith,
Thanks for your suggestion.
Actually, what you suggest is what we try to do with the collaborative sheet at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gvMfbw46oV1idztsr586aG6-teSn2cPW….
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!
Makx.
– Show quoted text -From: keith.jeffery=***@***.***-groups.org 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 https://zenodo.org/record/1305060#.XMHGFehKhnI 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?
Best
Keith