Dear members of the FAIR data maturity model Working Group,
As a next step towards a common set of core assessment criteria, we started
to explore the prioritisation of the FAIRness indicators.
The idea is that the indicators that we have developed over the last months,
with the help of many members of the Working Group, do not all have the same
priority. Some may be more important than others in evaluating FAIRness.
Some may be considered essential, some should be met if possible and others
may be nice-to-have.
As a result, we have created an initial ranking of the indicators according
to three degrees of priority;
* Mandatory: indicator MUST be satisfied for FAIRness
* Recommended: indicator SHOULD be satisfied, if at all possible, to
* Optional: Indicator MAY be satisfied, but not necessarily so
(Keywords MUST, SHOULD and MAY as in RFC2119
We have created a Google spreadsheet
L4w8RRAw/edit#gid=0> with an initial proposal for assigning these
priorities to the current set of indicators. We have also created four
GitHub issues, one for each of the four FAIR areas, to discuss the
priorities of the indicators under that area.
We invite all members of the Working Group to comment on these proposals on
GitHub and to suggest changes in the proposed priorities.
In the next two weeks, we will gather all comments and then re-issue the
Google spreadsheet based on your contributions.
The set of indicators and the priorities will be on the agenda for the next
WG online meeting on 12 September for further discussion.
Also, don't hesitate to comment on the approach and any other aspect of the
work of the editorial team!
Makx Dekkers and Christophe Bahim
The editorial team