Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

19 Apr 2019

By Vassilios Peristeras

Groups audience:

Hello to all
Is it important to include access rights and conditions in the evaluation of FAIRness?
Yes and should be linked to the extend to which machine readable metadata exist for access/use and not their openess. As the paper righly highlights"FAIR is not equal to open".
Under which area (F, A, I, R, beyond FAIR) or principle should it be evaluated?
A1.2
Regards
Vassilios Peristeras
European Commission and International Hellenic University
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
-------- Original message --------
From: makxdekkers <***@***.***>
Date: 19/04/2019 18:51 (GMT+02:00)
To: 'Barend Mons' <***@***.***>, 'FAIR Data Maturity Model WG' <***@***.***-groups.org>
Cc: 'Keith Jeffery' <***@***.***>, 'Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate' <***@***.***>, "'andrea.perego'" <***@***.***>, ***@***.***, '***@***.***-groups.org, ***@***.***
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
Barend,
I see your point about ‘beyond FAIR’ implying that access rights are not covered in the four areas. Our intention was to include in this category anything that was not explicitly in the definitions of the individual principles.
In this particular case, I think we looked at the title of the principle and overlooked the explanation of A1.2 (“one should provide the exact conditions under which the data are accessible”). So access rights and conditions should be covered under A1.2.
Correct?
Makx.
From: barendmons=***@***.***-groups.org <***@***.***-groups.org> On Behalf Of Barend Mons
Sent: 19 April 2019 10:30
To: Makx Dekkers <***@***.***>; FAIR Data Maturity Model WG <***@***.***-groups.org>
Cc: Keith Jeffery <***@***.***>; Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate <***@***.***>; andrea.perego <***@***.***>; ***@***.***; '***@***.***-groups.org; ***@***.***
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
My two cents before Easter :)
1. Is it important to include access rights and conditions in the evaluation of FAIRness?
It is not only important, it is a critical issue, covered entirely -at high level of abstraction- in the FAIR guiding principles. Remember that FAIR is not a goal in itself, the key is the R: we want reusable workflows and data. Data and services without proper, machine actionable, metadata on access, license and instructions for proper reuse (both technically and legally) can be FAI and still Re-useless. (If this term is new to you, you have to admit you did not read the Cloudy, increasingly FAIR paper :)
https://content.iospress.com/articles/information-services-and-use/isu824
1.
2. Under which area (F, A, I, R, beyond FAIR) or principle should it be evaluated?
As I argued before, both under A and particularly R but I am a bit weary about the term ‘beyond’ FAIR, as it suggests that the principles do not cover certain aspects. So far, noone came up to me with aspects that are not covered -again at high level of abstraction- by F, A, I or R, especially R: For instance lageal aspects, quality of data etc. Are all related to acessibility under well defined conditions and ‘meaningful’ reusability. One example: totally fabricated data that are totally FAI: can be either R or not based on the use case. For example for testing model of software performance or to check VMs for their promised actions.
So let’s indeed concentrate this group, as Edith keeps emphasizing, correctly imho’, on WHAT needs to be measured to -in the end- judge the R level of data and services and worry about the how/details of such measuments later and in other contexts.
Prof. Barend Mons
Leiden University Medical Center
President of CODATA
GO FAIR international Support and coordination office
Mail: ***@***.***-fair.org
+31624879779
[X]
ORCID: 0000-0003-3934-0072
sent from my IPad
On 19 Apr 2019, at 10:07, Makx Dekkers <***@***.***> wrote:
Many thanks, Keith.
Indeed, the details of access rights and conditions might be quite complex.
For this moment, though, I’d like to propose that the groups does not dig into the details of this issue.
Maybe we can establish: first, that expression of access rights and conditions is important for FAIRness, and, second, where it could be evaluated – under an existing principle, or alternatively, as Andrea Perego suggested, under the ‘Beyond FAIR’ category.
The details of how exactly the access rights and conditions are expressed can then be discussed at a later stage. At that stage, it will indeed be very important to use what is already there and not reinvent the wheel.
May I request that we limit the discussion on this issue to two questions:
1. Is it important to include access rights and conditions in the evaluation of FAIRness?
2. Under which area (F, A, I, R, beyond FAIR) or principle should it be evaluated?
Kind regards, Makx
From: Keith Jeffery <***@***.***>
Sent: 19 April 2019 09:20
To: Barend Mons <***@***.***>; Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate <***@***.***>; FAIR Data Maturity Model WG <***@***.***-groups.org>
Cc: andrea.perego <***@***.***>; ***@***.***; makxdekkers <***@***.***>; '***@***.***-groups.org; ***@***.***
Subject: RE: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
All –
I have been following the discussion with interest. Andrea is of course correct and references (updated) DCAT in this regard. I agree with Maggie’s suggested relationships of access to the relevant FAIR principles. I agree strongly with Barend on rich metadata that is actionable (implies formal syntax and declared semantics). I agree that licence conditions and access constraints (security, privacy, trust, cost…) are related but different. The tracking of correct re-use conditions (attribution, use without change…) is related to provenance although I haven’t seen any reliable solutions yet.
From my perspective it is commonly difficult for any workflow/process to distinguish A, I and R in terms of access permissions. The problem is the multi-dimensionality. I suggest the basic access permission actually relates to a process (e.g. Webservice) acting on a dataset (generalised as any asset acting on or with any other asset – including lab equipment, sensors, software services, datasets, persons, organisations, publications…) but this is conditioned by who owns or manages each of the two assets involved and whom those organisations or persons delegate to execute the service on the dataset (or more generally the action of one asset on another). Thus if the basic permission being managed is then we have connected to each something like:

(person in role user different from the manager and owner persons)
Note that each should have a temporal duration (this allows for e.g. embargo periods or elapsing of copyright). There can be interesting problems when temporal intervals do not coincide – a well-known NP-hard problem from temporal database research.
Furthermore, access conditions can be quite complex; depending on the asset the permission may be :
[know the existence of | read | copy | update (amend, insert, delete) | delete | execute ……] and in a different dimension [cost (which may have complex sub-conditions)] in yet another dimension [attribution] and in yet another dimension [trust/security/privacy] and of course as well as the conventional assets (datasets, services etc) the metadata itself may be subject to access conditions.
Hopefully most research can be open and free thus avoiding the need for such access controls, but I fear that we shall have to provide them – not least because of increasing regulation (e.g. GDPR in Europe).
I am concerned that we do not re-invent the wheel. Years of research have provided production-strength access control systems for large-scale IT systems used all the time by commerce, industry, government. I believe the problem is to relate the capabilities of these access control systems to the FAIR principles using a form of logic notation representable in the metadata as formal syntax and declared semantics.
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: barendmons=***@***.***-groups.org <***@***.***-groups.org> On Behalf Of Barend Mons
Sent: 18 April 2019 18:09
To: Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate <***@***.***>; FAIR Data Maturity Model WG <***@***.***-groups.org>
Cc: andrea.perego <***@***.***>; ***@***.***; makxdekkers <***@***.***>; '***@***.***-groups.org; ***@***.***
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
Yes and as we support the statement: ‘as open as possible, as closed as necessary’, we could even put the most liberal license as ‘default’ UPRI in metadata templates, so that researchers would have to ‘increase restriction deliberately if they have good reasons for that, which the funder will accept (for instnace patient privacy).
In that way ‘unlicensed’ and thereforwe in some circles re-useless data can be avoided?
B
Prof. Barend Mons
Leiden University Medical Center
President of CODATA
GO FAIR international Support and coordination office
Mail: ***@***.***-fair.org
+31624879779

ORCID: 0000-0003-3934-0072
sent from my IPad
On 18 Apr 2019, at 19:01, Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate <***@***.***> wrote:
Thanks, Barend, for bringing up the point of open-minded researchers. For them and many, if not all, US federal agencies, not having any restriction clauses on access and/or use in metadata record or website means there is no restriction, period. It has been on my mind but have not got a good time to mention so until now.
However, requiring explicitly description of the license, access and use rights may be a good practice.
Regards,
--- Peng
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 12:31 PM Barend Mons <***@***.***> wrote:
Good discussion (just landed from Nairobi, so was a bit out of the loop.
Also there, access rights e.d. were a hot discussion topic.
I concur with Maggie that the ‘A’ and part of R is implicitly requiring access rights and licensing (the machine need to know what it is technically able to do with the data as well as what it is ‘allowed’ to do). To me this is all covered by the generic principle of rich, machine actionable metadata for all FAIR digital objects. Measuring can imho include any further specification of that, and again, the requirements may vary per disciploine as we stated at the meeting.
I know for instance from an earlier IMI project (Open PHACTS) that the pharma is unlikely to even ‘touch’ a data set without a clear license, even if the researcher is so ‘open minded’ that putting a license did not even occur to her/him...
B
Prof. Barend Mons
Leiden University Medical Center
President of CODATA
GO FAIR international Support and coordination office
Mail: ***@***.***-fair.org
+31624879779
[cid:]
ORCID: 0000-0003-3934-0072
sent from my IPad
On 18 Apr 2019, at 18:17, andrea.perego <***@***.***> wrote:
Hi, Maggie.
I agree access rights are implicitly related to the principles you mention. My concern is whether a conformance test could require compliance with requirements not explicitly stated in the FAIR principles.
This is why I was considering the possibility of including a requirement on access rights the "Beyond FAIR" work – which, ideally, can be a useful feedback for a possible revision/extension to the FAIR principles, based on usage and implementation evidence.
Andrea
----
Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
Scientific / Technical 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: Margareta Hellström [mailto:***@***.***]
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 6:00 PM
To: makxdekkers; '***@***.***-groups.org; Mercè'; PEREGO Andrea (JRC-ISPRA); FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
Hi Makx,
my immediate reaction to this was that the access rights are connected to principle A1.2 ("the protocol allows for an authentication and authorization procedure, where necessary", but that doesn't specifically address the issue of how to inform the user (human or machine) of what those restrictions are. I guess that would be covered by the "plurality of accurate and relevant attributes" of R.1 and possibly also the "domain-relevant community standards" of R1.3.
Happy Easter!
/Maggie
------------------
Associate Professor Margareta Hellström
ICOS Carbon Portal staff member
***@***.***
Lund University
Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science
Sölvegatan 12, SE-22362 Lund, Sweden
Phone: +46-(0)46-2229683
________________________________
________________________________
From: mail=***@***.***-groups.org <***@***.***-groups.org> on behalf of makxdekkers <***@***.***>
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 17:46
To: '***@***.***-groups.org; Mercè'; 'andrea.perego'; FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
Many thanks, Andrea and Mercè, for bringing this up.
Should the expression of access rights, as opposed to the re-use licence, be covered under principle R1.1 or somewhere else?
Kind regards, Makx
From: Crosas, Mercè <***@***.***>
Sent: 18 April 2019 15:58
To: andrea.perego <***@***.***>
Cc: makxdekkers <***@***.***>; ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
That's correct - I agree that it would be best to separate license metadata from access metadata. The Data Documentation Initiative (DDI) schema has this distinction, for example.
Best,
Merce
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 4:06 AM andrea.perego <***@***.***> wrote:
Dear Makx, dear colleagues,
Thanks for sharing the report.
I would like to raise an issue on point (4) in slide 20:
"(4) Does the licence permit access?"
Strictly speaking, licences are just about *use* conditions, and not about who can access what. Of course, ad hoc licences happen to include access provisions as well, but this does not apply to standard ones (as the Creative Commons suite).
For this reason, and to facilitate conformance testing, it would be desirable that access conditions/restrictions were assessed separately from the licence, and to require that this information be specified in a separate metadata field.
Best,
Andrea
----
Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
Scientific / Technical 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: mail=***@***.***-groups.org <***@***.***-groups.org> on behalf of makxdekkers <***@***.***>
Sent: 17 April 2019 10:24:54
To: ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
Dear members of the RDA FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group,
We would like to thank you for attending the meeting of the Working Group in Philadelphia on 3 April 2019 and hope you found the meeting useful.
The report of the meeting is now available for download from the WG page on the RDA site at https://www.rd-alliance.org/workshop-2.
We are currently finalising a Google spreadsheet for your contributions to the development of the indicators for the FAIR principles following the approach presented at the meeting in Philadelphia, and we plan to share the spreadsheet with the Working Group in the coming days.
Many thanks!
Makx Dekkers
Editorial team
--
Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859
--
Mercè Crosas, Ph.D.
Harvard University's Research Data Officer, Office of Vice Provost for Research
Chief Data Science and Technology Officer, Institute for Quantitative Social Science
***@***.*** | @mercecrosas | scholar.harvard.edu/mercecrosas

--
Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859
--
Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859
--
Ge Peng, PhD
Research Scholar
Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites - NC (CICS-NC)/NCSU at
NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)
Center for Weather and Climate (CWC)
151 Patton Ave, Asheville, NC 28801
+1 828 257 3009; ***@***.***
ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1986-9115
Following CICS-NC on Facebook
CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING - DISCLAIMER This message and any attachments (the "message") are confidential and intended solely for the addressees. If you receive this message without being the intended addressee, please delete it (together with any attachment) without copying, forwarding or opening it and immediately notify the sender. Any unauthorized use or dissemination or disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited. E-mails are susceptible to alteration. The International Hellenic University shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified, nor shall it bear any responsibility for any loss, disruption or damage to your data or computer system that may occur from the use of data contained in, or transmitted with, this message.
ΓΝΩΣΤΟΠΟΙΗΣΗ-ΔΗΛΩΣΗ ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΥΣ ΠΑΡΑΛΗΠΤΕΣ Αυτό το μήνυμα και τυχόν συνημμένα σε αυτό αρχεία (το μήνυμα) είναι εμπιστευτικά και απόρρητα και απευθύνονται μόνο στους σκοπούμενους παραλήπτες. Σε περίπτωση που λάβετε αυτό το μήνυμα χωρίς να είστε ο σκοπούμενος παραλήπτης, παρακαλούμε να το διαγράψετε (μαζί με τα συνημμένα σε αυτό αρχεία), χωρίς να το αντιγράψετε, να το προωθήσετε σε τρίτους ή να το ανοίξετε και να ειδοποιήσετε άμεσα τον αποστολέα. Απαγορεύεται η μη εξουσιοδοτημένη χρήση ή διάδοση ή κοινοποίηση σε τρίτους του συνόλου ή μέρους του μηνύματος αυτού. Τα μηνύματα ηλεκτρονικού ταχυδρομείου (e-mails) είναι δεκτικά αλλοίωσης. Tο Διεθνές Πανεπιστήμιο της Ελλάδας δεν θα ευθύνεται για αυτό το μήνυμα στην περίπτωση αλλοίωσης, μεταβολής ή παραποίησής του, ούτε θα υπέχει ευθύνη για οποιαδήποτε απώλεια ή αλλοίωση ή άλλη ζημία στα δεδομένα ή στο σύστημά σας, οφειλόμενη σε χρήση δεδομένων που είτε περιέχονται στο μήνυμα αυτό είτε μεταδόθηκαν με αυτό.
Hello to all
Is it important to include access rights and conditions in the evaluation of FAIRness?
Yes and should be linked to the extend to which machine readable metadata exist for access/use and not their openess. As the paper righly highlights"FAIR is not equal to open".
Under which area (F, A, I, R, beyond FAIR) or principle should it be evaluated?
A1.2
Regards
Vassilios Peristeras
European Commission and International Hellenic University
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
-------- Original message --------
From: makxdekkers <***@***.***>
Date: 19/04/2019 18:51 (GMT+02:00)
To: 'Barend Mons' <***@***.***>, 'FAIR Data Maturity Model WG' <***@***.***-groups.org>
Cc: 'Keith Jeffery' <***@***.***>, 'Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate' <***@***.***>, "'andrea.perego'" <***@***.***>, ***@***.***, '***@***.***-groups.org, ***@***.***
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
Barend,
I see your point about ‘beyond FAIR’ implying that access rights are not covered in the four areas. Our intention was to include in this category anything that was not explicitly in the definitions of the individual principles.
In this particular case, I think we looked at the title of the principle and overlooked the explanation of A1.2 (“one should provide the exact conditions under which the data are accessible”). So access rights and conditions should be covered under A1.2.
Correct?
Makx.
From: barendmons=***@***.***-groups.org <***@***.***-groups.org> On Behalf Of Barend Mons
Sent: 19 April 2019 10:30
To: Makx Dekkers <***@***.***>; FAIR Data Maturity Model WG <***@***.***-groups.org>
Cc: Keith Jeffery <***@***.***>; Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate <***@***.***>; andrea.perego <***@***.***>; ***@***.***; '***@***.***-groups.org; ***@***.***
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
My two cents before Easter :)
1. Is it important to include access rights and conditions in the evaluation of FAIRness?
It is not only important, it is a critical issue, covered entirely -at high level of abstraction- in the FAIR guiding principles. Remember that FAIR is not a goal in itself, the key is the R: we want reusable workflows and data. Data and services without proper, machine actionable, metadata on access, license and instructions for proper reuse (both technically and legally) can be FAI and still Re-useless. (If this term is new to you, you have to admit you did not read the Cloudy, increasingly FAIR paper :)
https://content.iospress.com/articles/information-services-and-use/isu824
1.
2. Under which area (F, A, I, R, beyond FAIR) or principle should it be evaluated?
As I argued before, both under A and particularly R but I am a bit weary about the term ‘beyond’ FAIR, as it suggests that the principles do not cover certain aspects. So far, noone came up to me with aspects that are not covered -again at high level of abstraction- by F, A, I or R, especially R: For instance lageal aspects, quality of data etc. Are all related to acessibility under well defined conditions and ‘meaningful’ reusability. One example: totally fabricated data that are totally FAI: can be either R or not based on the use case. For example for testing model of software performance or to check VMs for their promised actions.
So let’s indeed concentrate this group, as Edith keeps emphasizing, correctly imho’, on WHAT needs to be measured to -in the end- judge the R level of data and services and worry about the how/details of such measuments later and in other contexts.
Prof. Barend Mons
Leiden University Medical Center
President of CODATA
GO FAIR international Support and coordination office
Mail: ***@***.***-fair.org
+31624879779
[X]
ORCID: 0000-0003-3934-0072
sent from my IPad
On 19 Apr 2019, at 10:07, Makx Dekkers <***@***.***> wrote:
Many thanks, Keith.
Indeed, the details of access rights and conditions might be quite complex.
For this moment, though, I’d like to propose that the groups does not dig into the details of this issue.
Maybe we can establish: first, that expression of access rights and conditions is important for FAIRness, and, second, where it could be evaluated – under an existing principle, or alternatively, as Andrea Perego suggested, under the ‘Beyond FAIR’ category.
The details of how exactly the access rights and conditions are expressed can then be discussed at a later stage. At that stage, it will indeed be very important to use what is already there and not reinvent the wheel.
May I request that we limit the discussion on this issue to two questions:
1. Is it important to include access rights and conditions in the evaluation of FAIRness?
2. Under which area (F, A, I, R, beyond FAIR) or principle should it be evaluated?
Kind regards, Makx
From: Keith Jeffery <***@***.***>
Sent: 19 April 2019 09:20
To: Barend Mons <***@***.***>; Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate <***@***.***>; FAIR Data Maturity Model WG <***@***.***-groups.org>
Cc: andrea.perego <***@***.***>; ***@***.***; makxdekkers <***@***.***>; '***@***.***-groups.org; ***@***.***
Subject: RE: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
All –
I have been following the discussion with interest. Andrea is of course correct and references (updated) DCAT in this regard. I agree with Maggie’s suggested relationships of access to the relevant FAIR principles. I agree strongly with Barend on rich metadata that is actionable (implies formal syntax and declared semantics). I agree that licence conditions and access constraints (security, privacy, trust, cost…) are related but different. The tracking of correct re-use conditions (attribution, use without change…) is related to provenance although I haven’t seen any reliable solutions yet.
From my perspective it is commonly difficult for any workflow/process to distinguish A, I and R in terms of access permissions. The problem is the multi-dimensionality. I suggest the basic access permission actually relates to a process (e.g. Webservice) acting on a dataset (generalised as any asset acting on or with any other asset – including lab equipment, sensors, software services, datasets, persons, organisations, publications…) but this is conditioned by who owns or manages each of the two assets involved and whom those organisations or persons delegate to execute the service on the dataset (or more generally the action of one asset on another). Thus if the basic permission being managed is then we have connected to each something like:

ORCID: 0000-0003-3934-0072
sent from my IPad
On 18 Apr 2019, at 19:01, Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate <***@***.***> wrote:
Thanks, Barend, for bringing up the point of open-minded researchers. For them and many, if not all, US federal agencies, not having any restriction clauses on access and/or use in metadata record or website means there is no restriction, period. It has been on my mind but have not got a good time to mention so until now.
However, requiring explicitly description of the license, access and use rights may be a good practice.
Regards,
--- Peng
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 12:31 PM Barend Mons <***@***.***> wrote:
Good discussion (just landed from Nairobi, so was a bit out of the loop.
Also there, access rights e.d. were a hot discussion topic.
I concur with Maggie that the ‘A’ and part of R is implicitly requiring access rights and licensing (the machine need to know what it is technically able to do with the data as well as what it is ‘allowed’ to do). To me this is all covered by the generic principle of rich, machine actionable metadata for all FAIR digital objects. Measuring can imho include any further specification of that, and again, the requirements may vary per disciploine as we stated at the meeting.
I know for instance from an earlier IMI project (Open PHACTS) that the pharma is unlikely to even ‘touch’ a data set without a clear license, even if the researcher is so ‘open minded’ that putting a license did not even occur to her/him...
B
Prof. Barend Mons
Leiden University Medical Center
President of CODATA
GO FAIR international Support and coordination office
Mail: ***@***.***-fair.org
+31624879779
[cid:]
ORCID: 0000-0003-3934-0072
sent from my IPad
On 18 Apr 2019, at 18:17, andrea.perego <***@***.***> wrote:
Hi, Maggie.
I agree access rights are implicitly related to the principles you mention. My concern is whether a conformance test could require compliance with requirements not explicitly stated in the FAIR principles.
This is why I was considering the possibility of including a requirement on access rights the "Beyond FAIR" work – which, ideally, can be a useful feedback for a possible revision/extension to the FAIR principles, based on usage and implementation evidence.
Andrea
----
Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
Scientific / Technical 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: Margareta Hellström [mailto:***@***.***]
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 6:00 PM
To: makxdekkers; '***@***.***-groups.org; Mercè'; PEREGO Andrea (JRC-ISPRA); FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
Hi Makx,
my immediate reaction to this was that the access rights are connected to principle A1.2 ("the protocol allows for an authentication and authorization procedure, where necessary", but that doesn't specifically address the issue of how to inform the user (human or machine) of what those restrictions are. I guess that would be covered by the "plurality of accurate and relevant attributes" of R.1 and possibly also the "domain-relevant community standards" of R1.3.
Happy Easter!
/Maggie
------------------
Associate Professor Margareta Hellström
ICOS Carbon Portal staff member
***@***.***
Lund University
Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science
Sölvegatan 12, SE-22362 Lund, Sweden
Phone: +46-(0)46-2229683
________________________________
- Show quoted text -From: mail=***@***.***-groups.org <***@***.***-groups.org> on behalf of makxdekkers <***@***.***>
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 17:46
To: '***@***.***-groups.org; Mercè'; 'andrea.perego'; FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
Many thanks, Andrea and Mercè, for bringing this up.
Should the expression of access rights, as opposed to the re-use licence, be covered under principle R1.1 or somewhere else?
Kind regards, Makx
From: Crosas, Mercè <***@***.***>
Sent: 18 April 2019 15:58
To: andrea.perego <***@***.***>
Cc: makxdekkers <***@***.***>; ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
That's correct - I agree that it would be best to separate license metadata from access metadata. The Data Documentation Initiative (DDI) schema has this distinction, for example.
Best,
Merce
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 4:06 AM andrea.perego <***@***.***> wrote:
Dear Makx, dear colleagues,
Thanks for sharing the report.
I would like to raise an issue on point (4) in slide 20:
"(4) Does the licence permit access?"
Strictly speaking, licences are just about *use* conditions, and not about who can access what. Of course, ad hoc licences happen to include access provisions as well, but this does not apply to standard ones (as the Creative Commons suite).
For this reason, and to facilitate conformance testing, it would be desirable that access conditions/restrictions were assessed separately from the licence, and to require that this information be specified in a separate metadata field.
Best,
Andrea
----
Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
Scientific / Technical 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: mail=***@***.***-groups.org <***@***.***-groups.org> on behalf of makxdekkers <***@***.***>
Sent: 17 April 2019 10:24:54
To: ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
Dear members of the RDA FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group,
We would like to thank you for attending the meeting of the Working Group in Philadelphia on 3 April 2019 and hope you found the meeting useful.
The report of the meeting is now available for download from the WG page on the RDA site at https://www.rd-alliance.org/workshop-2.
We are currently finalising a Google spreadsheet for your contributions to the development of the indicators for the FAIR principles following the approach presented at the meeting in Philadelphia, and we plan to share the spreadsheet with the Working Group in the coming days.
Many thanks!
Makx Dekkers
Editorial team
--
Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859
--
Mercè Crosas, Ph.D.
Harvard University's Research Data Officer, Office of Vice Provost for Research
Chief Data Science and Technology Officer, Institute for Quantitative Social Science
***@***.*** | @mercecrosas | scholar.harvard.edu/mercecrosas

ORCID: 0000-0003-3934-0072
sent from my IPad
On 18 Apr 2019, at 19:01, Ge Peng - NOAA Affiliate <***@***.***> wrote:
Thanks, Barend, for bringing up the point of open-minded researchers. For them and many, if not all, US federal agencies, not having any restriction clauses on access and/or use in metadata record or website means there is no restriction, period. It has been on my mind but have not got a good time to mention so until now.
However, requiring explicitly description of the license, access and use rights may be a good practice.
Regards,
--- Peng
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 12:31 PM Barend Mons <***@***.***> wrote:
Good discussion (just landed from Nairobi, so was a bit out of the loop.
Also there, access rights e.d. were a hot discussion topic.
I concur with Maggie that the ‘A’ and part of R is implicitly requiring access rights and licensing (the machine need to know what it is technically able to do with the data as well as what it is ‘allowed’ to do). To me this is all covered by the generic principle of rich, machine actionable metadata for all FAIR digital objects. Measuring can imho include any further specification of that, and again, the requirements may vary per disciploine as we stated at the meeting.
I know for instance from an earlier IMI project (Open PHACTS) that the pharma is unlikely to even ‘touch’ a data set without a clear license, even if the researcher is so ‘open minded’ that putting a license did not even occur to her/him...
B
Prof. Barend Mons
Leiden University Medical Center
President of CODATA
GO FAIR international Support and coordination office
Mail: ***@***.***-fair.org
+31624879779
[cid:]
ORCID: 0000-0003-3934-0072
sent from my IPad
On 18 Apr 2019, at 18:17, andrea.perego <***@***.***> wrote:
Hi, Maggie.
I agree access rights are implicitly related to the principles you mention. My concern is whether a conformance test could require compliance with requirements not explicitly stated in the FAIR principles.
This is why I was considering the possibility of including a requirement on access rights the "Beyond FAIR" work – which, ideally, can be a useful feedback for a possible revision/extension to the FAIR principles, based on usage and implementation evidence.
Andrea
----
Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
Scientific / Technical 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: Margareta Hellström [mailto:***@***.***]
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 6:00 PM
To: makxdekkers; '***@***.***-groups.org; Mercè'; PEREGO Andrea (JRC-ISPRA); FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
Hi Makx,
my immediate reaction to this was that the access rights are connected to principle A1.2 ("the protocol allows for an authentication and authorization procedure, where necessary", but that doesn't specifically address the issue of how to inform the user (human or machine) of what those restrictions are. I guess that would be covered by the "plurality of accurate and relevant attributes" of R.1 and possibly also the "domain-relevant community standards" of R1.3.
Happy Easter!
/Maggie
------------------
Associate Professor Margareta Hellström
ICOS Carbon Portal staff member
***@***.***
Lund University
Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science
Sölvegatan 12, SE-22362 Lund, Sweden
Phone: +46-(0)46-2229683
________________________________
________________________________
From: mail=***@***.***-groups.org <***@***.***-groups.org> on behalf of makxdekkers <***@***.***>
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 17:46
To: '***@***.***-groups.org; Mercè'; 'andrea.perego'; FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
Many thanks, Andrea and Mercè, for bringing this up.
Should the expression of access rights, as opposed to the re-use licence, be covered under principle R1.1 or somewhere else?
Kind regards, Makx
From: Crosas, Mercè <***@***.***>
Sent: 18 April 2019 15:58
To: andrea.perego <***@***.***>
Cc: makxdekkers <***@***.***>; ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
That's correct - I agree that it would be best to separate license metadata from access metadata. The Data Documentation Initiative (DDI) schema has this distinction, for example.
Best,
Merce
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 4:06 AM andrea.perego <***@***.***> wrote:
Dear Makx, dear colleagues,
Thanks for sharing the report.
I would like to raise an issue on point (4) in slide 20:
"(4) Does the licence permit access?"
Strictly speaking, licences are just about *use* conditions, and not about who can access what. Of course, ad hoc licences happen to include access provisions as well, but this does not apply to standard ones (as the Creative Commons suite).
For this reason, and to facilitate conformance testing, it would be desirable that access conditions/restrictions were assessed separately from the licence, and to require that this information be specified in a separate metadata field.
Best,
Andrea
----
Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
Scientific / Technical 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: mail=***@***.***-groups.org <***@***.***-groups.org> on behalf of makxdekkers <***@***.***>
Sent: 17 April 2019 10:24:54
To: ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
Dear members of the RDA FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group,
We would like to thank you for attending the meeting of the Working Group in Philadelphia on 3 April 2019 and hope you found the meeting useful.
The report of the meeting is now available for download from the WG page on the RDA site at https://www.rd-alliance.org/workshop-2.
We are currently finalising a Google spreadsheet for your contributions to the development of the indicators for the FAIR principles following the approach presented at the meeting in Philadelphia, and we plan to share the spreadsheet with the Working Group in the coming days.
Many thanks!
Makx Dekkers
Editorial team
--
Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/works...
Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/62859
--
Mercè Crosas, Ph.D.
Harvard University's Research Data Officer, Office of Vice Provost for Research
Chief Data Science and Technology Officer, Institute for Quantitative Social Science
***@***.*** | @mercecrosas | scholar.harvard.edu/mercecrosas

Log in or register to post comments
356 reads

O&A Members

MEMBERSHIP

RDA Groups

The Research Data Alliance

Membership

RDA Working and Interest Groups

RDA Solutions

RDA domain research

Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report

You are here

FAIR Data Maturity Model WG