Thank you. We will revise the report and add your name to it. If there are other people who were at the meeting, but whose name is not in the report, please let us know and we’ll add your name.
Kind regards, Makx.
From: Ge Peng – NOAA Affiliate
Sent: 17 April 2019 14:00
To: makxdekkers
Cc: ***@***.***-groups.org; Ge Peng ; ***@***.***; ***@***.***
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
Thanks a lot, Makx, for the workshop report. Thank also the chairs and the editor team for organizing the P13 session and facilitating the discussions.
I’d like to note that I was present at the workshop:
Ge Peng; US; North Carolina State University/NCEI
Best regards,
Ge Peng
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 4:25 AM makxdekkers wrote:
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
—
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

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 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

Thanks, Mercè.
Actually, this distinction is already made in Dublin Core (dct:license vs dct:accessRights), and it is included in the new version of the W3C Data Catalogue vocabulary, now being finalised [1].
Andrea
—-
[1] https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/dcat/#license-rights
—-
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: Crosas, Mercè [mailto:***@***.***]
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 3:58 PM
To: PEREGO Andrea (JRC-ISPRA)
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 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

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 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

Hi, Makx.
The problem is that, to my knowledge, FAIR principles do not include anything specifically related to access rights/restrictions – besides requirements on meta/data access protocols (A.1). And R.1.1 covers only use conditions.
Maybe, this item is a good candidate for the WG work on the “Beyond FAIR” principles.
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: Makx Dekkers [mailto:***@***.***]
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 5:46 PM
To: ‘Crosas, Mercè’; PEREGO Andrea (JRC-ISPRA)
Cc: ***@***.***-groups.org
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 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

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 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 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
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 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 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
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 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 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

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
ORCID: 0000-0003-3934-0072
sent from my IPad

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

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 On Behalf Of Barend Mons
Sent: 18 April 2019 18:09
To: Ge Peng – NOAA Affiliate ; FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
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
[Image removed by sender.]
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 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 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
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 On Behalf Of Barend Mons
Sent: 18 April 2019 18:09
To: Ge Peng – NOAA Affiliate ; FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
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
[Image removed by sender.]
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 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 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
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 On Behalf Of Barend Mons
Sent: 18 April 2019 18:09
To: Ge Peng – NOAA Affiliate ; FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
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
[Image removed by sender.]
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 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 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

Hear hear, especially the ‘not reinventing wheels’ comment is very important, there has been al lot of thinking and development on generic data and software access and licensing.
The major thing we have to resolve her is that (again) that now ‘the machine knows what we mean’. Also the detailed tracking thing is new but has emerged as a scale problem before, so let’s make sure we reuse whatever we can. I cc two Kenyan colleagues with a special interest and expertise in the latter.
Best
Barend
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 IPhone

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

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 On Behalf Of Barend Mons
Sent: 18 April 2019 18:09
To: Ge Peng – NOAA Affiliate ;
FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
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
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
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
ible-data-usage-license/> 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
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…
2-report
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…
2-report
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…
2-report
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