Skip to main content

Notice

We are in the process of rolling out a soft launch of the RDA website, which includes a new member platform. Existing RDA members PLEASE REACTIVATE YOUR ACCOUNT using this link: https://rda-login.wicketcloud.com/users/confirmation. Visitors may encounter functionality issues with group pages, navigation, missing content, broken links, etc. As you explore the new site, please provide your feedback using the UserSnap tool on the bottom right corner of each page. Thank you for your understanding and support as we work through all issues as quickly as possible. Stay updated about upcoming features and functionalities: https://www.rd-alliance.org/rda-web-platform-upcoming-features-and-functionalities/

Who We Are
What We Do
What We Work On
Get Involved
Events
RDA Groups
News & Media

Request for Comments: DSA–WDS Common Certification Requirements and Procedures

  • Creator
    Discussion
  • August 3, 2015 at 10:03 am #124993

    Rorie Edmunds
    Participant

    Dear Colleagues,
    The following page has been added to the Certication IG webpage on behalf of the DSA–WDS Partnership WG Co-chairs in preparation for RDA P6: https://rd-alliance.org/group/rdawds-certification-digital-repositories-…
    Please add any comments/suggestions you have to the two documents contained therein.
    Many thanks,
    Rorie Edmunds

  • Creator
    Discussion
  • Author
    Replies
  • January 28, 2020 at 7:20 am #130216

    Andras Holl
    Member

    My impression is that these recommendations were created and tested with large subject repositories (data centers) in mind. I think for a prevalent OS – FAIR research data archiving lots of small, mainly institutional and publication-related repositories will be needed. For such repositories a light (easy) track for certification will be needed. Not just because of the repositories, but because of the referees involved in the certification process. The present form of the certification might be a hurdle for repositories, and for the certification process too.

    My proposal is that if a repository meets certain conditions (described in the background section), like it is an institutional repository or/and publication-related repository, if it is running a common (probably open source) repository software (certified version, proper plugins and patches applied), then they might answer “Not applicable” to certain questions, without explanation.

    If needed, I can send more detailed comments.

  • January 28, 2020 at 12:31 pm #130215

    Hervé L’Hours
    Member

    Hi Andras, the comment period this applies to closed some time ago. But the CoreTrustSeal is actively looking at how best to support a wide range of repository types and repository technical service providers. Direct contact via https://www.coretrustseal.org/contact/ is probably best,

    Regards,

    Hervé

  • January 28, 2020 at 12:31 pm #130214

    Hervé L’Hours
    Member

    Hi Andras, the comment period this applies to closed some time ago. But the CoreTrustSeal is actively looking at how best to support a wide range of repository types and repository technical service providers. Direct contact via https://www.coretrustseal.org/contact/ is probably best,

    Regards,

    Hervé

  • Author
    Replies

Log in to reply.