Skip to main content


The new RDA web platform is still being rolled out. Existing RDA members PLEASE REACTIVATE YOUR ACCOUNT using this link: Please report bugs, broken links and provide your feedback using the UserSnap tool on the bottom right corner of each page. Stay updated about the web site milestones at

Discussion items FAIR Data Maturity Model as of 19 August 2019

  • Creator
  • #107722

    RDA Admin

    Dear members of the FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group!
    The discussion on GitHub
    has been
    lively over the last couple of weeks. This link
    +is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-desc> allows you to see the issues that were
    recently updated. Below are some of the comments for which we’d like to
    gather more views.
    Other than that, we would like to ask you to review the proposed priorities
    (mandatory, recommended and optional) and let us know if you want to suggest
    changes to the proposals.
    Indicators prioritisation for Findability
    * Could the indicators for uniqueness and persistence of identifiers
    be combined in a single indicator?
    * Why are there indicators concerning universally unique, persistent
    identifiers for metadata? Are there any examples where metadata (e.g. a
    metadata ‘record’) has its own identifier?
    Indicators for F3: metadata clearly and explicitly include the identifier of
    the data it describes
    * There are cases where the PID of the data resolves to the metadata.
    How could that situation be captured in the indicators?
    Indicators for F4: (meta)data are registered or indexed in a searchable
    * The formulation “metadata is harvested by” does not put the
    responsibility on the data provider; a provider cannot force anyone to
    harvest the metadata. It might be better to change this to “metadata is
    offered/made available in such a way that it can be harvested and indexed by
    Indicators prioritisation for Accessibility
    (No comments yet)
    Indicators for A1: (meta)data are retrievable by their identifier using a
    standardised communications protocol
    * A proposal has been made to replace “file” by “digital object” in
    indicator A1-03D.
    Indicators for A1.1: the protocol is open, free, and universally
    * “Protocol” should also be understood to include the actions that a
    human reuser needs to perform to get access to the data, including, for
    example, filling in an application form or calling by telephone. The current
    indicators do not include this aspect. Should we add an indicator such as
    “Actions to be taken by a reuser to get access to the data are well
    Indicators prioritisation for Interoperability
    * In the current proposal, there are no mandatory indicators for
    interoperability. Should there be?
    Indicators for I1: (meta)data use a formal, accessible, shared, and broadly
    applicable language for knowledge representation
    * Big data does not use the term “knowledge representation” the same
    way. Knowledge about the structured sequences of numbers is contained in the
    metadata. The term “knowledge representation” needs to be explained that it
    includes such structured sequences or a different term should be used.
    Indicators for I3: (meta)data include qualified references to other
    * In the case of Big Data (structured number sequences), no references
    to other data will exist. In that case, the formulation is not appropriate.
    Indicators prioritisation for Reusability
    * Should there be a separate indicator concerning the provision of
    information in the metadata about the technical environment needed to re-use
    * The indicator “Data complies with a community standard” is too
    vague. Could it be narrowed to “Data format complies with a community
    standard” or “Data representation complies with a community standard” or
    “Data description complies with a community standard”?
    Indicators for R1.3: (meta)data meet domain-relevant community standards
    * The requirement for using a community standard could be difficult to
    meet for new research, because it could be too early for standards to be
    established in that area. Could this be handled by understanding ‘standard’
    in a wider sense, e.g. including less formal, published specifications?
    Furthermore, a suggestion has been made to refer to the FAIRsharing registry
    of community standards in various
    places (in particular F2
    R1.3 )
    to help people find relevant domain/discipline-specific metadata/data
    We are hoping to reach consensus on the indicators and the prioritisation by
    the end of August, in order to discuss and reach agreement in the online
    meeting on 12 September 2019.
    We very much welcome your comments and suggestions in the relevant GitHub
    Makx Dekkers and the editorial team

Log in to reply.