Skip to main content


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: 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:

FAIR Data Maturity Model indicators

  • Creator
  • #73959

    RDA Admin

    Dear all,
    I would like to draw your attention to discussion on the indicators that is
    taking place on GitHub at There are
    currently a few members of the group engaged in these discussion and we
    would welcome wider participation.
    In particular, there is discussion on the following issues:
    (Indicators for R1.1).
    On this issue, a suggestion has been made to try to enumerate a small set of
    crucial licence information, plus useful but not mandatory extensions. Such
    an approach could ensure that currently used common licences (e.g. CC-BY)
    would be compatible with FAIR data.
    (Indicators for R1.3).
    Here, two options are discussed.
    One option would be to have two indicators – one that would be about using a
    ‘common’ (i.e. widely understood like Dublin Core, DCAT or DataCite Kernel)
    metadata element set, or at least a set of metadata properties that can be
    easily converted to a common one, and one that would be about use of a more
    detailed, domain-specific set for cross-sub-domain interoperability.
    The other option would be to have one combined indicator that would be about
    using a ‘common’ element set with domain-specific extensions.
    (Indicators for R1.2)
    The suggestion on this issue is to define a set of criteria that need to be
    satisfied for provenance – not in a prescriptive way, e.g. defining which
    standard to use but analytical, i.e. which constraints have to be satisfied.
    (Indicators for R1)
    On this issue, it was suggested to look at the metadata element set under
    development by the RDA Metadata Interest Group
    ( — scroll down a bit)
    as a potential base set of elements.
    This issue is related to the more general issue of ‘Rich metadata’ in
    (Indicators for I2)
    The discussion here is about how FAIR the vocabularies (or more in general a
    Knowledge Organisation System KOS) need to be. An initial conclusion was
    that both the indicators for I2 (standard vocabularies and FAIR
    vocabularies) should be retained, but that at this point in time it cannot
    be expected that data is described with fully FAIR vocabularies, because
    there may no be many of those around, yet. So the indicator for the use of
    standard vocabularies could be mandatory, but the use of FAIR vocabularies
    could be a recommendation, and aspiration for the future.
    This is related to, the more
    general issue concerning knowledge representation.
    If you don’t have a GitHub account, you can get one at to contribute, and get notification of any comments
    from others by ‘watching’ the repository at
    We’re looking forward to your feedback and suggestions!
    Kind regards, Makx Dekkers

Log in to reply.