[RDA Admin]

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

Discussion

[Joseph Wafula]

Yes Barend, I am interested in this discussion and hopefully contribute and
learn from others.
Joseph
*Prof Muliaro Wafula PhD,FCCS,FCSK*
Director
ICT Centre of Excellence & Open Data -iCEOD
JKUAT
http://www.jkuat.ac.ke/directorates/iceod/

[Joseph Wafula]

Yes Barend, I am interested in this discussion and hopefully contribute and
learn from others.
Joseph
*Prof Muliaro Wafula PhD,FCCS,FCSK*
Director
ICT Centre of Excellence & Open Data -iCEOD
JKUAT
http://www.jkuat.ac.ke/directorates/iceod/

[RDA Admin]

Makx –
I agree these are excellent mechanisms – and we should preserve the discussions which – I believe – have been illuminating.
For me the problem persists: how to take abstract FAIR principles and turn them into concrete assertions to be challenged or questions which can be tested leading to metric values (binary or scalar)?
Your excellent landscape study indicates some approaches. The FAIRMetrics work (Go FAIR, FAIRSharing) seems very relevant.
I find the paper ‘FAIR Metrics Evaluation Results’ at ZIP at https://zenodo.org/record/1305060#.XMHGFehKhnI useful. However, many (most) of the answers are pointers to documents (and in some cases general documents not specific to the question or FAIR principle) and not a clear metric value. However the structure of the questions (and the sub-questions) is – I believe – relevant. Could we perhaps use their question structure as a basis and elaborate from there to specific assertions or questions to which the answers could be empirical metric values?
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.
———————————————————————————————————————————-
– Show quoted text -From: mail=***@***.***-groups.org On Behalf Of makxdekkers
Sent: 23 April 2019 12:59
To: ‘FAIR Data Maturity Model WG’
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
Excellent point Barend.
I would like to suggest possible ways to handle these threads.
First, I am hoping that members are willing to contribute to the collaborative document at [1] by proposing specific indicators and maturity levels for the FAIR principles. Furthermore, on specific points, like what is ‘persistence’ and what is ‘rich metadata’, such indicators could include whether or not data is identified with DOIs or other commonly used identifier schemes, and whether metadata is provided conformant to DataCite kernel or some other standard set – it would be good to point to common or best practice in order to make sure that we’re not re-inventing any wheels.
Second, for any further discussion, issues could be raised on the mailing list. In that case, I would suggest that an e-mail (a) is about one issue and (b) has a sensible subject line, so that it is easier to follow the thread. Maybe people could also cut off some of the long tail of messages in the replies.
It is also possible to raise issues on GitHub at [2]. GitHub makes it easier to follow individual discussions and see how discussions lead to consensus, but if people are more comfortable with e-mail that is OK too. The editorial team will keep an eye on both e-mail and GitHub and will try to summarise every now and again how the discussions are progressing.
Many thanks, Makx.
[1] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gvMfbw46oV1idztsr586aG6-teSn2cPW…
[2] https://github.com/RDA-FAIR/FAIR-data-maturity-model-WG/issues
From: barendmons=***@***.***-groups.org On Behalf Of Barend Mons
Sent: 23 April 2019 11:48
To: Keith Jeffery ; FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
I think al lot of that we discuss here is ‘how’ rather than ‘what’
So maybe we should start a separate thread because the discussion as such is very valuable.
I also address the UPRI /Handle issue a bit in http://www.data-intelligence-journal.org/p/10/1/
I believe a prefix registry is scalable, and with automatically generated (hash for instance) suffixes, we should be fine
B
Makx –
I agree these are excellent mechanisms – and we should preserve the discussions which – I believe – have been illuminating.
For me the problem persists: how to take abstract FAIR principles and turn them into concrete assertions to be challenged or questions which can be tested leading to metric values (binary or scalar)?
Your excellent landscape study indicates some approaches. The FAIRMetrics work (Go FAIR, FAIRSharing) seems very relevant.
I find the paper ‘FAIR Metrics Evaluation Results’ at ZIP at https://zenodo.org/record/1305060#.XMHGFehKhnI useful. However, many (most) of the answers are pointers to documents (and in some cases general documents not specific to the question or FAIR principle) and not a clear metric value. However the structure of the questions (and the sub-questions) is – I believe – relevant. Could we perhaps use their question structure as a basis and elaborate from there to specific assertions or questions to which the answers could be empirical metric values?
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: mail=***@***.***-groups.org On Behalf Of makxdekkers
Sent: 23 April 2019 12:59
To: ‘FAIR Data Maturity Model WG’
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
Excellent point Barend.
I would like to suggest possible ways to handle these threads.
First, I am hoping that members are willing to contribute to the collaborative document at [1] by proposing specific indicators and maturity levels for the FAIR principles. Furthermore, on specific points, like what is ‘persistence’ and what is ‘rich metadata’, such indicators could include whether or not data is identified with DOIs or other commonly used identifier schemes, and whether metadata is provided conformant to DataCite kernel or some other standard set – it would be good to point to common or best practice in order to make sure that we’re not re-inventing any wheels.
Second, for any further discussion, issues could be raised on the mailing list. In that case, I would suggest that an e-mail (a) is about one issue and (b) has a sensible subject line, so that it is easier to follow the thread. Maybe people could also cut off some of the long tail of messages in the replies.
It is also possible to raise issues on GitHub at [2]. GitHub makes it easier to follow individual discussions and see how discussions lead to consensus, but if people are more comfortable with e-mail that is OK too. The editorial team will keep an eye on both e-mail and GitHub and will try to summarise every now and again how the discussions are progressing.
Many thanks, Makx.
[1] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gvMfbw46oV1idztsr586aG6-teSn2cPW…
[2] https://github.com/RDA-FAIR/FAIR-data-maturity-model-WG/issues
– Show quoted text -From: barendmons=***@***.***-groups.org On Behalf Of Barend Mons
Sent: 23 April 2019 11:48
To: Keith Jeffery ; FAIR Data Maturity Model WG
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
I think al lot of that we discuss here is ‘how’ rather than ‘what’
So maybe we should start a separate thread because the discussion as such is very valuable.
I also address the UPRI /Handle issue a bit in http://www.data-intelligence-journal.org/p/10/1/
I believe a prefix registry is scalable, and with automatically generated (hash for instance) suffixes, we should be fine
B

[RDA Admin]

Keith,
Thanks for your suggestion.
Actually, what you suggest is what we try to do with the collaborative sheet at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gvMfbw46oV1idztsr586aG6-teSn2cPW….
The ‘specific assertions’ that you mention are more or less what we call ‘indicators’ in sheet 3. Development, with suggestions for ‘maturity levels’ for the indicators. These levels could act as ‘metrics’, although most of them would probably be qualitative rather than quantitative.
The idea is that we wouldn’t try to come up with a fixed set of questions – which would be yet-another-set-of-questions – but a set of indicators for which anyone could formulate questions, and in many cases, the existing questionnaires will already include questions related to the indicators.
Feel free to try and derive some ‘specific assertions’ or ‘indicators’ from the existing work and enter them in the sheet!
Makx.
– Show quoted text -From: keith.jeffery=***@***.***-groups.org On Behalf Of ***@***.***
Sent: 25 April 2019 17:02
To: ‘FAIR Data Maturity Model WG’
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
Makx –
I agree these are excellent mechanisms – and we should preserve the discussions which – I believe – have been illuminating.
For me the problem persists: how to take abstract FAIR principles and turn them into concrete assertions to be challenged or questions which can be tested leading to metric values (binary or scalar)?
Your excellent landscape study indicates some approaches. The FAIRMetrics work (Go FAIR, FAIRSharing) seems very relevant.
I find the paper ‘FAIR Metrics Evaluation Results’ at ZIP at https://zenodo.org/record/1305060#.XMHGFehKhnI useful. However, many (most) of the answers are pointers to documents (and in some cases general documents not specific to the question or FAIR principle) and not a clear metric value. However the structure of the questions (and the sub-questions) is – I believe – relevant. Could we perhaps use their question structure as a basis and elaborate from there to specific assertions or questions to which the answers could be empirical metric values?
Best
Keith

[RDA Admin]

Makx –
Thanks. I have made some suggestions for F1, F2, F3 (in red). Can you guide me – is this the sort of thing you had in mind?
On a practical point; can the spreadsheet be edited in ‘suggestion mode’ – I could not find a way to do that.
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.
———————————————————————————————————————————-
– Show quoted text -From: mail=***@***.***-groups.org On Behalf Of makxdekkers
Sent: 25 April 2019 16:23
To: ‘FAIR Data Maturity Model WG’
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
Keith,
Thanks for your suggestion.
Actually, what you suggest is what we try to do with the collaborative sheet at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gvMfbw46oV1idztsr586aG6-teSn2cPW….
The ‘specific assertions’ that you mention are more or less what we call ‘indicators’ in sheet 3. Development, with suggestions for ‘maturity levels’ for the indicators. These levels could act as ‘metrics’, although most of them would probably be qualitative rather than quantitative.
The idea is that we wouldn’t try to come up with a fixed set of questions – which would be yet-another-set-of-questions – but a set of indicators for which anyone could formulate questions, and in many cases, the existing questionnaires will already include questions related to the indicators.
Feel free to try and derive some ‘specific assertions’ or ‘indicators’ from the existing work and enter them in the sheet!
Makx.
From: keith.jeffery=***@***.***-groups.org On Behalf Of ***@***.***
Sent: 25 April 2019 17:02
To: ‘FAIR Data Maturity Model WG’
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
Makx –
I agree these are excellent mechanisms – and we should preserve the discussions which – I believe – have been illuminating.
For me the problem persists: how to take abstract FAIR principles and turn them into concrete assertions to be challenged or questions which can be tested leading to metric values (binary or scalar)?
Your excellent landscape study indicates some approaches. The FAIRMetrics work (Go FAIR, FAIRSharing) seems very relevant.
I find the paper ‘FAIR Metrics Evaluation Results’ at ZIP at https://zenodo.org/record/1305060#.XMHGFehKhnI useful. However, many (most) of the answers are pointers to documents (and in some cases general documents not specific to the question or FAIR principle) and not a clear metric value. However the structure of the questions (and the sub-questions) is – I believe – relevant. Could we perhaps use their question structure as a basis and elaborate from there to specific assertions or questions to which the answers could be empirical metric values?
Best
Keith
Makx –
Thanks. I have made some suggestions for F1, F2, F3 (in red). Can you guide me – is this the sort of thing you had in mind?
On a practical point; can the spreadsheet be edited in ‘suggestion mode’ – I could not find a way to do that.
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: mail=***@***.***-groups.org On Behalf Of makxdekkers
Sent: 25 April 2019 16:23
To: ‘FAIR Data Maturity Model WG’
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
Keith,
Thanks for your suggestion.
Actually, what you suggest is what we try to do with the collaborative sheet at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gvMfbw46oV1idztsr586aG6-teSn2cPW….
The ‘specific assertions’ that you mention are more or less what we call ‘indicators’ in sheet 3. Development, with suggestions for ‘maturity levels’ for the indicators. These levels could act as ‘metrics’, although most of them would probably be qualitative rather than quantitative.
The idea is that we wouldn’t try to come up with a fixed set of questions – which would be yet-another-set-of-questions – but a set of indicators for which anyone could formulate questions, and in many cases, the existing questionnaires will already include questions related to the indicators.
Feel free to try and derive some ‘specific assertions’ or ‘indicators’ from the existing work and enter them in the sheet!
Makx.
– Show quoted text -From: keith.jeffery=***@***.***-groups.org On Behalf Of ***@***.***
Sent: 25 April 2019 17:02
To: ‘FAIR Data Maturity Model WG’
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
Makx –
I agree these are excellent mechanisms – and we should preserve the discussions which – I believe – have been illuminating.
For me the problem persists: how to take abstract FAIR principles and turn them into concrete assertions to be challenged or questions which can be tested leading to metric values (binary or scalar)?
Your excellent landscape study indicates some approaches. The FAIRMetrics work (Go FAIR, FAIRSharing) seems very relevant.
I find the paper ‘FAIR Metrics Evaluation Results’ at ZIP at https://zenodo.org/record/1305060#.XMHGFehKhnI useful. However, many (most) of the answers are pointers to documents (and in some cases general documents not specific to the question or FAIR principle) and not a clear metric value. However the structure of the questions (and the sub-questions) is – I believe – relevant. Could we perhaps use their question structure as a basis and elaborate from there to specific assertions or questions to which the answers could be empirical metric values?
Best
Keith

[RDA Admin]

Keith,
Thanks for this. Your suggestions are fine. Anyone should feel free to propose whatever indicator they think makes sense.
However, I would like to suggest that you do not change indicators or maturity levels proposed by others but just add yours.
The editor team will use all the suggestions in step 3, grouping and consolidating the suggestions, to be discussed in the online meeting on 18 June.
Kind regards, Makx
De: keith.jeffery=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] En nombre de ***@***.***
Enviado el: viernes, 26 de abril de 2019 11:29
Para: ‘FAIR Data Maturity Model WG’
Asunto: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
Makx –
Thanks. I have made some suggestions for F1, F2, F3 (in red). Can you guide me – is this the sort of thing you had in mind?
On a practical point; can the spreadsheet be edited in ‘suggestion mode’ – I could not find a way to do that.
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.
———————————————————————————————————————————-
– Show quoted text -From: mail=***@***.***-groups.org On Behalf Of makxdekkers
Sent: 25 April 2019 16:23
To: ‘FAIR Data Maturity Model WG’
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
Keith,
Thanks for your suggestion.
Actually, what you suggest is what we try to do with the collaborative sheet at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gvMfbw46oV1idztsr586aG6-teSn2cPW….
The ‘specific assertions’ that you mention are more or less what we call ‘indicators’ in sheet 3. Development, with suggestions for ‘maturity levels’ for the indicators. These levels could act as ‘metrics’, although most of them would probably be qualitative rather than quantitative.
The idea is that we wouldn’t try to come up with a fixed set of questions – which would be yet-another-set-of-questions – but a set of indicators for which anyone could formulate questions, and in many cases, the existing questionnaires will already include questions related to the indicators.
Feel free to try and derive some ‘specific assertions’ or ‘indicators’ from the existing work and enter them in the sheet!
Makx.
From: keith.jeffery=***@***.***-groups.org On Behalf Of ***@***.***
Sent: 25 April 2019 17:02
To: ‘FAIR Data Maturity Model WG’
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
Makx –
I agree these are excellent mechanisms – and we should preserve the discussions which – I believe – have been illuminating.
For me the problem persists: how to take abstract FAIR principles and turn them into concrete assertions to be challenged or questions which can be tested leading to metric values (binary or scalar)?
Your excellent landscape study indicates some approaches. The FAIRMetrics work (Go FAIR, FAIRSharing) seems very relevant.
I find the paper ‘FAIR Metrics Evaluation Results’ at ZIP at https://zenodo.org/record/1305060#.XMHGFehKhnI useful. However, many (most) of the answers are pointers to documents (and in some cases general documents not specific to the question or FAIR principle) and not a clear metric value. However the structure of the questions (and the sub-questions) is – I believe – relevant. Could we perhaps use their question structure as a basis and elaborate from there to specific assertions or questions to which the answers could be empirical metric values?
Best
Keith
Keith,
Thanks for this. Your suggestions are fine. Anyone should feel free to propose whatever indicator they think makes sense.
However, I would like to suggest that you do not change indicators or maturity levels proposed by others but just add yours.
The editor team will use all the suggestions in step 3, grouping and consolidating the suggestions, to be discussed in the online meeting on 18 June.
Kind regards, Makx
De: keith.jeffery=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] En nombre de ***@***.***
Enviado el: viernes, 26 de abril de 2019 11:29
Para: ‘FAIR Data Maturity Model WG’
Asunto: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
Makx –
Thanks. I have made some suggestions for F1, F2, F3 (in red). Can you guide me – is this the sort of thing you had in mind?
On a practical point; can the spreadsheet be edited in ‘suggestion mode’ – I could not find a way to do that.
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: mail=***@***.***-groups.org On Behalf Of makxdekkers
Sent: 25 April 2019 16:23
To: ‘FAIR Data Maturity Model WG’
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
Keith,
Thanks for your suggestion.
Actually, what you suggest is what we try to do with the collaborative sheet at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gvMfbw46oV1idztsr586aG6-teSn2cPW….
The ‘specific assertions’ that you mention are more or less what we call ‘indicators’ in sheet 3. Development, with suggestions for ‘maturity levels’ for the indicators. These levels could act as ‘metrics’, although most of them would probably be qualitative rather than quantitative.
The idea is that we wouldn’t try to come up with a fixed set of questions – which would be yet-another-set-of-questions – but a set of indicators for which anyone could formulate questions, and in many cases, the existing questionnaires will already include questions related to the indicators.
Feel free to try and derive some ‘specific assertions’ or ‘indicators’ from the existing work and enter them in the sheet!
Makx.
– Show quoted text -From: keith.jeffery=***@***.***-groups.org On Behalf Of ***@***.***
Sent: 25 April 2019 17:02
To: ‘FAIR Data Maturity Model WG’
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
Makx –
I agree these are excellent mechanisms – and we should preserve the discussions which – I believe – have been illuminating.
For me the problem persists: how to take abstract FAIR principles and turn them into concrete assertions to be challenged or questions which can be tested leading to metric values (binary or scalar)?
Your excellent landscape study indicates some approaches. The FAIRMetrics work (Go FAIR, FAIRSharing) seems very relevant.
I find the paper ‘FAIR Metrics Evaluation Results’ at ZIP at https://zenodo.org/record/1305060#.XMHGFehKhnI useful. However, many (most) of the answers are pointers to documents (and in some cases general documents not specific to the question or FAIR principle) and not a clear metric value. However the structure of the questions (and the sub-questions) is – I believe – relevant. Could we perhaps use their question structure as a basis and elaborate from there to specific assertions or questions to which the answers could be empirical metric values?
Best
Keith

[RDA Admin]

Makx –
Thanks for the guidance. I have restored pre-exiting entries to their former state and added my entries.
When I get a moment I’ll look beyond F1,2,3
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.
———————————————————————————————————————————-
– Show quoted text -From: mail=***@***.***-groups.org On Behalf Of makxdekkers
Sent: 27 April 2019 08:07
To: ‘FAIR Data Maturity Model WG’
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
Keith,
Thanks for this. Your suggestions are fine. Anyone should feel free to propose whatever indicator they think makes sense.
However, I would like to suggest that you do not change indicators or maturity levels proposed by others but just add yours.
The editor team will use all the suggestions in step 3, grouping and consolidating the suggestions, to be discussed in the online meeting on 18 June.
Kind regards, Makx
De: keith.jeffery=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] En nombre de ***@***.***
Enviado el: viernes, 26 de abril de 2019 11:29
Para: ‘FAIR Data Maturity Model WG’
Asunto: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
Makx –
Thanks. I have made some suggestions for F1, F2, F3 (in red). Can you guide me – is this the sort of thing you had in mind?
On a practical point; can the spreadsheet be edited in ‘suggestion mode’ – I could not find a way to do that.
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: mail=***@***.***-groups.org On Behalf Of makxdekkers
Sent: 25 April 2019 16:23
To: ‘FAIR Data Maturity Model WG’
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
Keith,
Thanks for your suggestion.
Actually, what you suggest is what we try to do with the collaborative sheet at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gvMfbw46oV1idztsr586aG6-teSn2cPW….
The ‘specific assertions’ that you mention are more or less what we call ‘indicators’ in sheet 3. Development, with suggestions for ‘maturity levels’ for the indicators. These levels could act as ‘metrics’, although most of them would probably be qualitative rather than quantitative.
The idea is that we wouldn’t try to come up with a fixed set of questions – which would be yet-another-set-of-questions – but a set of indicators for which anyone could formulate questions, and in many cases, the existing questionnaires will already include questions related to the indicators.
Feel free to try and derive some ‘specific assertions’ or ‘indicators’ from the existing work and enter them in the sheet!
Makx.
From: keith.jeffery=***@***.***-groups.org On Behalf Of ***@***.***
Sent: 25 April 2019 17:02
To: ‘FAIR Data Maturity Model WG’
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
Makx –
I agree these are excellent mechanisms – and we should preserve the discussions which – I believe – have been illuminating.
For me the problem persists: how to take abstract FAIR principles and turn them into concrete assertions to be challenged or questions which can be tested leading to metric values (binary or scalar)?
Your excellent landscape study indicates some approaches. The FAIRMetrics work (Go FAIR, FAIRSharing) seems very relevant.
I find the paper ‘FAIR Metrics Evaluation Results’ at ZIP at https://zenodo.org/record/1305060#.XMHGFehKhnI useful. However, many (most) of the answers are pointers to documents (and in some cases general documents not specific to the question or FAIR principle) and not a clear metric value. However the structure of the questions (and the sub-questions) is – I believe – relevant. Could we perhaps use their question structure as a basis and elaborate from there to specific assertions or questions to which the answers could be empirical metric values?
Best
Keith
Makx –
Thanks for the guidance. I have restored pre-exiting entries to their former state and added my entries.
When I get a moment I’ll look beyond F1,2,3
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: mail=***@***.***-groups.org On Behalf Of makxdekkers
Sent: 27 April 2019 08:07
To: ‘FAIR Data Maturity Model WG’
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
Keith,
Thanks for this. Your suggestions are fine. Anyone should feel free to propose whatever indicator they think makes sense.
However, I would like to suggest that you do not change indicators or maturity levels proposed by others but just add yours.
The editor team will use all the suggestions in step 3, grouping and consolidating the suggestions, to be discussed in the online meeting on 18 June.
Kind regards, Makx
De: keith.jeffery=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] En nombre de ***@***.***
Enviado el: viernes, 26 de abril de 2019 11:29
Para: ‘FAIR Data Maturity Model WG’
Asunto: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
Makx –
Thanks. I have made some suggestions for F1, F2, F3 (in red). Can you guide me – is this the sort of thing you had in mind?
On a practical point; can the spreadsheet be edited in ‘suggestion mode’ – I could not find a way to do that.
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.
———————————————————————————————————————————-
– Show quoted text -From: mail=***@***.***-groups.org On Behalf Of makxdekkers
Sent: 25 April 2019 16:23
To: ‘FAIR Data Maturity Model WG’
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
Keith,
Thanks for your suggestion.
Actually, what you suggest is what we try to do with the collaborative sheet at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gvMfbw46oV1idztsr586aG6-teSn2cPW….
The ‘specific assertions’ that you mention are more or less what we call ‘indicators’ in sheet 3. Development, with suggestions for ‘maturity levels’ for the indicators. These levels could act as ‘metrics’, although most of them would probably be qualitative rather than quantitative.
The idea is that we wouldn’t try to come up with a fixed set of questions – which would be yet-another-set-of-questions – but a set of indicators for which anyone could formulate questions, and in many cases, the existing questionnaires will already include questions related to the indicators.
Feel free to try and derive some ‘specific assertions’ or ‘indicators’ from the existing work and enter them in the sheet!
Makx.
From: keith.jeffery=***@***.***-groups.org On Behalf Of ***@***.***
Sent: 25 April 2019 17:02
To: ‘FAIR Data Maturity Model WG’
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
Makx –
I agree these are excellent mechanisms – and we should preserve the discussions which – I believe – have been illuminating.
For me the problem persists: how to take abstract FAIR principles and turn them into concrete assertions to be challenged or questions which can be tested leading to metric values (binary or scalar)?
Your excellent landscape study indicates some approaches. The FAIRMetrics work (Go FAIR, FAIRSharing) seems very relevant.
I find the paper ‘FAIR Metrics Evaluation Results’ at ZIP at https://zenodo.org/record/1305060#.XMHGFehKhnI useful. However, many (most) of the answers are pointers to documents (and in some cases general documents not specific to the question or FAIR principle) and not a clear metric value. However the structure of the questions (and the sub-questions) is – I believe – relevant. Could we perhaps use their question structure as a basis and elaborate from there to specific assertions or questions to which the answers could be empirical metric values?
Best
Keith
Makx –
Thanks for the guidance. I have restored pre-exiting entries to their former state and added my entries.
When I get a moment I’ll look beyond F1,2,3
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: mail=***@***.***-groups.org On Behalf Of makxdekkers
Sent: 27 April 2019 08:07
To: ‘FAIR Data Maturity Model WG’
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
Keith,
Thanks for this. Your suggestions are fine. Anyone should feel free to propose whatever indicator they think makes sense.
However, I would like to suggest that you do not change indicators or maturity levels proposed by others but just add yours.
The editor team will use all the suggestions in step 3, grouping and consolidating the suggestions, to be discussed in the online meeting on 18 June.
Kind regards, Makx
De: keith.jeffery=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] En nombre de ***@***.***
Enviado el: viernes, 26 de abril de 2019 11:29
Para: ‘FAIR Data Maturity Model WG’
Asunto: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
Makx –
Thanks. I have made some suggestions for F1, F2, F3 (in red). Can you guide me – is this the sort of thing you had in mind?
On a practical point; can the spreadsheet be edited in ‘suggestion mode’ – I could not find a way to do that.
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: mail=***@***.***-groups.org On Behalf Of makxdekkers
Sent: 25 April 2019 16:23
To: ‘FAIR Data Maturity Model WG’
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
Keith,
Thanks for your suggestion.
Actually, what you suggest is what we try to do with the collaborative sheet at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gvMfbw46oV1idztsr586aG6-teSn2cPW….
The ‘specific assertions’ that you mention are more or less what we call ‘indicators’ in sheet 3. Development, with suggestions for ‘maturity levels’ for the indicators. These levels could act as ‘metrics’, although most of them would probably be qualitative rather than quantitative.
The idea is that we wouldn’t try to come up with a fixed set of questions – which would be yet-another-set-of-questions – but a set of indicators for which anyone could formulate questions, and in many cases, the existing questionnaires will already include questions related to the indicators.
Feel free to try and derive some ‘specific assertions’ or ‘indicators’ from the existing work and enter them in the sheet!
Makx.
– Show quoted text -From: keith.jeffery=***@***.***-groups.org On Behalf Of ***@***.***
Sent: 25 April 2019 17:02
To: ‘FAIR Data Maturity Model WG’
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Workshop #2 Report
Makx –
I agree these are excellent mechanisms – and we should preserve the discussions which – I believe – have been illuminating.
For me the problem persists: how to take abstract FAIR principles and turn them into concrete assertions to be challenged or questions which can be tested leading to metric values (binary or scalar)?
Your excellent landscape study indicates some approaches. The FAIRMetrics work (Go FAIR, FAIRSharing) seems very relevant.
I find the paper ‘FAIR Metrics Evaluation Results’ at ZIP at https://zenodo.org/record/1305060#.XMHGFehKhnI useful. However, many (most) of the answers are pointers to documents (and in some cases general documents not specific to the question or FAIR principle) and not a clear metric value. However the structure of the questions (and the sub-questions) is – I believe – relevant. Could we perhaps use their question structure as a basis and elaborate from there to specific assertions or questions to which the answers could be empirical metric values?
Best
Keith

[Author]

Replies