Reminder for online meeting, 18 June 2019

Dear Edit, dear Keith,
If I may, I would like to raise a point in relation to slide 23, concerning I.2 - "(meta)data use vocabularies that follow FAIR principles".
The issue here is that it is not explicit which of the FAIR principles should be tested, and how, to determine if (and how much) a (meta)data vocabulary complies with FAIR principles.
I wonder whether providing clear guidelines on this topic is in scope with the WG.
I think it would be very much helpful for (meta)data providers to be able to verify if the vocabularies they use are or not FAIR-compliant. In case they are still deciding which vocabulary to use, FAIR-compliance could be one of the criteria to be taken into account. Moreover, I see benefits also on the side of standard bodies and/or communities managing vocabularies: in such a case, FAIR principles can be taken into account when designing or revising a vocabulary.
Thanks
Andrea
----
Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
Scientific 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: keith.russell=***@***.***-groups.org <***@***.***-groups.org> on behalf of kgrussell <***@***.***>
Sent: 12 June 2019 02:27:29
To: ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: [fair_maturity] Reminder for online meeting, 18 June 2019
Dear members of the RDA FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group,
This is a reminder for the next online meeting of the Working Group will take place on 18 June 2019, as usual in two sessions, the first at 0700UTC (local times) and the second at 1500UTC (local times).
In the call, we intend to discuss the interim results of the collaborative work on the Google spreadsheet [1]. We will also talk about a possible approach to the next phase of the development, aiming to consolidate the proposed indicators and maturity levels. Finally, we will gather opinions on the structure and contents of a face-to-face meeting at the 14th RDA Plenary in Finland in October 2019.
In order to give the members the opportunity to look at what we will present at the online meeting, we have published the draft slide deck to be used on the Working Group page at RDA [2].
The next online meeting of the Working Group after the one next week is scheduled for 12 September 2019. In the period between 18 June and 12 September, we would like to invite the Working Group to:
* Provide feedback to the proposals presented at the meeting of 18 June – if at all possible, by the 30th of June
* Contribute more indicators and maturity levels – until the 31st of August
* Share ideas about consolidation and weighting of indicators and maturity levels
The Google spreadsheet will remain open for contributions, and the GitHub repository [3] is still available for your feedback and suggestions.
By the time of the next online meeting on 12 September, we are hoping to present a more stable set of indicators to be included in a first draft of the maturity model. Towards that goal, the editorial team will summarise the contributions received until the 31st of August in the first week of September in preparation for the call.
We are looking forward to discussing the current status and further work with many of you next week!
Kind regards,
Edit and Keith and the editorial team,
[1] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/1/d/1gvMfbw46oV1idztsr586aG6-teSn...
[2] https://www.rd-alliance.org/workshop-3
[3] https://github.com/RDA-FAIR/FAIR-data-maturity-model-WG
Keith Russell
Manager Engagements
P +61 3 9905 6273
M +61 427 452 342
***@***.***
ardc.edu.au

[https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=1QqNfGOMC-_wQgBQr3JS54qaXf...
Monash University
Building T, Ground Floor
100 Sir John Monash Drive, Caulfield East VIC 3145, AUSTRALIA
PO Box 197, Caulfield East VIC 3145, AUSTRALIA [https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=10KWhMNZMW2uIU7LSLE-DGYtQq...
[https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/mq9gMXdFq5POuTV9v9pdedYaKS4kCOCpaBr2dt... [https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Niao3q9A99V4w1LhlPKvWWbzBQeEjiQWKPjnoh...
ARDC acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the lands
that we live and work on across Australia and pays its respect
to Elders past and present.
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

Keith –
I may not be available 18th June unfortunately but if I can shuffle things I’ll attend. In case of my non-attendance I’d like to make some comments.
Slide 15: in my opinion use of a landing page invalidates FAIR because it requires a human intervention step between the initial metadata (which points to the landing page, not the asset) and access to the asset. This precludes (unless one does clever tricks with MIME types and the like) autonomic access to the asset based on a query on the metadata.
Slide 22 there is a difference between machine-readable and machine-understandable; I suggest the latter is also required for autonomic processing.
Slide23: I support Andrea’s comment. Does FAIR compliance mean that the vocabulary is all of F,A,I,R – in which case it probably needs to be an ontology.
Slide24: qualification of references: since vocabularies and terms change should this not have a temporal range for validity? Two terms with different lexical representations with the same meaning (but a change in common usage) may be distinguished by different time ranges.
Slide 25: although guidelines may be useful surely the question concerns whether there are sufficient attributes (rich metadata) presumably with formal syntax and declared semantics to allow re-use (or for that matter F, A and I)
Slide 27: I believe this is insufficient. Surely the end-user (or a software agent acting on their behalf) needs to know if there is machine readable or machine understandable provenance information since this is essential for contextualisation (relevance, quality) of the asset based on the available metadata
Slide28: should it not be following a schema rather than a template? This would imply constraints to ensure conformance.
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: keith.russell=***@***.***-groups.org <***@***.***-groups.org> On Behalf Of kgrussell
Sent: 12 June 2019 01:27
To: ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: [fair_maturity] Reminder for online meeting, 18 June 2019
Dear members of the RDA FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group,
This is a reminder for the next online meeting of the Working Group will take place on 18 June 2019, as usual in two sessions, the first at 0700UTC (local times) and the second at 1500UTC (local times).
In the call, we intend to discuss the interim results of the collaborative work on the Google spreadsheet [1]. We will also talk about a possible approach to the next phase of the development, aiming to consolidate the proposed indicators and maturity levels. Finally, we will gather opinions on the structure and contents of a face-to-face meeting at the 14th RDA Plenary in Finland in October 2019.
In order to give the members the opportunity to look at what we will present at the online meeting, we have published the draft slide deck to be used on the Working Group page at RDA [2].
The next online meeting of the Working Group after the one next week is scheduled for 12 September 2019. In the period between 18 June and 12 September, we would like to invite the Working Group to:
* Provide feedback to the proposals presented at the meeting of 18 June – if at all possible, by the 30th of June
* Contribute more indicators and maturity levels – until the 31st of August
* Share ideas about consolidation and weighting of indicators and maturity levels
The Google spreadsheet will remain open for contributions, and the GitHub repository [3] is still available for your feedback and suggestions.
By the time of the next online meeting on 12 September, we are hoping to present a more stable set of indicators to be included in a first draft of the maturity model. Towards that goal, the editorial team will summarise the contributions received until the 31st of August in the first week of September in preparation for the call.
We are looking forward to discussing the current status and further work with many of you next week!
Kind regards,
Edit and Keith and the editorial team,
[1] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/1/d/1gvMfbw46oV1idztsr586aG6-teSn...
[2] https://www.rd-alliance.org/workshop-3
[3] https://github.com/RDA-FAIR/FAIR-data-maturity-model-WG
Keith Russell
Manager Engagements
P +61 3 9905 6273
M +61 427 452 342
***@***.***
ardc.edu.au
[Image removed by sender.]
Monash University
Building T, Ground Floor
100 Sir John Monash Drive, Caulfield East VIC 3145, AUSTRALIA
PO Box 197, Caulfield East VIC 3145, AUSTRALIA
[Image removed by sender.]
[Image removed by sender.]
[Image removed by sender.]
ARDC acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the lands
that we live and work on across Australia and pays its respect
to Elders past and present.
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

Andrea,
Excellent point. As the editorial team was analysing the contribution to the
Google doc, we did note that this principle I2 involves recursion, as it
implies that all FAIR principles need to be tested against the used
vocabularies.
The GO-FAIR clarification seems to limit it to Findable and Accessible:
"The controlled vocabulary used to describe datasets needs to be documented
and resolvable using globally unique and persistent identifiers. This
documentation needs to be easily findable and accessible by anyone who uses
the dataset."
Although it could be argued that Interoperable and (especially) Reusable are
often also important aspects of the use of vocabularies.
Makx.
From: andrea.perego=***@***.***-groups.org
<***@***.***-groups.org> On Behalf Of andrea.perego
Sent: 12 June 2019 09:28
To: ***@***.***; ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Reminder for online meeting, 18 June 2019
Dear Edit, dear Keith,
If I may, I would like to raise a point in relation to slide 23, concerning
I.2 - "(meta)data use vocabularies that follow FAIR principles".
The issue here is that it is not explicit which of the FAIR principles
should be tested, and how, to determine if (and how much) a (meta)data
vocabulary complies with FAIR principles.
I wonder whether providing clear guidelines on this topic is in scope with
the WG.
I think it would be very much helpful for (meta)data providers to be able to
verify if the vocabularies they use are or not FAIR-compliant. In case they
are still deciding which vocabulary to use, FAIR-compliance could be one of
the criteria to be taken into account. Moreover, I see benefits also on the
side of standard bodies and/or communities managing vocabularies: in such a
case, FAIR principles can be taken into account when designing or revising a
vocabulary.
Thanks
Andrea

Many thanks, Keith.
If you’re not able to attend the online meeting next week, we’ll take your comments into account in the discussion.
Kind regards, Makx.
- Show quoted text -From: keith.jeffery=***@***.***-groups.org <***@***.***-groups.org> On Behalf Of ***@***.***
Sent: 12 June 2019 16:07
To: kgrussell <***@***.***>; ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Reminder for online meeting, 18 June 2019
Keith –
I may not be available 18th June unfortunately but if I can shuffle things I’ll attend. In case of my non-attendance I’d like to make some comments.
Slide 15: in my opinion use of a landing page invalidates FAIR because it requires a human intervention step between the initial metadata (which points to the landing page, not the asset) and access to the asset. This precludes (unless one does clever tricks with MIME types and the like) autonomic access to the asset based on a query on the metadata.
Slide 22 there is a difference between machine-readable and machine-understandable; I suggest the latter is also required for autonomic processing.
Slide23: I support Andrea’s comment. Does FAIR compliance mean that the vocabulary is all of F,A,I,R – in which case it probably needs to be an ontology.
Slide24: qualification of references: since vocabularies and terms change should this not have a temporal range for validity? Two terms with different lexical representations with the same meaning (but a change in common usage) may be distinguished by different time ranges.
Slide 25: although guidelines may be useful surely the question concerns whether there are sufficient attributes (rich metadata) presumably with formal syntax and declared semantics to allow re-use (or for that matter F, A and I)
Slide 27: I believe this is insufficient. Surely the end-user (or a software agent acting on their behalf) needs to know if there is machine readable or machine understandable provenance information since this is essential for contextualisation (relevance, quality) of the asset based on the available metadata
Slide28: should it not be following a schema rather than a template? This would imply constraints to ensure conformance.
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: keith.russell=***@***.***-groups.org <***@***.***-groups.org > On Behalf Of kgrussell
Sent: 12 June 2019 01:27
To: ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: [fair_maturity] Reminder for online meeting, 18 June 2019
Dear members of the RDA FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group,
This is a reminder for the next online meeting of the Working Group will take place on 18 June 2019, as usual in two sessions, the first at 0700UTC (local times ) and the second at 1500UTC (local times ).
In the call, we intend to discuss the interim results of the collaborative work on the Google spreadsheet [1]. We will also talk about a possible approach to the next phase of the development, aiming to consolidate the proposed indicators and maturity levels. Finally, we will gather opinions on the structure and contents of a face-to-face meeting at the 14th RDA Plenary in Finland in October 2019.
In order to give the members the opportunity to look at what we will present at the online meeting, we have published the draft slide deck to be used on the Working Group page at RDA [2].
The next online meeting of the Working Group after the one next week is scheduled for 12 September 2019. In the period between 18 June and 12 September, we would like to invite the Working Group to:
* Provide feedback to the proposals presented at the meeting of 18 June – if at all possible, by the 30th of June
* Contribute more indicators and maturity levels – until the 31st of August
* Share ideas about consolidation and weighting of indicators and maturity levels
The Google spreadsheet will remain open for contributions, and the GitHub repository [3] is still available for your feedback and suggestions.
By the time of the next online meeting on 12 September, we are hoping to present a more stable set of indicators to be included in a first draft of the maturity model. Towards that goal, the editorial team will summarise the contributions received until the 31st of August in the first week of September in preparation for the call.
We are looking forward to discussing the current status and further work with many of you next week!
Kind regards,
Edit and Keith and the editorial team,
[1] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/1/d/1gvMfbw46oV1idztsr586aG6-teSn...
[2] https://www.rd-alliance.org/workshop-3
[3] https://github.com/RDA-FAIR/FAIR-data-maturity-model-WG
Keith Russell
Manager Engagements
P +61 3 9905 6273
M +61 427 452 342
***@***.***
ardc.edu.au
Monash University
Building T, Ground Floor
100 Sir John Monash Drive, Caulfield East VIC 3145, AUSTRALIA
PO Box 197, Caulfield East VIC 3145, AUSTRALIA

ARDC acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the lands
that we live and work on across Australia and pays its respect
to Elders past and present.
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
Many thanks, Keith.
If you’re not able to attend the online meeting next week, we’ll take your comments into account in the discussion.
Kind regards, Makx.
From: keith.jeffery=***@***.***-groups.org <***@***.***-groups.org> On Behalf Of ***@***.***
Sent: 12 June 2019 16:07
To: kgrussell <***@***.***>; ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Reminder for online meeting, 18 June 2019
Keith –
I may not be available 18th June unfortunately but if I can shuffle things I’ll attend. In case of my non-attendance I’d like to make some comments.
Slide 15: in my opinion use of a landing page invalidates FAIR because it requires a human intervention step between the initial metadata (which points to the landing page, not the asset) and access to the asset. This precludes (unless one does clever tricks with MIME types and the like) autonomic access to the asset based on a query on the metadata.
Slide 22 there is a difference between machine-readable and machine-understandable; I suggest the latter is also required for autonomic processing.
Slide23: I support Andrea’s comment. Does FAIR compliance mean that the vocabulary is all of F,A,I,R – in which case it probably needs to be an ontology.
Slide24: qualification of references: since vocabularies and terms change should this not have a temporal range for validity? Two terms with different lexical representations with the same meaning (but a change in common usage) may be distinguished by different time ranges.
Slide 25: although guidelines may be useful surely the question concerns whether there are sufficient attributes (rich metadata) presumably with formal syntax and declared semantics to allow re-use (or for that matter F, A and I)
Slide 27: I believe this is insufficient. Surely the end-user (or a software agent acting on their behalf) needs to know if there is machine readable or machine understandable provenance information since this is essential for contextualisation (relevance, quality) of the asset based on the available metadata
Slide28: should it not be following a schema rather than a template? This would imply constraints to ensure conformance.
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: keith.russell=***@***.***-groups.org <***@***.***-groups.org > On Behalf Of kgrussell
Sent: 12 June 2019 01:27
To: ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: [fair_maturity] Reminder for online meeting, 18 June 2019
Dear members of the RDA FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group,
This is a reminder for the next online meeting of the Working Group will take place on 18 June 2019, as usual in two sessions, the first at 0700UTC (local times ) and the second at 1500UTC (local times ).
In the call, we intend to discuss the interim results of the collaborative work on the Google spreadsheet [1]. We will also talk about a possible approach to the next phase of the development, aiming to consolidate the proposed indicators and maturity levels. Finally, we will gather opinions on the structure and contents of a face-to-face meeting at the 14th RDA Plenary in Finland in October 2019.
In order to give the members the opportunity to look at what we will present at the online meeting, we have published the draft slide deck to be used on the Working Group page at RDA [2].
The next online meeting of the Working Group after the one next week is scheduled for 12 September 2019. In the period between 18 June and 12 September, we would like to invite the Working Group to:
* Provide feedback to the proposals presented at the meeting of 18 June – if at all possible, by the 30th of June
* Contribute more indicators and maturity levels – until the 31st of August
* Share ideas about consolidation and weighting of indicators and maturity levels
The Google spreadsheet will remain open for contributions, and the GitHub repository [3] is still available for your feedback and suggestions.
By the time of the next online meeting on 12 September, we are hoping to present a more stable set of indicators to be included in a first draft of the maturity model. Towards that goal, the editorial team will summarise the contributions received until the 31st of August in the first week of September in preparation for the call.
We are looking forward to discussing the current status and further work with many of you next week!
Kind regards,
Edit and Keith and the editorial team,
[1] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/1/d/1gvMfbw46oV1idztsr586aG6-teSn...
[2] https://www.rd-alliance.org/workshop-3
[3] https://github.com/RDA-FAIR/FAIR-data-maturity-model-WG
Keith Russell
Manager Engagements
P +61 3 9905 6273
M +61 427 452 342
***@***.***
ardc.edu.au
Monash University
Building T, Ground Floor
100 Sir John Monash Drive, Caulfield East VIC 3145, AUSTRALIA
PO Box 197, Caulfield East VIC 3145, AUSTRALIA

ARDC acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the lands
that we live and work on across Australia and pays its respect
to Elders past and present.
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

Makx –
many thanks; I’ll try to attend but if not I am grateful if my comments could be considered
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: Makx Dekkers <***@***.***>
Sent: 13 June 2019 11:18
To: Keith Jeffery <***@***.***>; 'kgrussell' <***@***.***>; ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: RE: [fair_maturity] Reminder for online meeting, 18 June 2019
Many thanks, Keith.
If you’re not able to attend the online meeting next week, we’ll take your comments into account in the discussion.
Kind regards, Makx.
From: keith.jeffery=***@***.***-groups.org <***@***.***-groups.org> On Behalf Of ***@***.***
Sent: 12 June 2019 16:07
To: kgrussell <***@***.***>; ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Reminder for online meeting, 18 June 2019
Keith –
I may not be available 18th June unfortunately but if I can shuffle things I’ll attend. In case of my non-attendance I’d like to make some comments.
Slide 15: in my opinion use of a landing page invalidates FAIR because it requires a human intervention step between the initial metadata (which points to the landing page, not the asset) and access to the asset. This precludes (unless one does clever tricks with MIME types and the like) autonomic access to the asset based on a query on the metadata.
Slide 22 there is a difference between machine-readable and machine-understandable; I suggest the latter is also required for autonomic processing.
Slide23: I support Andrea’s comment. Does FAIR compliance mean that the vocabulary is all of F,A,I,R – in which case it probably needs to be an ontology.
Slide24: qualification of references: since vocabularies and terms change should this not have a temporal range for validity? Two terms with different lexical representations with the same meaning (but a change in common usage) may be distinguished by different time ranges.
Slide 25: although guidelines may be useful surely the question concerns whether there are sufficient attributes (rich metadata) presumably with formal syntax and declared semantics to allow re-use (or for that matter F, A and I)
Slide 27: I believe this is insufficient. Surely the end-user (or a software agent acting on their behalf) needs to know if there is machine readable or machine understandable provenance information since this is essential for contextualisation (relevance, quality) of the asset based on the available metadata
Slide28: should it not be following a schema rather than a template? This would imply constraints to ensure conformance.
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: keith.russell=***@***.***-groups.org <***@***.***-groups.org> On Behalf Of kgrussell
Sent: 12 June 2019 01:27
To: ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: [fair_maturity] Reminder for online meeting, 18 June 2019
Dear members of the RDA FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group,
This is a reminder for the next online meeting of the Working Group will take place on 18 June 2019, as usual in two sessions, the first at 0700UTC (local times) and the second at 1500UTC (local times).
In the call, we intend to discuss the interim results of the collaborative work on the Google spreadsheet [1]. We will also talk about a possible approach to the next phase of the development, aiming to consolidate the proposed indicators and maturity levels. Finally, we will gather opinions on the structure and contents of a face-to-face meeting at the 14th RDA Plenary in Finland in October 2019.
In order to give the members the opportunity to look at what we will present at the online meeting, we have published the draft slide deck to be used on the Working Group page at RDA [2].
The next online meeting of the Working Group after the one next week is scheduled for 12 September 2019. In the period between 18 June and 12 September, we would like to invite the Working Group to:
* Provide feedback to the proposals presented at the meeting of 18 June – if at all possible, by the 30th of June
* Contribute more indicators and maturity levels – until the 31st of August
* Share ideas about consolidation and weighting of indicators and maturity levels
The Google spreadsheet will remain open for contributions, and the GitHub repository [3] is still available for your feedback and suggestions.
By the time of the next online meeting on 12 September, we are hoping to present a more stable set of indicators to be included in a first draft of the maturity model. Towards that goal, the editorial team will summarise the contributions received until the 31st of August in the first week of September in preparation for the call.
We are looking forward to discussing the current status and further work with many of you next week!
Kind regards,
Edit and Keith and the editorial team,
[1] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/1/d/1gvMfbw46oV1idztsr586aG6-teSn...
[2] https://www.rd-alliance.org/workshop-3
[3] https://github.com/RDA-FAIR/FAIR-data-maturity-model-WG
Keith Russell
Manager Engagements
P +61 3 9905 6273
M +61 427 452 342
***@***.***
ardc.edu.au
[Image removed by sender.]
Monash University
Building T, Ground Floor
100 Sir John Monash Drive, Caulfield East VIC 3145, AUSTRALIA
PO Box 197, Caulfield East VIC 3145, AUSTRALIA
[Image removed by sender.]
[Image removed by sender.]
[Image removed by sender.]
ARDC acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the lands
that we live and work on across Australia and pays its respect
to Elders past and present.
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
Makx –
many thanks; I’ll try to attend but if not I am grateful if my comments could be considered
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: Makx Dekkers <***@***.***>
Sent: 13 June 2019 11:18
To: Keith Jeffery <***@***.***>; 'kgrussell' <***@***.***>; ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: RE: [fair_maturity] Reminder for online meeting, 18 June 2019
Many thanks, Keith.
If you’re not able to attend the online meeting next week, we’ll take your comments into account in the discussion.
Kind regards, Makx.
- Show quoted text -From: keith.jeffery=***@***.***-groups.org <***@***.***-groups.org> On Behalf Of ***@***.***
Sent: 12 June 2019 16:07
To: kgrussell <***@***.***>; ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Reminder for online meeting, 18 June 2019
Keith –
I may not be available 18th June unfortunately but if I can shuffle things I’ll attend. In case of my non-attendance I’d like to make some comments.
Slide 15: in my opinion use of a landing page invalidates FAIR because it requires a human intervention step between the initial metadata (which points to the landing page, not the asset) and access to the asset. This precludes (unless one does clever tricks with MIME types and the like) autonomic access to the asset based on a query on the metadata.
Slide 22 there is a difference between machine-readable and machine-understandable; I suggest the latter is also required for autonomic processing.
Slide23: I support Andrea’s comment. Does FAIR compliance mean that the vocabulary is all of F,A,I,R – in which case it probably needs to be an ontology.
Slide24: qualification of references: since vocabularies and terms change should this not have a temporal range for validity? Two terms with different lexical representations with the same meaning (but a change in common usage) may be distinguished by different time ranges.
Slide 25: although guidelines may be useful surely the question concerns whether there are sufficient attributes (rich metadata) presumably with formal syntax and declared semantics to allow re-use (or for that matter F, A and I)
Slide 27: I believe this is insufficient. Surely the end-user (or a software agent acting on their behalf) needs to know if there is machine readable or machine understandable provenance information since this is essential for contextualisation (relevance, quality) of the asset based on the available metadata
Slide28: should it not be following a schema rather than a template? This would imply constraints to ensure conformance.
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: keith.russell=***@***.***-groups.org <***@***.***-groups.org> On Behalf Of kgrussell
Sent: 12 June 2019 01:27
To: ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: [fair_maturity] Reminder for online meeting, 18 June 2019
Dear members of the RDA FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group,
This is a reminder for the next online meeting of the Working Group will take place on 18 June 2019, as usual in two sessions, the first at 0700UTC (local times) and the second at 1500UTC (local times).
In the call, we intend to discuss the interim results of the collaborative work on the Google spreadsheet [1]. We will also talk about a possible approach to the next phase of the development, aiming to consolidate the proposed indicators and maturity levels. Finally, we will gather opinions on the structure and contents of a face-to-face meeting at the 14th RDA Plenary in Finland in October 2019.
In order to give the members the opportunity to look at what we will present at the online meeting, we have published the draft slide deck to be used on the Working Group page at RDA [2].
The next online meeting of the Working Group after the one next week is scheduled for 12 September 2019. In the period between 18 June and 12 September, we would like to invite the Working Group to:
* Provide feedback to the proposals presented at the meeting of 18 June – if at all possible, by the 30th of June
* Contribute more indicators and maturity levels – until the 31st of August
* Share ideas about consolidation and weighting of indicators and maturity levels
The Google spreadsheet will remain open for contributions, and the GitHub repository [3] is still available for your feedback and suggestions.
By the time of the next online meeting on 12 September, we are hoping to present a more stable set of indicators to be included in a first draft of the maturity model. Towards that goal, the editorial team will summarise the contributions received until the 31st of August in the first week of September in preparation for the call.
We are looking forward to discussing the current status and further work with many of you next week!
Kind regards,
Edit and Keith and the editorial team,
[1] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/1/d/1gvMfbw46oV1idztsr586aG6-teSn...
[2] https://www.rd-alliance.org/workshop-3
[3] https://github.com/RDA-FAIR/FAIR-data-maturity-model-WG
Keith Russell
Manager Engagements
P +61 3 9905 6273
M +61 427 452 342
***@***.***
ardc.edu.au
[Image removed by sender.]
Monash University
Building T, Ground Floor
100 Sir John Monash Drive, Caulfield East VIC 3145, AUSTRALIA
PO Box 197, Caulfield East VIC 3145, AUSTRALIA
[Image removed by sender.]
[Image removed by sender.]
[Image removed by sender.]
ARDC acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the lands
that we live and work on across Australia and pays its respect
to Elders past and present.
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
Makx –
many thanks; I’ll try to attend but if not I am grateful if my comments could be considered
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: Makx Dekkers <***@***.***>
Sent: 13 June 2019 11:18
To: Keith Jeffery <***@***.***>; 'kgrussell' <***@***.***>; ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: RE: [fair_maturity] Reminder for online meeting, 18 June 2019
Many thanks, Keith.
If you’re not able to attend the online meeting next week, we’ll take your comments into account in the discussion.
Kind regards, Makx.
From: keith.jeffery=***@***.***-groups.org <***@***.***-groups.org> On Behalf Of ***@***.***
Sent: 12 June 2019 16:07
To: kgrussell <***@***.***>; ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Reminder for online meeting, 18 June 2019
Keith –
I may not be available 18th June unfortunately but if I can shuffle things I’ll attend. In case of my non-attendance I’d like to make some comments.
Slide 15: in my opinion use of a landing page invalidates FAIR because it requires a human intervention step between the initial metadata (which points to the landing page, not the asset) and access to the asset. This precludes (unless one does clever tricks with MIME types and the like) autonomic access to the asset based on a query on the metadata.
Slide 22 there is a difference between machine-readable and machine-understandable; I suggest the latter is also required for autonomic processing.
Slide23: I support Andrea’s comment. Does FAIR compliance mean that the vocabulary is all of F,A,I,R – in which case it probably needs to be an ontology.
Slide24: qualification of references: since vocabularies and terms change should this not have a temporal range for validity? Two terms with different lexical representations with the same meaning (but a change in common usage) may be distinguished by different time ranges.
Slide 25: although guidelines may be useful surely the question concerns whether there are sufficient attributes (rich metadata) presumably with formal syntax and declared semantics to allow re-use (or for that matter F, A and I)
Slide 27: I believe this is insufficient. Surely the end-user (or a software agent acting on their behalf) needs to know if there is machine readable or machine understandable provenance information since this is essential for contextualisation (relevance, quality) of the asset based on the available metadata
Slide28: should it not be following a schema rather than a template? This would imply constraints to ensure conformance.
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: keith.russell=***@***.***-groups.org <***@***.***-groups.org> On Behalf Of kgrussell
Sent: 12 June 2019 01:27
To: ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: [fair_maturity] Reminder for online meeting, 18 June 2019
Dear members of the RDA FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group,
This is a reminder for the next online meeting of the Working Group will take place on 18 June 2019, as usual in two sessions, the first at 0700UTC (local times) and the second at 1500UTC (local times).
In the call, we intend to discuss the interim results of the collaborative work on the Google spreadsheet [1]. We will also talk about a possible approach to the next phase of the development, aiming to consolidate the proposed indicators and maturity levels. Finally, we will gather opinions on the structure and contents of a face-to-face meeting at the 14th RDA Plenary in Finland in October 2019.
In order to give the members the opportunity to look at what we will present at the online meeting, we have published the draft slide deck to be used on the Working Group page at RDA [2].
The next online meeting of the Working Group after the one next week is scheduled for 12 September 2019. In the period between 18 June and 12 September, we would like to invite the Working Group to:
* Provide feedback to the proposals presented at the meeting of 18 June – if at all possible, by the 30th of June
* Contribute more indicators and maturity levels – until the 31st of August
* Share ideas about consolidation and weighting of indicators and maturity levels
The Google spreadsheet will remain open for contributions, and the GitHub repository [3] is still available for your feedback and suggestions.
By the time of the next online meeting on 12 September, we are hoping to present a more stable set of indicators to be included in a first draft of the maturity model. Towards that goal, the editorial team will summarise the contributions received until the 31st of August in the first week of September in preparation for the call.
We are looking forward to discussing the current status and further work with many of you next week!
Kind regards,
Edit and Keith and the editorial team,
[1] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/1/d/1gvMfbw46oV1idztsr586aG6-teSn...
[2] https://www.rd-alliance.org/workshop-3
[3] https://github.com/RDA-FAIR/FAIR-data-maturity-model-WG
Keith Russell
Manager Engagements
P +61 3 9905 6273
M +61 427 452 342
***@***.***
ardc.edu.au
[Image removed by sender.]
Monash University
Building T, Ground Floor
100 Sir John Monash Drive, Caulfield East VIC 3145, AUSTRALIA
PO Box 197, Caulfield East VIC 3145, AUSTRALIA
[Image removed by sender.]
[Image removed by sender.]
[Image removed by sender.]
ARDC acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the lands
that we live and work on across Australia and pays its respect
to Elders past and present.
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

Thanks, Max.
Looking at which FAIR principles may apply to (meta)data vocabularies, my first impression is that the following could all be relevant:
F1. (Meta)data are assigned a globally unique and persistent identifier
F2. Data are described with rich metadata (defined by R1 below)
F3. Metadata clearly and explicitly include the identifier of the data they describe
I1. (Meta)data use a formal, accessible, shared, and broadly applicable language for knowledge representation.
I2. (Meta)data use vocabularies that follow FAIR principles
I3. (Meta)data include qualified references to other (meta)data
R1. Meta(data) are richly described with a plurality of accurate and relevant attributes
R1.1. (Meta)data are released with a clear and accessible data usage license
R1.2. (Meta)data are associated with detailed provenance
R1.3. (Meta)data meet domain-relevant community standards
The problem is to clarify how these principles should be applied to and tested on vocabularies.
For instance (and just thinking aloud):
F1. -> the (meta)data vocabulary requires the use of global and persistent identifiers
F2. -> no clue, also because the notion of "rich metadata" is relative
F3. -> this could be somehow covered by F1, otherwise: the (meta)data vocabulary requires (or just supports) the specification of the resource identifier(s)
I1. -> I think here the first point is that (meta)data are machine-understandable, but I'm not sure about what is an acceptable language for knowledge representation (unless the plan is to limit this to RDF / OWL et similia)
I2. -> the (meta)data vocabulary complies with all the FAIR principles listed here
I3. -> I wonder whether this may be tested by checking if, e.g., a metadata record about a dataset includes relationships with related resources (e.g., a publication, input data, software)
R1. -> same point of F2.: "richly described with a plurality of accurate and relevant attributes" is relative - so how can it be tested?
R1.1. -> the (meta)data vocabulary must include use conditions / licence as a mandatory field
R1.2. -> the (meta)data vocabulary must include the specification of authors / contributors, publishers (, other information?) as mandatory fields
R1.3. -> the (meta)data vocabulary is widely used in specific domain(s) or across domains - should this require a register to be testable?
Cheers,
Andrea
----
Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
Scientific 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: Makx Dekkers <***@***.***>
Sent: 13 June 2019 12:04:43
To: PEREGO Andrea (JRC-ISPRA); ***@***.***; ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: RE: [fair_maturity] Reminder for online meeting, 18 June 2019
Andrea,
Excellent point. As the editorial team was analysing the contribution to the Google doc, we did note that this principle I2 involves recursion, as it implies that all FAIR principles need to be tested against the used vocabularies.
The GO-FAIR clarification seems to limit it to Findable and Accessible:
“The controlled vocabulary used to describe datasets needs to be documented and resolvable using globally unique and persistent identifiers. This documentation needs to be easily findable and accessible by anyone who uses the dataset.”
Although it could be argued that Interoperable and (especially) Reusable are often also important aspects of the use of vocabularies.
Makx.
From: andrea.perego=***@***.***-groups.org <***@***.***-groups.org> On Behalf Of andrea.perego
Sent: 12 June 2019 09:28
To: ***@***.***; ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Reminder for online meeting, 18 June 2019
Dear Edit, dear Keith,
If I may, I would like to raise a point in relation to slide 23, concerning I.2 - "(meta)data use vocabularies that follow FAIR principles".
The issue here is that it is not explicit which of the FAIR principles should be tested, and how, to determine if (and how much) a (meta)data vocabulary complies with FAIR principles.
I wonder whether providing clear guidelines on this topic is in scope with the WG.
I think it would be very much helpful for (meta)data providers to be able to verify if the vocabularies they use are or not FAIR-compliant. In case they are still deciding which vocabulary to use, FAIR-compliance could be one of the criteria to be taken into account. Moreover, I see benefits also on the side of standard bodies and/or communities managing vocabularies: in such a case, FAIR principles can be taken into account when designing or revising a vocabulary.
Thanks
Andrea
Thanks, Max.
Looking at which FAIR principles may apply to (meta)data vocabularies, my first impression is that the following could all be relevant:
F1. (Meta)data are assigned a globally unique and persistent identifier
F2. Data are described with rich metadata (defined by R1 below)
F3. Metadata clearly and explicitly include the identifier of the data they describe
I1. (Meta)data use a formal, accessible, shared, and broadly applicable language for knowledge representation.
I2. (Meta)data use vocabularies that follow FAIR principles
I3. (Meta)data include qualified references to other (meta)data
R1. Meta(data) are richly described with a plurality of accurate and relevant attributes
R1.1. (Meta)data are released with a clear and accessible data usage license
R1.2. (Meta)data are associated with detailed provenance
R1.3. (Meta)data meet domain-relevant community standards
The problem is to clarify how these principles should be applied to and tested on vocabularies.
For instance (and just thinking aloud):
F1. -> the (meta)data vocabulary requires the use of global and persistent identifiers
F2. -> no clue, also because the notion of "rich metadata" is relative
F3. -> this could be somehow covered by F1, otherwise: the (meta)data vocabulary requires (or just supports) the specification of the resource identifier(s)
I1. -> I think here the first point is that (meta)data are machine-understandable, but I'm not sure about what is an acceptable language for knowledge representation (unless the plan is to limit this to RDF / OWL et similia)
I2. -> the (meta)data vocabulary complies with all the FAIR principles listed here
I3. -> I wonder whether this may be tested by checking if, e.g., a metadata record about a dataset includes relationships with related resources (e.g., a publication, input data, software)
R1. -> same point of F2.: "richly described with a plurality of accurate and relevant attributes" is relative - so how can it be tested?
R1.1. -> the (meta)data vocabulary must include use conditions / licence as a mandatory field
R1.2. -> the (meta)data vocabulary must include the specification of authors / contributors, publishers (, other information?) as mandatory fields
R1.3. -> the (meta)data vocabulary is widely used in specific domain(s) or across domains - should this require a register to be testable?
Cheers,
Andrea
----
Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
Scientific 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 <***@***.***>
Sent: 13 June 2019 12:04:43
To: PEREGO Andrea (JRC-ISPRA); ***@***.***; ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: RE: [fair_maturity] Reminder for online meeting, 18 June 2019
Andrea,
Excellent point. As the editorial team was analysing the contribution to the Google doc, we did note that this principle I2 involves recursion, as it implies that all FAIR principles need to be tested against the used vocabularies.
The GO-FAIR clarification seems to limit it to Findable and Accessible:
“The controlled vocabulary used to describe datasets needs to be documented and resolvable using globally unique and persistent identifiers. This documentation needs to be easily findable and accessible by anyone who uses the dataset.”
Although it could be argued that Interoperable and (especially) Reusable are often also important aspects of the use of vocabularies.
Makx.
- Show quoted text -From: andrea.perego=***@***.***-groups.org <***@***.***-groups.org> On Behalf Of andrea.perego
Sent: 12 June 2019 09:28
To: ***@***.***; ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] Reminder for online meeting, 18 June 2019
Dear Edit, dear Keith,
If I may, I would like to raise a point in relation to slide 23, concerning I.2 - "(meta)data use vocabularies that follow FAIR principles".
The issue here is that it is not explicit which of the FAIR principles should be tested, and how, to determine if (and how much) a (meta)data vocabulary complies with FAIR principles.
I wonder whether providing clear guidelines on this topic is in scope with the WG.
I think it would be very much helpful for (meta)data providers to be able to verify if the vocabularies they use are or not FAIR-compliant. In case they are still deciding which vocabulary to use, FAIR-compliance could be one of the criteria to be taken into account. Moreover, I see benefits also on the side of standard bodies and/or communities managing vocabularies: in such a case, FAIR principles can be taken into account when designing or revising a vocabulary.
Thanks
Andrea