Dear members of the RDA FAIR data maturity model Working Group,
The date of our next workshop, which will take place at the 14th RDA
plenary in Helsinki, is fast approaching. Two weeks ago, we shared with you
a survey with the aim to propose a final set of priorities at our next
workshop. We already thank those of you who responded, we certainly can see
that some trends are emerging.
Yet, as we seek to have priorities to be accepted by the largest number of
people and communities, we encourage those of you who did not respond yet
to *share your opinion about the prioritisation of indicators *[1]. We
thank you in advance for devoting 5 minutes of your time to the survey and
we remind you that no account nor registration is needed. *Please note
that, the survey will be closed the 20th of October 2019*.
As a next step towards a common set of assessment criteria, we started to
explore a scoring mechanism relying on the FAIRness indicators and their
prioritisation. The underlying idea is to assess and objectively score the
implementation level of the FAIR principles. This idea is currently being
discussed on the GitHub [2]. Please don’t hesitate to comment on that
proposal and suggest any change in the approach.
Lastly, we will soon post the presentation for the workshop on the RDA FAIR
data maturity model web page. The workshop will be held *on the 23rd of
October* in the Dipoli Bldg - Kaleva room during the Breakout 2 from *14:30
to 16:00 local Helsinki time* (11:30 to 13:00 UTC). If you cannot
physically attend the meeting a remote access is available [3].
Kind regards,
The editorial team
[1] https://forms.gle/uWXpT27i2RiSei5V7
[2] https://github.com/RDA-FAIR/FAIR-data-maturity-model-WG/issues/34
[3] https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/708547405
--
This e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed.
If
an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail,
please
notify the author by replying to this e-mail. If you are not
the intended
recipient you must not use, disclose, copy, print or
rely on this e-mail.
PwC may monitor outgoing and incoming e-mails andother
telecommunications on its e-mail and telecommunications systems.
- Log in to post comments
- 4552 reads
Author: Siri Jodha Khalsa
Date: 15 Oct, 2019
Hello All,
I'm okay with the prioritization of the indicators as shown in
the survey. However, indicator R1.2-01M,
"Metadata includes provenance information according to
community-specific guidelines", uses the term "guidelines" while
the term "standards" is used when referring to community
conventions in all the other indicators. I think some
clarification on when conformance to standards (presumably de jure
standards) is needed and when guidelines suffice. Moreover, how
the latter are codified and deemed to be community endorsed.
Cheers,
SiriJodha
On 10/14/19 2:17 PM, ChrisB via FAIR
Data Maturity Model WG wrote:
cite="mid:***@***.***">
0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
lang="EN">Dear members of the RDA FAIR data maturity
model Working Group,
0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
lang="EN">
0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
lang="EN">The date of our
next workshop, which will take place at the 14th RDA
plenary in Helsinki, is
fast approaching. Two weeks ago, we shared with you a
survey with the aim to
propose a final set of priorities at our next workshop. We
already thank those
of you who responded, we certainly can see that some
trends are emerging.
0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
lang="EN">
0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
lang="EN">Yet, as we seek to
have priorities to be accepted by the largest number of
people and communities,
we encourage those of you who did not respond yet to share
your opinion about the prioritisation of indicators [1].
We
thank you in advance for devoting 5 minutes of your time
to the survey and we
remind you that no account nor registration is needed. Please
note that, the survey will be closed the 20th
of
October 2019.
0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
lang="EN">
0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
lang="EN">As a next step
towards a common set of assessment criteria, we started to
explore a scoring
mechanism relying on the FAIRness indicators and their
prioritisation. The
underlying idea is to assess and objectively score the
implementation level of
the FAIR principles. This idea is currently being
discussed on the GitHub [2].
Please don’t hesitate to comment on that proposal and
suggest any change in the
approach.
0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
lang="EN">
0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
lang="EN">Lastly, we will
soon post the presentation for the workshop on the RDA
FAIR data maturity model
web page. The workshop will be held on
the 23rd of October in the Dipoli Bldg -
Kaleva room during the
Breakout 2 from 14:30 to 16:00 local
Helsinki time (11:30 to 13:00 UTC). If you cannot
physically attend the
meeting a remote access is available [3].
0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
lang="EN">
0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
lang="EN">Kind regards,
0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
lang="EN">
0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
lang="EN">The editorial team
0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
lang="EN">
0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"
lang="EN">[1]
href="https://forms.gle/uWXpT27i2RiSei5V7"
style="color:blue" moz-do-not-send="true">
style="color:rgb(17,85,204);background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">https://forms.gle/uWXpT27i2RiSei5V7
style="color:rgb(17,85,204);background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">
0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"
lang="EN">[2]
href="https://github.com/RDA-FAIR/FAIR-data-maturity-model-WG/issues/34"
style="color:blue" moz-do-not-send="true">
style="color:rgb(17,85,204);background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">https://github.com/RDA-FAIR/FAIR-data-maturity-model-WG/issues/34
style="color:rgb(17,85,204)">
0.0001pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
lang="EN">[3]
href="https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/708547405"
style="color:blue" moz-do-not-send="true">https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/708547405
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">This e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed.
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail,
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">please notify the author by replying to this e-mail. If you are not
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy, print or
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">rely on this e-mail.
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">PwC may monitor outgoing and incoming e-mails and
other telecommunications on its e-mail and telecommunications systems.
--
Full post:
https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/rda-fair-data-maturity-model-invitation-contribute
Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post:
https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/65835
--
Siri-Jodha Singh KHALSA, Ph.D., SMIEEE
National Snow and Ice Data Center
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0449 Phone: 1-303-492-1445 GV: 1-303-736-9976
http://cires.colorado.edu/~khalsa
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9217-5550
Author: Makx Dekkers
Date: 15 Oct, 2019
Dear SiriJodha,
We’ll take your comment into account and use ‘standard’ consistently.
However, we do still have a discussion about how formal a ‘standard’ needs to be. See for example https://github.com/RDA-FAIR/FAIR-data-maturity-model-WG/issues/29#issuec.... Whenever they exist, it should be recommended to conform to de-jure standards but it may also be necessary to allow for de-facto standards, and even specifications that may become standards in the future – for example to allow for research in new and innovative areas that are so young that there has been no time to develop standards.
Would you agree?
Kind regards, Makx.
- Show quoted text -From: ***@***.***-groups.org <***@***.***-groups.org>
Sent: 15 October 2019 09:28
To: ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] RDA FAIR data maturity model: Invitation to contribute!
Hello All,
I'm okay with the prioritization of the indicators as shown in the survey. However, indicator R1.2-01M,
"Metadata includes provenance information according to community-specific guidelines", uses the term "guidelines" while the term "standards" is used when referring to community conventions in all the other indicators. I think some clarification on when conformance to standards (presumably de jure standards) is needed and when guidelines suffice. Moreover, how the latter are codified and deemed to be community endorsed.
Cheers,
SiriJodha
On 10/14/19 2:17 PM, ChrisB via FAIR Data Maturity Model WG wrote:
Dear members of the RDA FAIR data maturity model Working Group,
The date of our next workshop, which will take place at the 14th RDA plenary in Helsinki, is fast approaching. Two weeks ago, we shared with you a survey with the aim to propose a final set of priorities at our next workshop. We already thank those of you who responded, we certainly can see that some trends are emerging.
Yet, as we seek to have priorities to be accepted by the largest number of people and communities, we encourage those of you who did not respond yet to share your opinion about the prioritisation of indicators [1]. We thank you in advance for devoting 5 minutes of your time to the survey and we remind you that no account nor registration is needed. Please note that, the survey will be closed the 20th of October 2019.
As a next step towards a common set of assessment criteria, we started to explore a scoring mechanism relying on the FAIRness indicators and their prioritisation. The underlying idea is to assess and objectively score the implementation level of the FAIR principles. This idea is currently being discussed on the GitHub [2]. Please don’t hesitate to comment on that proposal and suggest any change in the approach.
Lastly, we will soon post the presentation for the workshop on the RDA FAIR data maturity model web page. The workshop will be held on the 23rd of October in the Dipoli Bldg - Kaleva room during the Breakout 2 from 14:30 to 16:00 local Helsinki time (11:30 to 13:00 UTC). If you cannot physically attend the meeting a remote access is available [3].
Kind regards,
The editorial team
[1] https://forms.gle/uWXpT27i2RiSei5V7
[2] https://github.com/RDA-FAIR/FAIR-data-maturity-model-WG/issues/34
[3] https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/708547405
This e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed.
If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail,
please notify the author by replying to this e-mail. If you are not
the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy, print or
rely on this e-mail.
PwC may monitor outgoing and incoming e-mails and
other telecommunications on its e-mail and telecommunications systems.
--
Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/rda-f...
Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/65835
--
Siri-Jodha Singh KHALSA, Ph.D., SMIEEE
National Snow and Ice Data Center
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0449 Phone: 1-303-492-1445 GV: 1-303-736-9976
http://cires.colorado.edu/~khalsa
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9217-5550
Author: Siri Jodha Khalsa
Date: 15 Oct, 2019
Dear Makx,
Thanks for the reply, and apologies for not having followed all
of the discussion on github (I am watching it, but the volume of
messages is more than I can keep up with).
Certainly, it is undesirable to require that all metadata conform
to a de jure standard. The crux of the issue I was raising is
contained in the following questions. When does a community
guideline become a community standard? if a repository that serves
a particular community develops a custom metadata standard, they
can declare that a "community standard", no? But this would not
advance interoperability or reuse outside of that community. What
is the minimal size of a community that can declare its own
standard? What is the process for achieving and verifying
community endorsement?
I rather liked Michel Dumontier's suggested requirement that
every community specification is encoded in a manner that allows
computational verification of 1) syntax, and 2) content
expectations. I may have missed some replies, but apparently this
suggestion did not fly, perhaps because it was deemed too onerous.
Cheers,
SiriJodha
On 10/15/19 12:50 PM, Makx Dekkers
wrote:
cite="mid:***@***.***">
medium)">
style="color:windowtext;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Dear
SiriJodha,
style="color:windowtext;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">
style="color:windowtext;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">We’ll
take your comment into account and use ‘standard’
consistently.
style="color:windowtext;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">
style="color:windowtext;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">However,
we do still have a discussion about how formal a ‘standard’
needs to be. See for example
href="https://github.com/RDA-FAIR/FAIR-data-maturity-model-WG/issues/29#issuecomment-522873345"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://github.com/RDA-FAIR/FAIR-data-maturity-model-WG/issues/29#issuecomment-522873345.
Whenever they exist, it should be recommended to conform to
de-jure standards but it may also be necessary to
allow for de-facto standards, and even
specifications that may become standards in the future – for
example to allow for research in new and innovative areas
that are so young that there has been no time to develop
standards.
style="color:windowtext;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">
style="color:windowtext;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Would
you agree?
style="color:windowtext;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">
style="color:windowtext;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Kind
regards, Makx.
style="color:windowtext;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">
style="color:windowtext;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
lang="EN-US">From:
style="color:windowtext" lang="EN-US">
***@***.***-groups.org
<***@***.***-groups.org>
Sent: 15 October 2019 09:28
To: ***@***.***-groups.org
Subject: Re: [fair_maturity] RDA FAIR data
maturity model: Invitation to contribute!
Hello All,
I'm okay with the prioritization of the indicators as shown
in the survey. However, indicator R1.2-01M,
"Metadata includes provenance information according to
community-specific guidelines", uses the term "guidelines"
while the term "standards" is used when referring to community
conventions in all the other indicators. I think some
clarification on when conformance to standards (presumably de
jure standards) is needed and when guidelines suffice.
Moreover, how the latter are codified and deemed to be
community endorsed.
Cheers,
SiriJodha
On 10/14/19 2:17 PM, ChrisB via FAIR Data
Maturity Model WG wrote:
-- Siri-Jodha Singh KHALSA, Ph.D., SMIEEENational Snow and Ice Data CenterUniversity of ColoradoBoulder, CO 80309-0449 Phone: 1-303-492-1445 GV: 1-303-736-9976http://cires.colorado.edu/~khalsahttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-9217-5550
--
Siri-Jodha Singh KHALSA, Ph.D., SMIEEE
National Snow and Ice Data Center
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0449 Phone: 1-303-492-1445 GV: 1-303-736-9976
http://cires.colorado.edu/~khalsa
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9217-5550
Author: Leyla Jael Castro
Date: 15 Oct, 2019
Dear all,
I like Michel's idea, shared here by SiriJodha. Just to keep record of
this, I have added a comment to the GitHub thread (
https://github.com/RDA-FAIR/FAIR-data-maturity-model-WG/issues/29#issuec...
)
Regards,
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 1:55 PM sjskhalsa via FAIR Data Maturity Model WG <
***@***.***-groups.org> wrote:
Author: Susanna-Assunta...
Date: 15 Oct, 2019
Hi all,
Understanding the status and evolution of a community standards is what FAIRsharing (https://fairsharing.org) does: tracking standards life cycle (in development, ready, deprecated) and interlink them to which repositories (if one of more, hence its real uptake) implement them is a way to see in practice what standards are actually used in various disciplines.
My regards
Susanna
(Sent from my phone)
--
Prof. Susanna-Assunta Sansone, PhD
Associate Director, Oxford e-Research Centre
Associate Professor, Dep of Engineering Science
University of Oxford, UK
https://sansonegroup.eng.ox.ac.uk
ORCiD: 0000-0001-5306-5690
@SusannaASansone
--
Author: Siri Jodha Khalsa
Date: 15 Oct, 2019
Hi Susanna,
Thanks for referring to the fairsharing.org standards registry,
of which I am only vaguely familiar. Ambitious effort, to be sure.
I can't tell how many of the entries are metadata standards, since
this is not one of the "standard type" classifications:
However, under "Domain" there is the category "Resource
Metadata", of which there are 59 records, only 4 of which are
"recommended" (which begs the question, how is the "recommended"
status attained?). SPARQL (a protocol) seems to be mislabeled.
I would expect the
href="https://fairsharing.org/FAIRsharing.hp9s46">Climate and
Forecast (CF) metadata conventions to be tagged as resource
metadata, but instead the standard type is "model/format".
Moreover, I wonder why it is not "recommended". Also, it is
certainly maintained, but not tagged as such.
Okay, the registry is imperfect, but still a valuable resource.
Would we suggest that in order to comply with R1-01M, R1.2-01M,
R1.3-01M, R1.3-01D, R1.3-02M, and R1.3-02D the standard be entered
in the FAIRSharing registry?
Cheers,
SiriJodha
On 10/15/19 5:33 PM, SAS Sansone wrote:
cite="mid:***@***.***">
Hi all,
Understanding the status and evolution of a community
standards is what FAIRsharing (
href="https://fairsharing.org/" moz-do-not-send="true">https://fairsharing.org) does:
tracking standards life cycle (in development, ready,
deprecated) and interlink them to which repositories (if one
of more, hence its real uptake) implement them is a way to see
in practice what standards are actually used in various
disciplines.
My regards
Susanna
(Sent from my phone)
0);">--
Prof. Susanna-Assunta Sansone, PhD
Associate Director, Oxford e-Research Centre
Associate Professor, Dep of Engineering Science
University of Oxford, UK
moz-do-not-send="true">https://sansonegroup.eng.ox.ac.uk
ORCiD: 0000-0001-5306-5690
@SusannaASansone
--
On 15 Oct 2019, at 17:02, ljgarcia via FAIR Data Maturity
Model WG <
moz-do-not-send="true">***@***.***-groups.org>
wrote:
--
Siri-Jodha Singh KHALSA, Ph.D., SMIEEE
National Snow and Ice Data Center
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0449 Phone: 1-303-492-1445 GV: 1-303-736-9976
http://cires.colorado.edu/~khalsa
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9217-5550
--
Full post:
href="https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/rda-fair-data-maturity-model-invitation-contribute"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/post/rda-fair-data-maturity-model-invitation-contribute
Manage my subscriptions:
href="https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post:
href="https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/65835"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/65835
--
Siri-Jodha Singh KHALSA, Ph.D., SMIEEE
National Snow and Ice Data Center
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0449 Phone: 1-303-492-1445 GV: 1-303-736-9976
http://cires.colorado.edu/~khalsa
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9217-5550
Author: Susanna-Assunta...
Date: 15 Oct, 2019
Dear SiriJodha
Those you list are types of metadata and data standards; yes we will also make that clearer in FAIRsharing, thanks for pointing this out. Actually one of the issue (which I detail in a couple of my comments on the GitHub thread) is that there are no (globally) agreed ways/labels to classify data and metadata standards.
FAIRsharing is also and RDA WG*, and even if our output, the FAIRsharing registry has already been delivered (and approved as one of the flagship outputs), we are still actively engaging with the community** therefore we are also happy to lead on this harmonisation of labels if it helps. We could this in collaboration with the Maturity Model WG peraphs.
Feel free also to added one of our joint session at RDA next week, if you are around.
My regards
Susanna
* https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fairsharing-registry-connecting-data-p...
** https://fairsharing.org/communities
(Sent from my phone)
--
Prof. Susanna-Assunta Sansone, PhD
Associate Director, Oxford e-Research Centre
Associate Professor, Dep of Engineering Science
University of Oxford, UK
https://sansonegroup.eng.ox.ac.uk
ORCiD: 0000-0001-5306-5690
@SusannaASansone
--