Skip to content
Branch: master
Clone or download
Latest commit 58b6629 Mar 13, 2019
Permalink
Type Name Latest commit message Commit time
Failed to load latest commit information.
results of preliminary analysis
README.md

README.md

FAIR-data-maturity-model-WG

Introduction

Welcome to the repository supporting the work that will be carried out by the RDA FAIR data maturity Working Group. This Working Group will build on top and combine the most salient characteristics of existing efforts for measuring the readiness and implementation level of a dataset vis-à-vis the FAIR data principles.

For futher information you can read the case statement at the following address: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/case-statement/fair-data-maturity-model-wg-case-statement

How to contribute

A first workshop was held in February 2019 - https://www.rd-alliance.org/workshop-1, where the editorial team unveiled a methodology, a tentative timeline and an landscaping exercice. As a landscaping exercise, the editorial team, analysed current and existing approaches related to FAIR self-assessment tool. The analysis was made based on publicly available documentation and an online survey - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14ojMSXVOITg3RoJn-PuDaPj8zuIGQz2Li-kl97HOBH4/edit?usp=sharing. Questions and options stemming from theses different approaches were classified according to the FAIR principles/facets. This resulted in five slide decks that can be found in the folder /results of preliminary analysis.

As outlined in the paragraph before, this is a landscaping exercise, thus laying the foundation for the Working Group to further debate on a common set of core criteria (cfr. case statement). Here below is a non-exhaustive list of questions that could be addressed in the short term by the Working Group on this very repository:

  • do you have other suggestions concerning the scope of the work?
  • do you agree with the proposed methodology?
  • do you think another framework should be used to classify the questions and options (in order to derive a common set of core criteria)?
  • do you agree with the tentative timeline?
  • what open issues could be considered in this exercise?
  • is there any other relevant (FAIR) assessment tool that should be examined?
  • do you agree with the proposed classification?
  • do the questions relate specifically to a facet or multiple facets (e.g. A1, A2)?
  • are there any irrelevant questions?
  • do the options proposed cover enough of the different levels of FAIRness (from non-FAIR to fully FAIR compliant)?
  • are there any irrelevant options?
  • is there any other aspect to consider?
  • ...?

whereas in the long term:

  • who will be the authority responsible for the common set of core criteria?
  • what can be assessed manually and automatically?
  • should the common set of core criteria be discipline specific or generic?
  • what are the different levels of FAIRness (i.e. how to score the FAIRness)?
  • ...?

Besides, any problems encountered, or suggestions, questions, etc. considered within scope can be submitted as issue on this very repository.

Structure of the repository

  • /results of preliminary analysis
You can’t perform that action at this time.