search

FAIR-Data-EG / consultation

A call for contributions to the report of the FAIR Data Expert Group
Other
16 stars 3 forks source link

Data Repository Evaluation - Are the FAIR Data Principles fair? #18

Open ghost opened 7 years ago

ghost commented 7 years ago

[//]: # "==Do not write above this line== Instructions for posting issues: (1) Review what is already there. Perhaps a comment to an existing issue would be more appropriate than opening a new one? (2) Write your post below using Markdown (as per https://guides.github.com/features/mastering-markdown/ ) or just plain text. (3) Don't worry about these introductory lines - you can leave or delete them, as they won't display anyway (you can check this via Preview). (4) Hit the 'Submit new issue' button. ==Write below this line=="

Since the work of 4TU is mentioned under 'Measuring Change' on the about page of this knowledge pool, I would like to quickly link to the corresponding work.

sjDCC commented 7 years ago

Perfect, thanks @jkb4TU

CaroleGoble commented 7 years ago

The EU Summit's [FAIR Certification] Intent Raises concerns with me. Stewardship should be within the domain using accepted community standards.

A librarian viewpoint of FAIR data is quite different to a Biologist reusing a dataset. A colleague who runs a major data archive widely used was accused of not have good metadata to put into OpenAIRE. In fact their dataset was highly curated and excellent and compared to the majority of data in OpenAIRE was exemplary. But one field considered important for EU accounting was missing. Which was the most FAIR?

it reminds me of Dickens Hard Times: " An exchange between Gradgrind, Bitzer and Sissy Jupe over the proper definition of a horse. Bitzer, who has learned a definition by rote, classifies it as a "Quadruped" and "Gramnivorous," whereas Sissy, the horse-breaker's daughter is reprimanded for possessing "no facts, in reference to one of the commonest of animals" (https://omf.ucsc.edu/london-1865/schools-and-education/victorian-education.html)" though clearly Sissy knows infinitely more about horses than Gradgrind who merely knows the label.

sjDCC commented 7 years ago

Is this the text you're referring to @CaroleGoble

[Accreditation/certification] Scientists must be assured that the European and national scientific research infrastructures where they deposit/ access data conform to clear rules and criteria (e.g. certified) and that their data is FAIR compliant. An accreditation or certification mechanism must be set in place based on agreed processes and an accreditation or certification body must maintain an up-to-date and accessible catalogue of certified repositories. Experience from existing accreditation processes must be taken into account.

sjDCC commented 7 years ago

I've just been reviewing the FAIR metrics site and from the diagram it looks like they're considering metrics on a domain basis. I agree that this is key because what constitutes good metadata comes down to the specific of each community.

I know there's a lot of desire for recommending certified repositories, but I think we need to exercise some caution here and be pragmatic about the shift that's required. Very few repositories have certifications currently and it's not a non-trivial task to obtain them. There are some excellent repositories that aren't certified too. The 4TU study pointed out a few simple steps that can make repository much more FAIR and I think that's the kind of low benchmark we want to start with if we're requiring it of all providers. Where I do agree with this statement is that we need to build on existing accreditation processes, not start something completely new.