Tobias Kuhn

2019-11-22T17:41:24.945Z

implementation consideration

Tobias Kuhn

2019-11-22T17:41:24.945Z

Explains considerations for communities who are about to implement the given principle.

Tobias Kuhn

2019-11-22T17:41:24.945Z

Tobias Kuhn

2019-11-22T17:41:24.945Z

Tobias Kuhn

2019-11-22T17:41:24.945Z

Current challenges relate to ensuring the longevity of identifiers - in particular, that identifiers created by a project/community should survive the termination of the project or the dissolution of the community. Obtaining a persistent identifier, therefore, may require reliance on a third-party organization that promises longevity, and maintains these identifiers independently of the project/community. Current choices are for each community to choose, for all appropriate digital resources (i.e. data and metadata), identifier registration service(s) such as these that ensure global uniqueness and that also comply with the community-defined criteria for identifier persistence and resolvability.

Tobias Kuhn

2019-11-22T17:41:24.945Z

It is a challenge for each domain-specific community to define their own metadata descriptors necessary for optimizing findability. The minimal ‘richness’ of the metadata should be defined so that it serves its intended purpose and should also be guided by the requirements of the other FAIR principles. This then poses a challenge to each community to create machine-actionable templates that facilitate capturing uniform and harmonized metadata about similar data resources among all community stakeholders, and to provide a means to ensure that this metadata is updated and curated (doi:10.5281/zenodo.3267434).

Tobias Kuhn

2019-11-22T17:41:24.945Z

It is a challenge to each community to choose a machine-actionable metadata model that explicitly links a resource and its metadata.

Tobias Kuhn

2019-11-22T17:41:24.945Z

Current challenges are numerous, significantly limiting, and largely outside of the control of the average data provider. First, there is no single-source for search that currently indexes all possible metadata fields in all domains. Second, there is no uniform way to execute a search, and thus every search tool must be accessed with tool-specific software. Finally, many search engines forbid automated searches, precluding their use by FAIR-enabled software. Various initiatives are emerging that attempt to address this, at least in part, by providing a well-defined, machine-accessible search interface over indexed metadata. Nevertheless, to our knowledge, none of these currently index all possible metadata properties, nor do they span all possible domains/communities; rather, they focus on specific metadata schemas such as schema.org, at the expense of other well-established metadata formats such as DCAT, and/or are limited to specific communities such as biotechnology, astronomy, law, or government/administration. Current choices are for each community to choose, and publicly declare, what search engine to use for their own purposes, general or field-specific, and should at a minimum provide metadata following the standard that is indexed by the search engine of choice. They should also provide a machine-readable interface definition that would allow an automated search without human intervention.

Tobias Kuhn

2019-11-22T17:41:24.945Z

Current challenges are to explicitly and fully document access protocols that are not open/free (for example, access only after personal contact) and make those protocols available as a clearly identified facet of the machine-readable metadata. Current choices are for communities to choose standardized communication protocols that are open, free and universally implementable. 

Tobias Kuhn

2019-11-22T17:41:24.945Z