Tobias Kuhn

2019-11-22T17:41:24.945Z

R1.3 Explanation

Tobias Kuhn

2019-11-22T17:41:24.945Z

Tobias Kuhn

2019-11-22T17:41:24.945Z

Tobias Kuhn

2019-11-22T17:41:24.945Z

Tobias Kuhn

2019-11-22T17:41:24.945Z

Where community standards or best practices for data archiving and sharing exist, they should be followed. Several disciplinary communities have defined Minimal Information Standards describing most often the minimal set of metadata items required to assess the quality of the data acquisition and processing and to facilitate reproducibility. Such standards are a good start, noting that true (interdisciplinary) reusability will generally require richer metadata. For a list of such standards, consult FAIRsharing (https://fairsharing.org/standards/, doi:10.1038/s41587-019-0080-8).

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 choices are for a community to choose which practices to use for data and metadata, taking into full consideration the relevant inter-domain interoperability requirements. Communities must then take-on the challenge of deciding which metadata elements, addressed within their community’s “boutique” standard(s), should be additionally represented using a more global standard (principles F2 and R1.2), even if this results in duplication of metadata, such that it can be used for search and interpretation by more generic, third-party agents.

Tobias Kuhn

2019-11-22T17:41:24.945Z

An example of minimal information standards is the MIAME standard (doi:10.1038/ng1201-365), and various metadata profiles have been defined on top of specifications (e.g. various DCAT profiles).

Tobias Kuhn

2019-11-22T17:41:24.945Z

Tobias Kuhn

2019-11-22T17:41:24.945Z