Page Comparison

CEDAR will not be used (discussed 24-10-2023)

Data Stewardship Wizard (DSW) could maybe be used (Suggestion Rob Hooft)

Current thoughts about approach

In my opinion it would currently make sense to have two main solutions (very drafty)

Scenarios - Data Discovery and Search

Easy to use solution for researchers using e.g. DSW

...

. I called them Basic and Advanced Track to stick to the Metroline analogy

1. Basic Track - A CEDAR / DSW type solution

   1. Most researchers will probably want to have a solution takes little effort, but does meet the requirements imposed by employers, funders, etc.

   2. Health-RI provides easy to use forms with mandatory and optional fields as required by (initially) the core metadata schema and (later) extended metadata schemas

      1. Forms must have guidance to help researchers properly fill in the necessary data. Guidance could e.g. be (sections of) metroline pages

   3. Output should be something suitable for a FAIR Datapoint

      1. It would be even nicer if you could provide it to an FDP directly as an export option

         1. E.g. You’re an Amsterdam UMC researcher it could suggest a specific FDP

2. Advanced Track - A manual solution

   1. The Basic Track does not meet your demands or you just prefer to do it manually

   2. Health-RI provides guidance (recipes, perhaps scripts/software if it makes sense)

      1. The process should be able to start with nothing and end with having reached your goals

      2. Core can probably have a follow-along example; for extended maybe pick one for follow-along example

      3. Custom stuff should have clear guidance where possible with also recipes for domain specific problems.

         1. If custom things can be generalised to apply to e.g. more domains, that would be better

         2. Also, it may be useful to keep track of custom items? If lots of projects add the same custom item, it could be useful to add it to a new version of core.

Basic Scenarios - Data Discovery and Search

Basic Track

Note: DSW could be another tool.

• Make Core Dataset Discoverable & Searchable using DSW

  • Core

• Make SimpleCore+Extension Dataset Discoverable & Searchable using DSW

  • Core + Domain Extensions

• Make SimpleCore+Extension+Custom Dataset Discoverable & Searchable using using DSW

  • Not applicable

...

• • : custom does not

...

• • seem realistic in a DSW approach as HRI would need to create new forms for every project with custom items

Advanced Track

• Make Simple Dataset Discoverable & Searchable using <Solution that does not depend on a tool>Manual approach

  • Core

• Make Simple+Extension Dataset Discoverable & Searchable using <Solution that does not depend on a tool>Manual approach

  • Core + Domain Extensions

• Make Simple+Extension+Custom Dataset Discoverable & Searchable using <Solution that does not depend on a tool>Manual approach

  • Core + Domain Extensions + Custom

In my opinion currently it would make sense to have two main solutions:

1. A CEDAR / DSW type solution

   1. Here Health-RI provides the basic forms and guidance which allow a researcher to fill in the mandatory and optional fields as required by the core and extended metdata schemas

2. A manual solution

   1. Here Health-RI provides guidance about all the steps necessary.

Q1: name for this <Solution that does not depend on a tool>. Health-RI FAIR Pipeline, Health-RI FAIR Workflow, …?

→ The actual steps/content of this workflow will depend on the scenario and will flesh out the metroline/workflow pages.

Q2These scenarios are probably way too big for being contained in a single scenario (especially in the Advanced Track). Potentially the current titles will become chapters with each containing multiple scenarios. TBD.

Q: how does https://health-ri.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/FSD/pages/107806721/Data+onboarding+on+the+national+catalogue#3.-How-to-onboard-your-information-to-the-catalogue%3F 3a, 3b and 3c affect the scenarios?

...