Note:

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

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

• Keep in mind that if the scenarios mention the DSW this could be another tool. No choice has been made.

...

Proposal: have two main solutions. To stick with the Metroline Analogy: a Basic and an Advanced Track:

1. Basic Track - A fillable form-based solution, such as CEDAR or the DSW

   1. Most researchers will probably want to have a solution that 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 or Catalog (harvestable by Health-RI)

      1. Maybe provide the output directly to an FDP as an export option?

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

         2. It would need some form of quality control / permission before the “ok, send it” button could be pressed?

2. Advanced Track - A manual solution [Dena: Advance track cannot be fully manual]] So I am wondering as we previously discussed we need to have a scenario where we define semi-automatic approach for extracting data, mapping and transformation and api creation]]

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

   2. Health-RI provides guidance (knowledge, references, recipes, perhaps scripts/software where possible)

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

      2. Metadata elements outside of the core and extensions 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.

Scenario List

Basic Track

• BT1 - Make Simple Dataset Findable using Datastewardship Wizard - Core

• BT2 - Make Simple Dataset Findable using Datastewardship Wizard - Core + Extension

• BT3 - Make Simple Dataset Findable using Datastewardship Wizard - Core (+ Extension) + Custom

  • Probably Unfeasible: 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

• AT1 - Make Simple Dataset Findable using Semi-automatic approach - Core

• AT2 - Make Simple Dataset Findable using Semi-automatic approach - Core + Extension

• AT3 - Make Simple Dataset Findable using Semi-automatic approach - Core (+ Extension) + Custom

...

• Clinical Data

  • Build Simple Custom Clinical Dataset in Castor EDC and Publish it in Castor's FAIR Data Point

  • Transform an existing Simple Custom Clinical Dataset in Castor EDC and Publish it in Castor's FAIR Data Point

  • (We could look into other EDCs as well if necessary. Design principles for FAIR should be the same)

  • Advanced More versions: E.g. Build Cancer Clinical Dataset…

    Could this be something for Plateau 2?

    Dataset using some form of predefined items (Plateau 2 if I recall correctly)

  • Build an English and a Dutch dataset in Castor, publish them both, query them

• Omics Data

  • Build Simple Omics Dataset

    • Genomics, Proteomics, etc. These could all have a separate scenario if necessary and we could then link to metroline pages for e.g. recipes on how to tackle the specific problem.

  • Transform an existing Omics Dataset

• Imaging Data

  • Build Simple Imaging Dataset? No idea how this works

• … Data

  • Build Simple …

  • Transform …

...