Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

Outcome: a list of relevant resources along with their respective types.

Example

Researcher Eva wants to document metadata for her resource, the PRISMA study, and decides to follow the steps on this page. After reviewing the first step, she identified and categorised her resource types as follows:

...

Considerations for Metadata Catalogue selection :are described below.

  • Relevance to your field. Is there a metadata catalogue that is widely used and respected within your research community?

  • Persistent identifiers. Does the metadata catalogue provide globally unique identifiers, such as DOIs, for resources?

  • Reliability. Is the metadata catalogue managed by a reputable institution with a track record of reliability, including regular backups and secure storage?

  • Trustworthiness. Does the metadata catalogue adhere to recognised standards for data management, preservation , and access?

  • Metadata support. Does the metadata catalogue support comprehensive metadata schemas relevant to your field?

  • Data licensing. Does the metadata catalogue allow you to specify the terms under which others can use your data or code?

  • Data versioning. Does the metadata catalogue support versioning of datasets or code?

More criteria can be found on:

Outcome: A a list of Metadata Catalogue candidates for each resource type.

...

After determining the necessary metadata elements for PRISMA data in step 2, Eva consulted a data steward in her department. Together, they compiled a list of available metadata catalogues. Because a repository has cataloguing functionality, existing repositories were also considered.

Step 4 - Determine metadata catalogues 

...

  • Yes. It is recommended to choose it and adapt your metadata requirements (Step 2) to the predefined metadata elements of the Catalogue.

  • No. It is recommended to compare your metadata requirements (Step 2) with the predefined metadata elements from the list of all repository candidates (Step 3) and choose the best matching one (instead of multiple ones).

Outcome: A a finalised list of metadata catalogues for each resource type.

Example

Eva selected the appropriate metadata catalogues for each type of dataset.

...

The final step involves entering the metadata for each resource into the chosen metadata catalogues, following the specific instructions provided by each metadata catalogue. If a resource is registered in multiple metadata catalogues, ensure that the metadata is consistent across all platforms and that the metadata sets are interlinked where possible. Automated updates of metadata are recommended when available.

Outcome: Successfully successfully registered resource-level metadata in a FAIR manner, ensuring it is the resources are Findable, accessibleAccessible, interoperableInteroperable, and reusableReusable.

Example

Eva followed the instructions for onboarding data in the Health-RI data catalogue to register the metadata, which is now available.

Eva entered the biosample data into the BBMRI Catalogue Form, which she downloaded, and submitted it to the Health-RI Service Desk. The metadata for biosample data were successfully registered, see https://directory.bbmri-eric.eu/ERIC/directory/#/collection/bbmri-eric:ID:NL_RB:collection:155?search=PRISMA.

...

The current choices of metadata catalogues are :as follows.

These decisions are described in the first version of a FAIR Implementation Profile - , the NMCB FIP, and the release of the next version will be in October 2024.

...