Note: This is based on the powerpoint presentation given by Milou. To be discussed with Milou. Depending on the FAIR objectives, we should change the scenario’s title.
Actors
Researcher Alice, PhD student at Radboudumc
FAIR data steward Jim at Radboudumc (Radboud Technology Center Data Stewardship (RTC-DS) / local data steward)
Description
Researcher Alice has an existing dataset and would like to make his/her dataset more FAIR.
I think the scenario is about making the dataset available in HRI catalogue? Since in the conditions the dataset has already been published?
Conditions
Alice has obtained informed consent for sharing/reusing the data (https://health-ri.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/FSD/pages/138444817/1.+Make+sure+it+s+okay+to+share+meta+data )
The dataset has been pseudonymised
The dataset has a globally unique persistent identifier
Publishing data in a data repository could be another scenario to describe
We can maybe look into it, perhaps in combination with the setting of the access levels and obtaining a globally unique persistent identifier?
Could also be relevant for PRISMA Use Case
The researcher has all the information needed to fill out the minimal required metadata items (2. Necessary info about your data)
How about here we say: the <type tbd> dataset has already been published in a repository, see scenario XYZ. This repository has provided her with a globally unique persistent identifier.
User perspective
Researcher Alice contacts Radboud Technology Centre Data Stewardship (RTC-DS) / local data steward to ask for support in making his/her dataset more FAIR.
FAIR data steward Jim and researcher Alice discuss the FAIR objectives (/wiki/spaces/FSD/pages/294584321)
In this scenario the objectives are? Making the data available in the HRI Catalogue?
Update the scenario’s title to reflect the objective
Researcher fills the mapping table corresponding to the Health-RI Core Metadata Schema (with help from data steward)
Note: Forms according to core metadata schema are not yet available in Radboudumc FDP
How does this work? And this table is then transformed to RDF for the next step by some script? Or?
Metadata will be entered manually in the Radboudumc FDP (will be automated in the future)
What does “will be entered manually” mean? Uploading of the file generated (?) by step 3?
Is this done by the Data Steward? Or by the researcher?
Rewrite to something like: “Data steward enters (?) data in the Radboudumc FDP (will… )“
Radboudumc FDP will be harvested by the Health-RI National Catalogue
TBD - what to do with this (it’s true, but not necessarily Scenario material):
Accessible
Data and metadata protocols are open and free
The researcher defines level of access in data repository
Perhaps as part of the “Publishing data in a data repository“ scenario?
Restricted access for sensitive data
Perhaps as part of the “Publishing data in a data repository“ scenario?
Metadata records will remain accessible, even when the data is no longer available (FDP & RDR)
Interoperable
Interoperability aspects of the metadata are addressed by the FDP
RDF, FAIR-compliant vocabularies, including references to other metadata (e.g., PID for organisations [ROR] and people [ORCID])
Data model will be defined
Could be another scenario
Are we talking semantic modelling here? Including triple store etc? That could indeed be another scenario
Reusable
The researcher provides all relevant documentation needed to understand the data, such as the study protocol, data dictionary, syntax etc.
Provides where? (and perhaps to whom?)
The researcher refers to a reuse license in the metadata
Preferably machine-readable
License is in the core metadata schema. We could maybe add it as an example for 3a.
We could even create a scenario about filling in the metadata schema, if relevant?
Part of the scenario could be: she refers to a machine-readable license (not sure how that works/how to do this, so could be interesting)
The researcher complies with community standards
Use or define FAIR Implementation Profile
tbd
Alternative Flow