fairdatateam / fairdatapoint-spec Goto Github PK

Hello,

When searching for a way to specify the format of a dataset I noticed that the FAIR Data Point metadata specification uses dct:conformsTo to specify the format of the metadata resource itself. For example the value of the dct:conformsTo property is https://www.purl.org/fairtools/fdp/schema/0.1/datasetMetadata in the Dataset Metadata example. I wonder whether this use of dct:conformsTo is correct because dct:conformsTo is used in DCAT to specify the standard to which the
described resource conforms (as opposed to the metadata resource, see: DCAT specifation). The usage of dct:conformsTo as described in the DCAT specification seems exactly what I need.

If I'm wrong, is there another way to specify this using the FAIR Data Point metadata specification?

Regards,

Bas Harmsen

Currently the (meta)data model defines a minimal set of properties to describe the repository and its content. User-defined (extensions to the existing) properties are not considered. To allow for user extensions, the model could provide (among other things) standard mechanisms for describing an extension.

Figure 2 and 3 is missing from https://github.com/FAIRDataTeam/FAIRDataPoint-Spec

"FDPs’ Archimate Application layer architecture" image (Fig 5) is not defined in the document and therefore not visible.

FDP readme https://github.com/FAIRDataTeam/FAIRDataPoint-Spec/blob/master/README.md

states:
"The figure below shows the swagger API documentation of the FDP API."

But figure is missing

To comply with the FAIR Metrics, the (meta)data model should provide information in a way the evaluator implementations can understand.

The current (meta)data model uses DCAT with some custom additions (re3data etc.). To facilitate a broader uptake by existing client libraries, a standardized navigational model (LDP, Hydra, etc.) could be considered.

To make a distinction between versions (of a dataset), there needs to be additional metadata in (or more fundamental changes to) the model. Both the DCAT revised edition specification and the DXWG wiki on versioning contain sections on versioning that could be followed.

Assume that this swagger API is the reference API specification, is looks like it is not possible to search for datasets that meet a certain criterion (e. g. of a given type). Is this correct?

If so, this means the client of the FDP needs to download the full catalog and browse through it. The a FDP implementing this specification would be more useful if it provided such functionality.

Since this repository contain the specification for FAIR data point, it would be very beneficial if it also provided a reference API specification, for example as a reference swagger specification. From other links on this repository, I assume this swagger API to be the reference API specification.

I believe the correct diagram is https://api.media.atlassian.com/file/b5a5d9c7-0ad7-4198-8e7c-ff508be28292/image?token=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJpc3MiOiI5MDQ5MDUwZi1iZjZiLTRmZjItOThkNi0yZThlZGUxZjZlNmUiLCJhY2Nlc3MiOnsidXJuOmZpbGVzdG9yZTpmaWxlOmI1YTVkOWM3LTBhZDctNDE5OC04ZTdjLWZmNTA4YmUyODI5MiI6WyJyZWFkIl19LCJleHAiOjE1NzI5NDkzNzcsIm5iZiI6MTU3Mjk0NjMxN30.ylxybUKp1RdCkbMwQTUA3MBlqZB4PfhF92Cocm_f4ek&client=9049050f-bf6b-4ff2-98d6-2e8ede1f6e6e&name=FDP%20Archimate%20Application%20Architecture.png&max-age=2940&width=869&height=400, from the archived Atlassian site at https://dtl-fair.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/FDP/pages/6127622/FAIR+Data+Point+Software+Specification+Archived.

In the DANS hackathon we've encountered the distinction between authors and publishers. In some cases the publisher is the institute hosting the repository, and the creator is the original creator of the data. For DANS the need to make a distinction between these roles is present.

The current (meta)data model mixes metadata (about the data) and 'metadata metadata' (metadata about the metadata: provenance, etc.). To separate these layers, a distinct description of a layer's metadata could be added.

The dcterms:isPartOf link from a metadata layer to its parent layer is missing in the description of the required properties.

To communicate to a human user what the conditions are for using the (meta)data, or to allow the FAIR Data Point to act in a Personal Health Train environment for automated reasoning, a clear description of conditions of use should be made available.