National maDMP reference data model is aligned with the RDA maDMP standard, but more detailed based on the national needs

national model: https://wiki.eduuni.fi/x/2WzrJw

RDA: https://github.com/RDA-DMP-Common/RDA-DMP-Common-Standard


Note: broken links, e.g. https://iri.suomi.fi/model/ttv/pysyvatunniste (all with iri.suomi.fi ?)


General remarks on the reference data model

  1.   role should be connected to dataset rather than agent having multiple dataset connections but roles not connected to each
    1. e.g. each agent has nested structure where is a pair of role and connection to dataset (LL: not quite sure when agent information is needed in DMP and when not. One case I interpreted from the discussion, is that some metadata is needed as a snapshot of the dataset in a certain monent (versioning) ?)
  2. possibly need to connect agents to project or funding etc. 
  3. in oulu: dataset based approach looks promising
  4. adding relation to security privacy to dataset/project
  5. descriptive fields for risks?
    1. if no risk assessment exists, there could still be an open field to shortly describe some risks in the dmp
  6. is there a need to ask about computing capacity questions in DMP, not every researcher knows how to estimate these and not information generally in DMP
    1. it is relevant but risk is that information can be unreliable
    2. CSC will benefit from this but researcher might feel it is a hinderance
  7. Added to table: member of the project and PI to agent roles (could also need link to projects in this case)
    1. comment from barbara: and are you going to create a FAIR vocab list of roles? if so, you should make sure to map them to other roles that exist already or reuse them
  8. JSON LD and RDF for a next step when implementing
  • risk assessment field(s) optional, wouldn't be adopted at Aalto or Luomus at least yet (if many are using mvp with mostly mandatory fields, it's good to know who would be using some optional fields already ) 
  • discussion, if there is also a mandatory "researcher id" related to each funding (e.g. FIRI for organizations - most likely yes) 

Most critical APIs to test 

Specific comments

  1. Hierarchy 
  2. Fields
  3. Elements
  4. Identifiers
  5. ...

Change requests

Slogan

"To make the data model interoperable and widely adopted it's good if it's as simple as possible, but as complex (and rich) as necessary. "


Barbara 

Slides: https://osf.io/xws8g

The FIP Wizard:   https://fip.fair-wizard.com/
The FIP Ontology:    https://w3id.org/fair/fip
FAIR Connect:   https://fairconnect.pro/ (FIP nanopublications)

Discussion / round table:

Oulu (Ivan): have tried FAIR implementation wizard; JYU (Juuso): "not ready yet, HY (Iina): still at very beginning and combining FIPs is not currently possible, Syke (Maria): development on maDMP has not started in the organization, in singular projects only, Luomus (Robert): working on a project where maDMP should be made, coding own solution and following OSTrails


Some fee related to FIP Wizard if using more (testing free?): "fee for support, maintenance, keeping everything secured on their server" → using should be free, GoFair pays the fee for support?

examples of combining FIPs to DMP: PARC DMP and Leiden DMP 


Barbara: "tool should not be a limitation "

  • No labels

Korkeakoulutuksen ja tutkimuksen yhteistyöalustan tietosuojaseloste