Talk:WS1UC4: Difference between revisions

From EERAdata Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
← Older editNewer edit →
Mariab (talk | contribs)
board
133 edits
No edit summary
Mariab (talk | contribs)
board
133 edits
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
* Perhaps, we should decide initially, if we want to only focus on databases that actually contain information on policies or if we want to include databases that include information that is not directly related to policies, but can provide information that is useful for the development of policies? E.g. The COMETS database does not contain information on policies directly, but the information contained in the COMETS database could be valuable for policy development.
The other [[WS1UC4#Databases_selected|selected databases]], are avaliable online except <u>COMETS</u>.  
 
On UC session Jan Zeiss presented more information about this database:
*good point we have policy relevant databases and data bases with policy, but for sure both of them are important regarding the topic of uc
 
* the significant is to determine what kind of metadata are important also for us, for researchers
 
* this may help by assessing the database  https://www.go-fair.org/fair-principles/f1-meta-data-assigned-globally-unique-persistent-identifiers/
 
 
* difference between terms in different languages - how to align the wording and taxonomy
 
* Michael: information if databases have publishable API
* August: some kind of glossary should be included, in accordance to international standards,
* what kind of metadata are provided. What code is provided.
 
*it's really important to know if the database is primary or secondary source - who kis a creator of the data.
All copies of documents are available in many places, but it's important to inlclude information about "originals"
 
 
• Discoussion about importance of formats of data: It is significant that the format of the data to be entered in specific entry is strictly defined (example - the date: need of clear definitions - what's to include: year, month, day specific?) Similarly - with longitude, latitute. If it's not done in advance, later on it takes much work to manually change it and put into right format. On the other hand - potentially - making a very specific description - may exclude some data, which are available but in different standards - for example in EU and American standards.
 
 
==== IEA Policy database ====
 
 
* In ideal database all country names would be linked to official registry -->then everybody could go for all information. Example on country information, which should be easily available automatically, for example ISO code for the country. IEA policy database is not fully like that.
* Difficulties even in defining "policy" = everything (every official document) which is published in official governmental page.
* Testing on the example of Poland and National Energy Efficency Action Plan for Poland: link to the official governmental page, not the direct link to the official document or to the official  country law. When information about the date of update - should be also a linked to the local page (to ensure that the is a possibility to check at the source, if the policy has been already updated.
* If metadata doesn't provide the possibility of reachning the sources (if the documents are there, but you don't have an opportunity to get to the official, legal document).
 
 
The other [[WS1UC4#Databases_selected|selected databases]], are avaliable onlie except <u>COMETS</u>. On session Jan Zeiss presented more information about this database:
* COMETS database is created in a project with the same name.   
* COMETS database is created in a project with the same name.   
* COMETS database contains information on collective actions initiatives for the energy transition for EU countries (inter alia, it contains information about more than 6000 energy production units).  
* COMETS database contains information on collective actions initiatives for the energy transition for EU countries (inter alia, it contains information about more than 6000 energy production units).  
Line 40: Line 10:




* Discoussion about Mark Wilkinson system and Mons system of assessing FAIR features:  
==== General conclusions  from the discoussion ====
In the Mark Willkinson system there is no clear information that can we go furter with the level of assessment if the database didn’t pass the previous one. With a Mons system there is no doubt like this.
* In ideal database all country names would be linked to official registry -->then everybody could go for all information. Example on country information, which should be easily available automatically including ISO code for the country.
* It is important to know if the database is primary or secondary source - who is a creator of the data. All copies of documents can be available in many places, but it's important to inlclude information about "originals".
* When is the information about the date of update - should be also a link to the local page (to ensure that there is a possibility to check at the source, if the policy has been already updated).  
* The significant is to determine what kind of metadata are important also for researchers (for us).
* It is important that the format of the data to be entered in specific entry is strictly defined (example - the date: need of clear definitions - what's to include: year, month, day specific?) Similarly - with longitude, latitute. If it's not done in advance, later on it takes much work to manually change it and put into right format. On the other hand - potentially - making a very specific description - may exclude some data, which are available but in different standards - for ecxample between EU and American standards.
* Some kind of glossary should be included in database, in accordance to international standards.
* If databases have publishable API, then information should be available.
* Every entry has its provenence, with information how and when the entry has been changed. Basically all entries should have their own metadata.
 


* Importance of formats of data. It is important that the format of the data to be entered in specific entry is strictly defined (example - the date: need of clear definitions - what's to include: year, month, day specific?) Similarly - with longitude, latitute. If it's not done in advance, later on it takes much work to manually change it and put into right format. On the other hand - potentially - making a very specific description - may exclude some data, which are available but in different standards - for ecxample between EU and American standards.
==== Identified problems: ====
* Every entry has its provenence, with information how the entry hhas been changed, when, etc. Basically all entries should have their own metadata.
* How to align the wording and taxonomy in the different languages context?
* There is no clear information in the Mark Wilkinson system: can you go on a higher rating level if the database has not reached the previous level. As a solution, each level of the Mark Wilkinson system was referred to during the databases evaluation.

Revision as of 13:33, 10 June 2020

The other selected databases, are avaliable online except COMETS. On UC session Jan Zeiss presented more information about this database:

  • COMETS database is created in a project with the same name.
  • COMETS database contains information on collective actions initiatives for the energy transition for EU countries (inter alia, it contains information about more than 6000 energy production units).
  • Data are derived from 3700 initiatives in selected European countries - Germany, Belgium, Czech Republic, Switzerland, Denmark.
  • Data are collected based on the internet desk research, business registers, national electricity production statistics, individual websites etc.
  • Within the COMES project in six countries (DE, ES, BE, PL, EE, NL) are conducting survey about the development and value of export/import of electricity. The data from it will be also included into the database.
  • COMETS database is still under development - FAIRness is 0% for now.
  • From COMETS project perspective, an important step for FAIRification is to facilitate by categorization, what and how specific activities are currently being implemented in different countries, categorization of them, taxonomy.


General conclusions from the discoussion

  • In ideal database all country names would be linked to official registry -->then everybody could go for all information. Example on country information, which should be easily available automatically including ISO code for the country.
  • It is important to know if the database is primary or secondary source - who is a creator of the data. All copies of documents can be available in many places, but it's important to inlclude information about "originals".
  • When is the information about the date of update - should be also a link to the local page (to ensure that there is a possibility to check at the source, if the policy has been already updated).
  • The significant is to determine what kind of metadata are important also for researchers (for us).
  • It is important that the format of the data to be entered in specific entry is strictly defined (example - the date: need of clear definitions - what's to include: year, month, day specific?) Similarly - with longitude, latitute. If it's not done in advance, later on it takes much work to manually change it and put into right format. On the other hand - potentially - making a very specific description - may exclude some data, which are available but in different standards - for ecxample between EU and American standards.
  • Some kind of glossary should be included in database, in accordance to international standards.
  • If databases have publishable API, then information should be available.
  • Every entry has its provenence, with information how and when the entry has been changed. Basically all entries should have their own metadata.


Identified problems:

  • How to align the wording and taxonomy in the different languages context?
  • There is no clear information in the Mark Wilkinson system: can you go on a higher rating level if the database has not reached the previous level. As a solution, each level of the Mark Wilkinson system was referred to during the databases evaluation.
Retrieved from "https://eeradata-platform.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:WS1UC4&oldid=926"