Talk:UC4

Assessment of metadata for databases

1. IEA Policy database
2. COMETS
3. JRC database hub
4. EUR-Lex

IEA Policy database

Level of implementation of FAIR/O principles: F4 - yes; A1 - yes, A2 - yes (only depends on EU policy); I1 - yes; I2 - fulfilled, I3 - fulfilled; R1.1 - yes; R1.2 - no; R1.3 - not fulfilled, not even the DC standards.

• Metadate seems to be spread.
• August - example: In ideal database all country names would be linked to official registry --> you could go for all information. It would be 100% FAIR. Are any bases 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 spossibility to chacke at the source, if the policy has been already updated.
• if metadata doesn't provide the

if the documents are there, but you don't have an oppurtunity to get to the official, legal document.

COMETS

• information for collective actions for all EU countries, most importantly - for countries being in energy transition.
• 3700 initiatives in selected European countries - Germany, Belgium, Czechia, Switzerland,
• based on the internet desk research, business registers, etc.
• energy production units / electriciity facilitiation units - including more than 50000
• within the project in six countries (DE, ES, BE, PL, EE) they are conducting servey about the development and values (export, import). The data from it will be also included into the databse/.
• as it's still under development - FAIRness is 0% for now.
• from COMETS project perspective, an important step for FAIRification is to facilitate by categorisation, what and how specific activities are currently being implemented in different countries, categorisation of them, taxonomy.

General conclusions

• discussion on Wilkinson FAIR priniciples --> if there are any databases which are 100% in accordance to these principles. 100% is an utopia

We only can make a hierarchy, which databases are matching these citerias better, or worse.

• in Mons system it's more clear that you have to achieve specific level, to be able to go further.

• August example: database with country information, which should be easily available automatically, for example ISO code for the country. IEA policy database is not fully like that.
• start of absolute lowest datasets and try to FAIRify those, and later on move "up".
• FAIRification of database which are more complex is leading us to results / conlcussions available also for less complicated databases.

• important - what format it's possible to include for specific entry. As example - the date (you have to have clear definitions - what's date. - year, month, day specific? ) Similarly - with longitude, latitute. If you don't do it in advance, later on it takes much work to manually change it and put into right format. On the other hand - potentially - makinf a very specific description - may exclude some data, which are available but in different standards - for ecxample between EU and American standards.
• every entry has it's provenence, with information how the entry hhas been changed, when, etc. Basically all entries should have their own metadata.

• two dimensions of policies:

1) policy domain (topic of the policy) 2) policy perspective / the level of goverment (for whom it's developed = local regional, national, international level, etc)

• much focus is put on energy citizenship, participatorey of inclusiveness of policy process

directions in building taxonomy

• Example to be watched: EU taxonomy for green innovation companies
• UC4 taxomnomy needs to match to higher level = overall level of the projects. To make sure, that the complete taxonomy is

Proposed logical aspects / steps:

1. starting on agreement of keywords + the glossry, to ensure common understanding.
2. taking into consideration two dimensions of policies: (1) policy domain and (2) policy level of goverment
3. coordinationg with other use cses: UC4 is affecting other use cases, so our keywords should not only match, but sometimes should be even taken from other use cases.