Talk:WS1UC4

• 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.

• 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

• this may help by assessing the database https://www.go-fair.org/fair-principles/f1-meta-data-assigned-globally-unique-persistent-identifiers/

I have started segmenting databases into 2 categories:

1. policy relevant databases, eg. COMETS, EU Merci,
2. policy databases, eg. IEA Policy database, EUR-Lex, OECD, MURE

From both categories, the most suitbale databases may be chosen. This will enable us to have a full spectrum - how energy policies may use both types of databases.

I'm thinking about IEA Policy database regarding the use case it's fit perfect

Notes from the discussion on zoom - included into tables here: http://eeradata.webfactional.com/mediawiki-1.30.0/index.php?title=UC4#List_of_selected_databases

• 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"

Databases to be chosen

Primary databases:

1. COMETS --> still needs FAIRification, so going from all red to all green. Database is not so complicated, so may be a good example / case for works.
2. IEA Policy Database --> second to be chosen, it's close to FAIR. The main problem was with PIDs. International dimension
3. EUR-Lex, because it's place where policies are stored
4. JRC database, it's hub, linking many repositiroeis and databases.

Secondary databases:

1. RES Legal --> secondary database to EUR-Lex.

• 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

• Preliminary assessment of 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.
• Discussion on understanding of 100% fulfillement, on the 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? 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).

COMETS

• Information on collective actions initiatives for the energy transition for all EU countries.
• 3700 initiatives in selected European countries - Germany, Belgium, Czech Republic, Switzerland, Denmark.
• Based on the internet desk research, business registers, national electricity production statistics, individual websites etc.
• Energy production units / electriciity facilitiation units - including more than 6000.
• Within the project in six countries (DE, ES, BE, PL, EE, NL) they are conducting survey about the development and values (export, import). The data from it will be also included into the database.
• As it's 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.

Directions in building taxonomy

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

• Discoussion about Mark Wilkinson system and Mons system of assessing FAIR features:

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.

• 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.
• Every entry has its provenence, with information how the entry hhas been changed, when, etc. Basically all entries should have their own metadata.