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.

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.