You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In the metadata chapter of the FIP Questionnaire start and end dates for the FIP is asked. For many the end date at least is a difficult question to answer.
What about adding a FIP status instead with these possible values:
in preparation (still not completely finalized, but already published as a nanopub)
in review (in review by the community)
approved (by the community)
When a FIP is published as a nanopub we have a timestamp for the creation time and we know which status the FIP had at this time.
There are multiple implications to consider:
when we create a FIP matrix do we need to filter per year? would this still be possible without a start date? Or should we keep the start date and add the status?
how easy is it to include the publication date in a SPARQL query so that we can make use of it when filtering?
we might want to discuss about the maturity of a FIP and how long it will persist (but I personally think that a FIP should evolve over time anyway)
a FIP status is not the same as a FAIR Implementation Community status (which can be developing, emerging or mature)
Can you please contribute with your thoughts on this possible improvement?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
In the metadata chapter of the FIP Questionnaire start and end dates for the FIP is asked. For many the end date at least is a difficult question to answer.
What about adding a FIP status instead with these possible values:
When a FIP is published as a nanopub we have a timestamp for the creation time and we know which status the FIP had at this time.
There are multiple implications to consider:
Can you please contribute with your thoughts on this possible improvement?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: