Selfunderstanding “FAIR” – key terms, consistent language

[hrajagers]

The acronym for proper open data is FAIR, which stands for Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable. Other groups e.g. NL eScience & DANS and RDA have reused this acronym for software. Can we adopt that acronym within the Open Modeling Foundation as well, or do we see the need to deviate?

In our Charter we initially list these six adjectives:

1. Discoverable
2. Accessible
3. Reusable
4. Reproducible
5. Interoperable
6. Recognition

Of which according to the community standards section the first two are linked to FAIR-aligned digital repositories, but the third and fifth term are also included as terms in FAIR, so there is more overlap than currently suggested. Furthermore, we add "Documented" to the list in that section and use a number of times the term "reliable", distracting from the list of main pillars.

Do we want to define a new acronym for open modeling based on the terms discoverable, documented, accessible, interoperable, reusable, reproducible, recognition, and reliable, or would it be better to work with FAIR as starting point, and ssociate each term that we've listed to one of the four pillars of FAIR ...

What is your opinion?

[platipodium]

We should drop the "Discoverable" in favour of the "Findable" from F-AIR. In my view, the semantic is identical, but the latter is to be preferred because of the widespread adoption of the FAIR acronym.

[cmbarton]

We could. But in general text documents (rather than specifically referencing FAIR), discover and its derivations are sometimes better as a synonym. For example, "discoverability" is a commonly used word, but "findability" is not. Of course, in English, we can just create and use the new word "findability" if we want.

[isaacullah]

Definition of "Discoverable" in the OED is: "Able to be discovered or found; findable." [emphasis added]. IMO any ambiguity between the two terms is outweighed by the ubiquity of FAIR terminology, so I concur with Carsten that we should align the OMF terminology with FAIR to as much extent as possible.

[platipodium]

What about Reproducible? This is clearly not in the FAIR domain, but has more to do with Good Scientific Practise. Reproducibility is based on FAIR, but it is more, and can include the documentation aspect. So it is an OMF extension to FAIR.

[cmbarton]

Probably we should focus on "reuse" for the most part. However, groups like WholeTale.org are focusing on reproducibility through archived workflows. It might be worth tackling at some point. But these should not be treated as synonyms.

[platipodium]

Also the Recognition aspect is beyond the FAIR standard. It is partly addressed in GSP, but beyond that there is an ongoing discussion in RSE (Research Software Engineer) circles how to ensure Recognition. Some digging on their forums/discussion boards might enlighten us...

[platipodium]

See the related discussion #321

[cmbarton]

Indeed, it is not part of the FAIR standard. But it is important to encourage fair practices. I've talked about the 3 R's for incentivizing FAIR: requirements, recognition, and rewards. Although FAIR is a goal, it is operationalized by scientists/actors in science as a social practice. As such, it benefits from a suite of institutions (rules, norms, etc) that encourage some practices and discourage others (e.g., FAIR vs. un-FAIR).

[isaacullah]

We could do something like "FAIR+" where we list some additional criteria such as Recognition and Reproducible under the "+". Probably "FAIRRR" is too clever, so FAIR+ seems a better option that also does not lock us into just these two additional categories.

[platipodium]

See this recent article by Marco Janssen (referencing OMF :=) https://rofasss.org/2023/05/11/fair/

MAKING MODELS FAIR: AN EDUCATIONAL INITIATIVE TO BUILD GOOD ABM PRACTICES

MAY 11, 2023 THESUBMISSIONAUTHOR LEAVE A COMMENT
By Marco A. Janssen1, Kelly Claborn1, Bruce Edmonds2, Mohsen Shahbaznezhadfard1 and Manuela Vanegas-Ferro1