EloiFerrer (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
* Q: What do we do with the references that we currently have in the table? | * Q: What do we do with the references that we currently have in the table? | ||
* A: URLs are important. We plan to have an online version of the table | * A: URLs are important. We plan to have an online version of the table where at least the URLs point to an archive version of what we saw when we published the review. | ||
Latest revision as of 09:46, 12 October 2022
Basic Info
Attendees: Johannes, Tim, Eloi, Daniel, Olaf
Protocol by: Eloi
Presentations
- Johannes: Parser is implemented and available at Mediawiki. Work on debugging and code review.
- Eloi: Progress on importing workflows from TA4 into the portal. Dashboard to import, visualize and query workflows.
Organizational Topics
- MaRDI annual workshop: Not mandatory to be there but it would be good that as many of us are there.
- It is planned to have a 2 or 3 hours meeting in the short term with the entire TA5 team to discuss the internal vision and milestones for the portal.
Literature Review Topics
- Tim:
- Presentation of current table structure to evaluate criteria.
- Entries in the tables should be Yes or No.
- It is planned to make the table available online when the review is published.
- To-Do tasks will be published only in the overleaf document.
- Q: What do we do if we don't find the answer to some cell?
- A: Find for secondary literature or contact the administrators of the platform.
- Q: The criteria to evaluate the FAIR principles are not very strict, there is some room for interpretation.
- A: Use the criteria and numeration in the original FAIR paper. Based on these there will be a second table that will be linked from the first table. In the first table we will indicate only the points in which the FAIR criteria are not fulfilled.
- Q: What do we do with the references that we currently have in the table?
- A: URLs are important. We plan to have an online version of the table where at least the URLs point to an archive version of what we saw when we published the review.
- Q: How were the platforms currently on the table selected?
- A: Many were directly discarded because they clearly do not adhere to the FAIR principles. The ones that showed potential regarding FAIR principles were further explored.
- Q: We can check again further repositories / platforms in the current list to make sure we have not missed relevant entries:
