Standards should be organized as FAIR

[platipodium]

Subpages to this page are

Accessibility
Documentation
Interoperability
Reproducibility

But do comply with expectation and current international efforts, they should follow a FAIR scheme

Findability
Accessibility
Interoperability
Reproducibility

This would necessitate a renameing of "Documentation"

[cpritcha]

That sounds good. I think it would be a good idea have to put our standards under a separate section then (and have a FAIR introduction as a sort of overview with links) since those are often cross-cutting. For example, parts of a documentation standard could be linked under our findability and reusability in our FAIR introduction.

[cpritcha]

Metadata standards could also linked under a few different FAIR sections

• findability when metadata is being to aid in model search
• accessibility when metadata has IDs
• interoperability when metadata is used to understand whether or not a model could be joined with another model
• resusability when standardized metadata makes the model easier for others to use and understand it's limitations.

[cmbarton]

I think a cross-walk with FAIR could be useful. Some of the slight differences are a result of 1) we've been thinking of this at least as long as the FAIR initiative has been developing, 2) we are focused on code while they are focused on data (recognizing a LOT of intersections between the them), and 3) whoever came up with FAIR is much more adept at acronym creation then I or any of my colleagues are.

This is why documentation is called out explicitly for model code, which (I think) subsumed under the other categories of the catchy acronym. And why we include findable under accessible.

I don't think we currently need to change the standards categories. BUT, that is a discussion to be had by the community too. There in fact may be other standards categories that we are not yet recognizing but which will emerge as important in the future.

[alee]

I'd be in favor of renaming the Reproducibility section in Standards to Reuse or Reusability to match the R in FAIR. We've been touting Reuse as a stronger incentive for a few years now since the start of our spokes grant as it also carries the potential to verify reproducibility claims and I think Calvin put that in as an initial placeholder that we've never bothered to update.

[alee]

@cpritcha and @chrstngyn what are the steps needed to rename a section of the site, i.e., to change Reproducibility -> Reusability? It does not appear to be as simple as:

alee@ff830c5

at least when I try to build locally hugo fails:

Creating omf_hugo_run ... done                                                                                                                                                                                                         
Built in 39 ms                                                                                                     
Error: Error building site: process: readAndProcessContent: walk: Readdir: decorate: lstat /src/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/reproducibility.md: no such file or directory                                                                   
make: *** [Makefile:28: serve] Error 255  

I do not see any other references to reproducibility.md etc so I'm at a loss at the moment.

[chrstngyn]

@alee i refactored in this commit, take a look 4634d5d

[alee]

Hmm, so that looks pretty similar to the changes I made in the branch on my fork, but for some reason my local build fails when I made the change. Thanks!

Though the directory name got typoed: https://openmodelingfoundation.github.io/standards/reuasbility/ - should be reusability not reuasbility

[chrstngyn]

oops, fixing now

[alee]

There is now an initiative to adapt the FAIR principles for research software:

https://www.rd-alliance.org/groups/fair-research-software-fair4rs-wg

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666389921000362

https://fair-software.eu/