Comments on Usage Areas and Indicators

[EvaMart]

Hi,
After going through Data Usage Areas and FAIR indicators I have some doubts and comments.

Data Usage Areas:

• How do this relate to maturity levels? Will these evolve to levels or completely different things?
• I think the area "Reproducibility" should have more associated indicators, like F+S04 and F+S06. I see repurposing and reproducibility as two ways of reusing data, I would expect them to share most of their requisites.
• Regarding the future data usage areas, I see data analytics as a type of repurposing, too specific to be an area on its own.

FAIR+ indicators:

• If a research project follows the study-essay model in one way or another it would not be possible to apply this framework to assess its maturity. If following the study-essay model is a prerequisite, I think it should be stated and the model explained a bit. It would be especially useful for those still planning their data management.
• From the indicators defined at the study and essay levels, it is assumed essays do not have metadata, only studies. I see this metadata also describes the essays, but I would still expect each experiment to have its associated metadata.

[daniwelter]

@EvaMart I think the study/assay language is misleading. Looking at the actual indicators, it feels like the split could be between metadata and data, but the most of the "A" (data) indicators are still sort of metadata-based, eg F+A05 - if you annotate data with ontology terms, then these ontology terms become by definitions metadata.
I don't see anything in the indicators that inherently limits them to a classic study>assay setup. A study will always have some high-level information, some protocols on how to collect and process samples/information and this process generates data of some form, be that sequencing results, treatment outcomes, survey responses, molecular structures, images or something else.