General comments from the RCN

[RCN2018]

• The RCN thinks that the FAIR Data Action Plan provides an impressive list of recommendations and it is obvious that a lot of work has been invested. An idea for developing the report further is to make a clearer distinction between the "low hanging fruits" and the more immature recommendations. It would be an improvement if the plan was divided into short-term and more long-term recommendations, as several of the long-term recommendations depend on the realisation of the short-term ones.
• The RCN thinks that making data interoperable and machine readable is a very demanding and costly exercise. It is important that different academic communities are involved and that research funders do not enforce "computer languages" that are not perceived as useful by the researchers. Interoperability standards take time to develop and this work must not be rushed.
• The RCN notes that several of the recommendations mention research funders as the responsible stakeholders. It is important to bear in mind that several of the decisions related to e.g. interoperability and what data should be preserved, must be taken by the research communities and not by research funders and authorities.
• The RCN thinks that the FAIR principles lack a time horizon; who will decide how long data can and should be taken care of and who will pay for this? In principle, we talk about keeping data indefinitely and this can be very expensive.