Category Archives: Uncategorized

EOSC EDEN: Developing long-term preservation strategies for galleries, libraries, archives and museums (GLAM): a blog post to celebrate World Digital Preservation Day, 5 November 2026 #WDPD2026

Written by Andrea Davidson (KU Leuven), with input from Laura Molloy (CODATA), Helene Andreassen (UIT) and Camilla Hagen Blixhavn (UIT).

Originally published on the Digital Preservation Coalition blog on 3 November 2026.

The European Open Science Cloud (EOSC) project ‘Enhancing Digital preservation strategies at European and National level’ (EDEN) aims to support and promote digital preservation practices and standards to advance the long-term preservation of digital data. Between January 2025 and December 2027, EDEN is creating a framework to help institutions to identify what data are candidates for digital preservation and to preserve research outputs as high-quality, FAIR data in the long term.

This work involves setting standards and protocols, which the project determines by assessing data usage, quality, and the data’s benefits to science and society. EDEN has engaged with the GLAM [Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums] sector, among other key stakeholders in the area of research data management, to understand each sector’s specific needs for long-term digital preservation. Engagement activities focus on soliciting external feedback, ensuring validation, and encouraging adoption of EDEN outcomes in the digital preservation community.

Long-term preservation for GLAM

The GLAM sector aspires to robust preservation practices. EDEN is developing frameworks, guidelines, and best practices for the identification, selection, and appraisal of data for long-term preservation. As part of that effort, EDEN carried out a large-scale survey in 2025, in order to better understand contemporary working practices in the sector. This is important for GLAM institutions as they increasingly integrate the FAIR principles and participate in the Collections-as-Data movement, which strives to make digital information about collections available as data for computationally-driven research enquiries.

EDEN has engaged GLAM sector stakeholders from the outset of this project, initially collecting input on existing identification, selection, and appraisal practices for digital preservation. The 2025 survey received 250 valid responses from 31 states/nations worldwide, with 151 responses representing the GLAM sector: 70 archives, 64 libraries, and 17 museums/galleries. Other stakeholders responding to the survey included repositories, research performing organisations, research infrastructures, digital preservation services, and one academic publisher.

The 2025 survey led to five important takeaways that have guided EDEN’s work and reflect the landscape and priorities for digital preservation among GLAM organisations. A full report of the survey is available for download at https://zenodo.org/records/17984753.

  1. The international digital preservation community works in a variety of settings and locations. 

There is significant diversity as to how digital data objects are handled: no single strategy for processing digital data objects and long-term preservation of data exists across the GLAM sector.

EDEN strives to be responsive to the different contexts for long-term digital preservation by offering solutions that adopters can adapt to their priorities. First and foremost, the Core Preservation Processes (CPPs) or 30 specific actions that a trustworthy digital archive should take to ensure digital preservation that a group of digital preservation practitioners has developed address generic processes regardless of specific content, domain, or discipline. The CPPs are described as a sequence of implementable steps that focus on operational activities required by digital preservation.

The CPPs were one of three finalists for The National Library and Archives, Singapore Award for Research and Innovation from the Digital Preservation Coalition in 2026. Read more about the CPPs here.

  1. Stakeholders are interested in sharing their experience and concerns.

Concerns that resonated across all types of survey respondents include sensitive or protected data, challenges of data volume, and access provision because these issues threaten FAIRness over time. To a lesser extent, stakeholders also expressed concerns about long-term provision of service, lack of useful policy or directive, software preservation, provenance issues, and format problems in order to meet community needs.

  1. The principles of FAIR data are familiar but the TRUST and CARE principles are less known or used.

Survey findings reveal that the FAIR principles can be considered foundational in preservation practice. However, even knowledge and use of conceptual frameworks – including FAIR and other frameworks and implementation standards for digital data handling – vary across GLAM institutions.

  1. “Long-term preservation” is still an unstable concept, as many respondents work at an organisation where there is no agreed or working definition.

For example, while 76% of archives responded that their organisation has an agreed definition of “long-term” in the context of digital preservation (this was the highest percentage among all types of organisations surveyed), only 7% of museums/galleries and 26% of libraries had defined “long-term” in their organisations. Of those organizations with a definition, “long-term” ranges from 1-5 years until 100 years, with 32.4% of respondents indicating that 100 years is the initial duration for preservation and 21.2% indicating 10 years.

Similarly, the criteria used to assess the quality of digital data object candidates for long-term preservation at the point of ingest ranges widely, with different types of quality checks being performed to different extents across the sectors. According to the figure below, archives are more likely than libraries, museums, and galleries to consider a wide variety of criteria that includes content quality, technical (metadata) quality, descriptive metadata quality, and administrative metadata quality.  Museums and galleries report lower frequency of checking technical quality, descriptive metadata quality, and administrative metadata quality. Archives generally exhibit different behaviour from all other organisation types, with more checking activity reported overall and in particularly high levels of checking for provenance, completeness and documentation.

Source: Molloy, L., Lindlar, M., Benauer, M., Andreassen, H. N., Presser, K., & Anu, M. (2025). EOSC EDEN D1.1 – Overview of Identification, Selection and Appraisal Practices for Long-Term Preservation of Data. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17984753 

Although the survey indicates that relatively few GLAM organisations undertake to regularly reassess the quality of preserved digital data objects, GLAM organisations predominate among those 18.8% of survey respondents that do define “long-term” AND perform quality checks at the point of ingest AND perform reassessments of the quality of digital objects at later stages in the preservation period. That group of organisations that conduct the most rigorous long-term preservation process with these three steps consists primarily of museums or galleries (35.7%), libraries (31%) and archives (16.4%), with digital preservation services, research infrastructures, repositories, and research performing organisations represented at 14.3% of the group or less.

  1. Urgent issues for contemporary digital preservation practitioners include resourcing, metadata quality, dealing with sensitive data, handling increasing data volume, and meeting changing user needs.

As EDEN works to provide the community with solutions to the most pressing needs for long-term digital preservation, the project also fosters a community of practice that will carry on with this mission after the end of the project. The Digital Curation and Preservation Network gathers practitioners to work together to exchange knowledge and develop further solutions. At a 2025 in-person meeting where we gathered prospective members to help shape this network, several participants represented archives or repositories across Europe. If you work in data curation or preservation and are looking to get involved in a professional network, we invite you to participate in the upcoming DCPN events and find out if one or more of our working groups match your interests.

Follow EDEN for updates on our work supporting long-term digital preservation

In summer 2026, EDEN ran a follow-up survey on the quality of research data and metadata for long-term preservation that attracted over 250 responses from GLAM sector stakeholders. This survey investigated how both preservation professionals and researchers experience issues related to sharing, finding, accessing, and working with research data. Follow EDEN to find out more about the results of the 2026 survey when they are available.

Subscribe to EDEN’s newsletter or follow the project on LinkedIn or Bluesky to learn more when we publish the results.

Getting off at the right station: reflections on AI readiness

Cyrus Walther is a doctoral student in the Astroparticle Physics Group at TU Dortmund University; nominated by IUPAP, he has served on the CODATA Executive Committee since 2023. He contributes actively to CODATA’s Early Career Group, CODATA Connect, and to the Task Group on Digital Representation of Units of Measure (DRUM).

From the 19th to the 21st of October, the International Science Council (ISC), in collaboration with the Chinese Academy of Sciences and Technology (CAST), welcomed the international scientific community to Beijing for the Beijing Science Dialogue. During these three days, topics of transformative impact on science were discussed, among them Artificial Intelligence. As AI especially impacts early- and mid-career researchers, EMCRs from the ISC community suggested including young panellists on the topic. Following a nomination, I had the great honour to receive that invitation from the International Science Council to speak as an early-career scientist on the panel “Responsible AI for global challenges”.

With the exceptional panel speakers and our outstanding moderator discussing a highly relevant and spotlighted topic like AI, we expected people to have high interest and diverse perspectives. However, none of us on stage foresaw that especially one contribution would remain in the audience’s memory of this panel: the bus metaphor.

During the introductory round, we were asked to provide a short input focusing on our perspective on how AI transforms science. For this input, I chose to highlight the development of young people utilizing AI from an inside perspective using a metaphor that goes like this:
___

Imagine you want to climb a mountain. You travel to the small mountain village at the foot of the mountain that you want to hike up. As you arrive, you meet a lovely senior lady, maybe around 95 years old, and she happily shares her impressions about the amazing views at the summit. Affirmed by the lady, you are ready to start your hike in the morning. The next morning, you find out that there is a bus that takes you to the start of the hiking trail. “That sounds marvellous”, you think, and you start looking for the bus station and you find it close by. Not long after, the bus arrives. It looks good and the bus driver is very friendly, so you go inside. The bus is indeed very comfy and warm, and from the inside you have a great view of the mountain panorama outside. Stunned, you watch the trees go by and the beautiful mountain ranges in the distance. Then, it suddenly strikes you: you have missed your stop. The bus is already far up the mountain. So you scream, “Sorry, sorry, I missed my stop. I need to get off.” The bus driver answers, “No problem”, stops the bus and opens the door. As you get off the bus, happy about the fact that you noticed, you start feeling the cold wind around you. You look up the mountain; it is already foggy, cold, and quite steep. “But this is what I signed up for”, you mumble, and you start hiking. After 50 meters, you are out of breath, sweating, and freezing. Frustrated, you turn around to the bus driver, who is luckily still there and happily welcomes you back. After all, you want to see the summit. The senior lady said it was so nice, so you will just take the bus there. When you get on the bus, it is warm and dry again, and so comfortable. You are convinced this was a good decision. Some time passes and the bus stops. “We arrived at the summit, the bus driver says.” Excited, you jump off the bus. Stepping outside, you glance at the beautiful view that is presented to you; the senior lady did not lie. “Stunning!” you say to yourself just as a gust of wind almost blows you off your feet. That’s when you notice the bone-chilling cold around you as the warmth of the bus slowly fades away. Only a few seconds go by and it becomes unbearable – strong winds and freezing cold. You realize you are out of your depth, completely unprepared for the harsh environment on the summit…
You might ask, why is this story relevant? What is the kicker? The bus was warm, the bus was nice, right? The bus was called ChatGPT.
___

From this metaphor, one can and should ask the question of whether Artificial Intelligence is not only transforming science on its own, but primarily the scientists themselves, especially when it comes to Generative AI.

While the metaphor has various flaws, it remains relatable to scientists independent of their career stage. Now, one might think, “Yes, everybody already forgot to get off at the right station.” While this is surely correct, the metaphor relates much further, towards comfort and the warmth of the bus. Its feeling might be mimicked in doomscrolling while already having to leave for an appointment; in sleeping in because the bed is cozy although one has calls scheduled; or in choosing the frozen pizza dinner over a home-cooked meal. More specifically, to extend the metaphor: now at the top of the mountain, unaccustomed to the cold and the harsh environment, could you find your way down without the help of the bus? Faced with another mountain, but deprived of a bus service, could you manage to get to the top? Is the comfort and warmth of the bus depriving you of the opportunity to adapt to the alpine environment, to learn to navigate and climb on your own so when forced to descend from the bus you can find your own way?

After the panel, I was approached by various colleagues from the community, expressing their interest in the metaphor and stating their intention to use it in their teachings. Amongst many great pieces of feedback for which I am deeply grateful, one piece stood out to me. It was when a senior colleague approached me during a coffee break later that day because she realized something. She told me, “I am on the bus; I just realized it, Cyrus. I am on the bus.”


This remains the key insight of the story of the bus and the mountain: it is the awareness to understand where you are right now, on the bus, about to get on, halfway up the mountain avoiding the bus, or already on your way down from the peak. Then, as soon as you are aware of where you are, it is about acknowledging it, identifying where you want to go and potentially changing your path.

So, the question remains: Are you on the bus and do you know when to get off? :)

Thank you very much for reading until here.
All the best!

The panel was chaired by Françoise Baylis (President, Royal Society of Canada, ISC Governing Board member). The other panellists were: Andrew Deeks (President, International Association of Universities); Emna Harigua (Researcher, Institut Pasteur de Tunis); Liu Xuan (Director of Institute of Innovative Environment, CAST, and member of the ISC Committee for Freedom and Responsibility in Science).

A Better Future for Science? Reflections from Beijing

Dr. Pragya Chaube is Assistant Professor at the UPES University, India. She is a co-chair of the CODATA Connect Early Career Network and co-founder Open Science South Asia Network (OSSAN). Pragya’s participation in the International Science Council’s (ISC) Midterm Membership Meeting and Beijing Science Dialogue was kindly supported by the ISC and by the China Association for Science and Technology (CAST).

I had the opportunity to spend the week of 19–24 October in Beijing, alongside a large gathering of scientists and representatives of national science academies from across the globe, reflecting on the future of science. More than 1,000 people from over 80 countries and regions came together for these discussions. We welcomed a new ISC President, Robbert Dijkgraaf, and, on the final day, adopted the Beijing Science Declaration: Science in a Complex World, Science for a Better Future.

The meeting covered many important issues, but I left Beijing reflecting on a question that connects many of them for me: What kind of research ecosystem do we want to build for the future, and what needs to change to get there?

From declarations to implementation

The Beijing Science Declaration is ambitious and well put together. Its 18 commitments cover scientific freedom, responsible AI, public trust, and a stronger role for science in what follows the 2030 Agenda. It sets an important vision for science and society. I did, however, feel that the consultation period was quite short. The draft was shared with us on 13 October, with responses requested by 19 October. A little more time could have allowed for deeper reflection and discussion.

More broadly, I found myself thinking about what comes after a declaration is adopted.

We often agree on what we want to achieve. The next question is how we get there. Open science is one example. It needs infrastructure, sustained funding and viable financial models. It also requires institutions to recognise and reward open practices.

The declaration establishes long-term commitment towards openness. Developing practical ways to deliver on its commitments is just as important.

Open science in the age of AI

One question raised by the new ISC President, Robbert Dijkgraaf, stayed with me. In his speech, he asked whether open science is still the right approach when AI systems can use the same data. “Are we being naïve …?”

It is an important question. It does not mean that we should abandon open science. Rather, it asks us to think more carefully about the systems that support it.

Who benefits when research data is openly available? Who controls how it is reused? How do we ensure that communities retain a say in the use of their data? These questions matter particularly for data sovereignty and Indigenous data governance. Openness needs to work alongside principles such as CARE, which emphasise collective benefit, authority to control, responsibility and ethics.

As AI changes how knowledge is produced and used, we need to reconsider how our systems can support openness while ensuring accountability and equitable benefits.

Science in a world of geopolitical tensions

Geopolitical tensions make international scientific cooperation more difficult. I felt that there was scope to give greater attention to the role of science diplomacy in addressing these challenges.

The declaration recognises scientific and academic freedom, including the right of researchers to cooperate internationally. This is important. But how do we turn this commitment into practice when researchers face visa barriers, restrictions on mobility and political tensions between countries? The ability to collaborate should not depend so heavily on where a researcher comes from. There is room for greater advocacy and international cooperation to address these barriers.

There is also another dimension to the digital divide. A country’s AI capacity depends not only on its own skills, infrastructure and investment. It is also shaped by where AI hardware and software companies are based and who controls these technologies. Because these companies sit in only a few countries, geopolitical tensions between nations can quickly become barriers for researchers elsewhere. Access to chips, computing power or AI tools can be restricted, become costly, or change overnight, regardless of a country’s own capacity. These questions deserve attention when we discuss equitable participation in AI. Science diplomacy could help us think about these global dependencies and how they affect the future of scientific cooperation.

Science as a public good

The meeting included a panel on science as a public good. This is an important principle, and one that the Beijing Science Declaration rightly emphasises. But what does it mean for the kind of science we choose to fund?

In his speech, Robert Dijkgraaf made an important point about the pressures facing fundamental research. In many countries, the demand for immediate economic returns and new technologies is leaving less room for curiosity-driven research. Yet some of our most transformative technologies have emerged from research that was not originally driven by a specific application.

This is particularly relevant for low- and middle-income countries, where the emphasis on solving immediate societal challenges can sometimes overshadow the importance of basic research. These challenges are real and deserve attention. But we must also make space for research whose value we cannot predict in advance.

Fundamental research is also a global public good. Its benefits do not stop at national borders. This makes me wonder whether science diplomacy could play a greater role in building international support for research that individual countries may struggle to prioritise or fund on their own.

Thinking about the research ecosystem we want

For me, the biggest takeaway from Beijing was how interconnected these questions are.

The openness of research, the use of AI, the skills we want future researchers to develop, and the way we fund and assess science cannot be considered separately.

If AI changes how research is conducted, we need to think about the skills researchers will need. If we want more open and collaborative research, we need institutions that support these practices. And if we want researchers to take on new responsibilities, we need to consider what our research assessment systems reward.

Research assessment reform is therefore an important part of this conversation. We cannot expect the research ecosystem to evolve if the incentives remain unchanged.

This also brings me to the role of early- and mid-career researchers (EMCRs).

The EMCRs had a dedicated programme during the meeting. It included a half-day session on the first day, an outing on the second, and a full day on Thursday. It was a valuable opportunity to connect with researchers at similar career stages. At the same time, I wondered whether there could have been more opportunities for EMCRs to participate in the main discussions, particularly those on science policy and the future of research. A dedicated programme has its value. But so does being part of the wider dialogue, alongside those shaping science policy today.

If we are thinking about the future of science, we should also think about how the next generation of researchers can help shape it. This means giving them opportunities not only to develop new skills, but also to contribute to the policy discussions that will influence their careers and the research environments in which they work.

The Beijing Science Declaration sets out an ambitious vision. The work ahead is to translate that vision into practice, through sustained funding, institutional change, international cooperation and a willingness to rethink how we value science. For me, the bigger question is how we shape the research ecosystem that will enable future generations of researchers to realise this vision.

From Checklists to Crisis Response: CODATA and UNESCO Present the First Global Survey on Data Policies for Times of Crisis

Crises rarely wait for institutions to be ready for them. Floods, epidemics, earthquakes and displacement events unfold across borders, sectors and time zones, and the organisations that respond to them succeed or fail depending on whether they can find, trust and share the right data fast enough. That simple observation sits at the heart of the Data Policies for Times of Crisis (DPTC) Toolkit, developed jointly by UNESCO and the International Science Council’s Committee on Data (CODATA), and it was the common theme of two sessions to which CODATA contributed at the 2026 Global Conference of the International Decade of Sciences for Sustainable Development (IDSSD) in Paris: the ISC session on 16 July ‘Resilient Science for Resilient Societies: Protecting Knowledge and Scientists in Times of Crisis’, and the dedicated UNESCO–CODATA thematic session on 17 July ‘Data policies for times of crisis: Enabling open science for coordinated response’.

Two sessions, one message

CODATA’s DPTC work was presented first at the ISC session on 16 July. In the first panel, Prof Virginia Murray, as chair of the UNDRR-ISC HIP Steering Committee, shared the UNDRR-ISC Hazard Information Profiles update 2025 (HIPs). In the second panel, Prof Burçak Başbuğ gave examples from the recovery process after the 2023 Kahramanmaras earthquakes. 

On 17 July, the thematic session at UNESCO Headquarters brought the need for data in times of crises  (DPTC) message to a dedicated 75-minute hybrid slot in Room XI, opened by Dr Ezra Clark (Chief of Section, Research, Governance and Diplomacy, UNESCO) and closed by Dr Simon Hodson (Executive Director, CODATA). Together, the two sessions made the case that open science is not an abstract ideal for times of crisis — it is operational infrastructure, and the DPTC Toolkit is one attempt to help build it.

The DPTC Toolkit itself — a factsheet, a guidance document and a checklist — was published as part of the UNESCO Open Science Toolkit in June 2025. It is grounded in the 2021 UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science and aligned with the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable), CARE (Collective benefit, Authority to control, Responsibility, Ethics) and TRUST (Transparency, Responsibility, User focus, Sustainability, Technology) principles — three frameworks that, taken together, ask not only whether data can be shared, but whether it should be, and on whose terms. 

Putting the Toolkit to the test: the first global survey

The centrepiece of the 17 July session was the presentation of findings from the first global UNESCO-CODATA survey on the implementation of data policies for times of crisis, conducted between March and June 2026 and presented by Ms Rania Sabo (UNESCO) and Prof Burçak Başbuğ Erkan (METU Department of Statistics; Co-Chair, CODATA International Data Policy Committee).

 The response itself was a small victory for the open science community the DPTC Toolkit is trying to serve: 146 completed responses from 60 countries, spanning all five UNESCO regions. Academic and research institutions made up the largest share of respondents (79), followed by the public sector (28), non-profit and civil society organisations (14), the private sector (12), international organisations (7) and others (5) — a spread that suggests crisis data governance is very much everybody’s problem, not a niche concern for any one sector.

One figure captured the gap between principle and practice neatly: 78% of respondents believe a crisis-data checklist would be beneficial, but only 22% report already having one. The open-ended responses filled in why. Respondents converged on capacity building and training (43%), risk governance (40%), interoperability and real-time systems (38%), ethics, TRUST and CARE (36%), operationalisation (36%), and funding and infrastructure (33%) as the areas most in need of attention. 

Behind the percentages were voices that made the gap concrete. 

  • From Universidad Nacional, Costa Rica: the need is for training support and for researchers to be trained “in best practices for risk management.” 
  • From Arba Minch University, Ethiopia: “the lack of standardized data-sharing protocols across countries and agencies often delays coordinated responses.” 
  • From Loughborough University, UK: the opportunity is “to move from high-level principles to operational, crisis-ready data governance frameworks.” 

Other respondents were even blunter. A contributor from a library and information centre in Hungary put it plainly: “we would need more money, more staff — not more regulations and plans.” The Disaster Health Institute in the United States called for academics and researchers to “always be paired with practitioners and field experts.” And from the University of Khartoum, Sudan, came perhaps the sharpest reframing of the whole exercise: the realistic entry point is not “open science” as such, but “data survival and continuity under crisis conditions.”

Three priorities, and a panel to match

From this evidence, three actionable priorities emerged: common standards (48%), training and capacity building (38%), and the value of case studies (36%) — using real examples to test whether the checklist actually holds up in practice, not just on paper. The panel that followed, moderated by Dr Simon Hodson, put these priorities in front of practitioners who live with them daily: Dr Animesh Kumar (UNDRR, Bonn, joining online), Mr Manuel Ricardo Galindo Moreno (UNESCO), Dr Paola Gonzalez Vargas (Universidad Nacional, Costa Rica, online) and Prof Virginia Murray (Co-chair, CODATA International Data Policy Committee; UCL). The discussion translated the survey’s findings — capacity gaps, interoperability gaps, resourcing gaps — into the harder question of what happens next.

Next steps

The session’s expected outcomes point in a consistent direction: identifying priority areas for capacity-building, policy development and pilot implementation tied to the DPTC Toolkit, and strengthening collaboration among the policymakers, researchers, international organisations and practitioners who will need to use it under pressure. The survey results give CODATA and UNESCO an evidence base — rather than an assumption — for where to focus that work: on common standards, on training people rather than just publishing guidance, and on testing the checklist against real case studies rather than treating it as finished. It is intended to explore these priorities through case studies and pilots, which will test the checklist, provide further feedback, and allow the toolkit to be further refined and extended.

A personal reflection, by Mehmet Ali Erkan 

I took part in the 2026 Global Conference of the International Decade of Sciences for Sustainable Development as an Early Career Researcher, with my participation competitively selected and supported by CODATA using its own funds and an Early Career Researcher travel grant from the International Science Council. I am sincerely grateful to CODATA and the International Science Council for the support that made it possible for me to be in the room at UNESCO Headquarters for these sessions, rather than reading about them afterwards. 

My own contribution to the DPTC work was on the analysis side. I reviewed the 146 survey responses quantitatively and qualitatively, and read closely through the open-ended answers to see, in respondents’ own words, where crisis data governance is still falling short. I sat with that material for weeks before the conference, noticing the recurring calls for training, for common standards, and for someone to simply pair researchers with practitioners in the field, and that made the session itself land differently. The numbers and quotes I had already spent time with were suddenly being discussed live, by the people the survey was written for.

That is, I think, what this work is really about. Building a sustainable and equitable future takes more than scientific knowledge on its own. It takes the ability to share data responsibly, collaborate across borders, and translate evidence into action. Being able to contribute to that translation, in a small way, through the DPTC survey is something I am genuinely proud of, and I hope it is only the start of my involvement in this kind of work.

Thank you

We are grateful to UNESCO’s Open Science Team, to the panellists and moderators who gave their time in Paris and online, and to the 146 respondents across 60 countries who took the time to tell us, in their own words, what crisis data governance still needs. We look forward to turning these priorities into the next phase of the DPTC Toolkit’s work.

About the authors

  • Professor B. Burçak Başbuğ,  Co-Chair International Data Policy Committee, CODATA and Faculty Member at the Middle East Technical University (METU), Ankara-Türkiye
  • Dr. Simon Hodson, Executive Director of CODATA, the Committee on Data of the International Science Council.
  • Professor Virginia Murray, Co-Chair International Data Policy Committee, CODATA and Chair of the UNDRR-ISC Hazard Information Profiles 2025 update 
  • Ms Rania Sabo, Associate Programme Specialist, Research, Governance, and Diplomacy Section, Sciences Sector, UNESCO 
  • Mehmet Ali Erkan, PhD Researcher, Research and Teaching Assistant in the Department of Statistics at the Middle East Technical University (METU), Ankara-Türkiye

Urban FAIRscape at the Urban and Climate Risk Data Lab

This blog post was inspired by the opportunity to join the Urban Risk and Climate Risk Data Lab event hosted by the World Bank Group in Paris, 21st to 22nd May 2026. 

By Burçak Başbuğ, Shaily Gandhi, Matti Heikkurinen, and Slava Tykhonov.

(c) Matti Heikkurinen CC-BY 4.0

For many people, the first associations with the word “Urban” are perhaps related to progress; skyscrapers surrounded by pristine parks, new opportunities, human connections and delightful cultural exchanges. However, this vision bringing people together also drives unplanned urban sprawl, as well as challenges that infrastructures and services struggle to cope with. Escape into population centres may also not be voluntary. For example, refugee camps often turn into permanent, growing settlements. 

Independent of the drivers, concentration of population into urban centres also concentrates risks. The details may vary, but the number of individuals and the value of assets exposed to hazard events grows, while risk reduction activities and disaster response planning may face additional constraints. Unfortunately, the economic and social dynamics provide incentives to set these risks aside. The same pattern can often be observed in the approach to climate change, pandemic preparedness or maintenance of critical infrastructure. The combination of rapid urbanisation and climate change is an example of a situation where the growing, cumulative hazards may also be more than the sum of their parts.

At the same time, we have unprecedented access to data, thanks to initiatives such as Hyogo and Sendai frameworks and other mechanisms to track the impact of hazard events. We also have IT infrastructure to process these datasets efficiently and put them into context of climate and weather data.  However, we need to use these resources better: at the moment, data is often siloed, inaccessible or incompatible for efficient risk assessment and response.

Leaving the $2.3 trillion on the table

(c) Matti Heikkurinen CC-BY 4.0

Hazard and exposure profiles have shifted dramatically: During the last 65 years, the proportion of urban population has grown from 34% to 58%. Despite this, most of the disaster losses would be avoidable. The resources that could be refocused into more productive uses are considerable: according to a recent UNDRR report, direct disaster losses average 180-200 b$ annually. If you take indirect impact and ecosystem damage into account, the costs to the global economy grows to 2.3 trillion $. This sum, divided by the estimated world population (8.23 billion, according to the United Nations Population Fund), corresponds to almost 250$ per person per year. A sum that is noticeable in the rich industrialised countries — and existential, for populations living below the 3$/day poverty threshold.

Quantifying the scale of the problem is an important first step. However, as noted by Jenty Kirsch-Wood (UNDRR) during the workshop:

“We can’t just keep re-defining the problem in a better way” 

Data needs to drive action. The workshop presentations demonstrated several possible solutions that aimed at going beyond awareness raising. From using satellite data to anticipate the development of urban sprawl and to support planning to targeted clean-up activities to maintain drainage capacity of drainage systems to prevent flooding. The workshop provided an opportunity to share steps that may seem little in isolation but — put together — will have a growing impact.

Data, data, data every where (The Rime of the Ancient FAIRiner)

The hands-on part of the workshop acted as a reality check – and a call to action. Attempting to find relevant datasets and adding them to the GFDRR Urban Data Tracker drove home the degree the approach to data is fragmented — and how difficult it is to find datasets that are of suitable granularity and format to address urban challenges. The search provided a tangible reminder of the huge amount of data in various forms on the Internet, but — like seawater – most of it requires processing before being ready for consumption. 

This “desalination process” is often made more difficult by choices, undoubtedly made under time or budget pressures. For example: lack of persistent identifiers (leading to “Link rot”), publishing datasets without metadata describing the syntax and semantics of the data, making only aggregate data (e.g. national level instead of commune or settlement) data available or referencable. Adding language barriers and careless use of AI can lead to drawing very plausible and completely erroneous conclusions from the data.

Discussions triggered by the exercise highlighted not only the economic and human costs of fragmented systems, but also the urgent need for shared standards, collaborative workflows, and FAIR data practices. The workshop initiated conversations reflecting that resilience is no longer only about surviving crises, it is about building connected data ecosystems that enable faster, smarter, and more equitable decisions before, during, and after disasters. As a positive sign, the examples and demonstrators illustrated promising examples of integrated solutions that were nevertheless limited in their scope.

CODATA: connecting FAIR islands

We could consider these promising demonstrators and pilots as “Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable (FAIR) islands”. These systems provide clear value for a smaller subgroups of stakeholders, have trained userbases and are well-understood by the funding agencies leading to the sustainability of these solutions. 

CODATA is interested in contributing, through several channels, to improve the interconnectedness of this “archipelago”. These channels include policies, processes and tools that can improve the FAIR aspects of the solutions and improve their interoperability and reusability. The approach in all cases needs to be minimally invasive and based on incremental, iterative improvements. 

The primary policy channel is developed by the Data Policy for Times of Crisis Facilitated by Open Science (DPTC) Toolkit. The resources developed by the group — including a factsheet, a guidance document, and a checklist — were introduced on 4 June 2025 into the UNESCO Open Science Toolkit. These resources are designed to strengthen cross-border crisis data management and to support governments, UN agencies, research institutions, civil protection authorities, and other stakeholders in preparing for, responding to, and recovering from crises. 

Legal and organisational interoperability (LOI) has been identified recently as a topic requiring focused attention. The goal is to ensure that the FAIR data ecosystem complies with the relevant regulations, supports coherent data-driven activities across organisational boundaries and is supported by lifecycle management approaches that ensure that the data solutions provide predictable service also years into the future.

Both of the policies and LOI rely on tools and semantic frameworks ensuring semantic and technical interoperability of data. The primary solutions include the Cross-Domain Interoperability Framework (CDIF), which provides a practical and developer-friendly guide to implementing the FAIR principles, using existing domain neutral standards, in a way that enhances Interoperability and Reusability and conforms to current good web and data practices. CDIF can be combined with human-controlled AI solutions that reduce the efforts needed to make datasets ready for integration. Importantly, CDIF also provides frameworks making it possible to technically enforce agreements between organisations and individuals.

These solutions are being developed and implemented by CODATA and partners in the Climate-Adapt4EOSC and CDIF4EOSC projects. We are very keen to explore collaboration with the participants and organisers of the Urban Risk and Climate Risk Data Lab.

Thank you and see you soon (hopefully)

We see a crucial role of events like Urban & Climate Risk Data Lab that allow sharing of best practices, tools and experiences. They will speed up harnessing data resources to meet the evolving and growing challenges in the Urban and Climate risk landscape. We would thus like to express our gratitude to the organisers:

And hope to be able to join the follow-up events and activities!

About the authors

CODATA team at the Urban Risk and Climate Risk Data Lab workshop. From left to right, Slava Tykhonov, Burçak Başbuğ, Shaily Gandhi, and Matti Heikkurinen.

Burçak Başbuğ is Professor of Statistics and Disaster Science at the Middle East Technical University in Ankara; she is co-chair of the CODATA International Data Policy Committee and co-chair of the UNESCO-CODATA Working Group on Data Policy in Times of Crisis.

Shaily Gandhi is Senior PostDoc at the Geo-social AI Research Group, IT:U, Linz; she is an ISC Fellow and a former lead of the CODATA Connect Early Career Network.

Matti Heikkurinen is Project Portfolio Manager at CODATA leading work on Legal and Organisational Interoperability in numerous projects.

Slava Tykhonov is Head of AI and Interoperability at CODATA and a Dataverse ambassador.

Towards a data strategy for the Fifth International Polar Year (IPY5)

As I wrote this during the week of the solstice, the sun never set at the South Pole, and it never rose at the North Pole. That difference – the tilt of the Earth relative to the sun  –  drives the climate system. It gives us the seasons and the temperature differences that move the atmosphere and ocean. 

The poles are also bellwethers of change. Glaciers, ice sheets, and sea ice are rapidly receding. Ground frozen for millenia is thawing and buckling. Coasts are flooding. People are displaced, and species are dying. 

Understanding the poles is critical to understanding the Earth, but it is difficult to study a place that is often dark, cloudy, and frozen. Studying the poles requires coordination.

Initially, Western study of the poles was more about heroic exploration and conquest rather than scientific understanding. Then in 1875, one of those heroic explorers, Karl Weyprecht of the Austro-Hungarian Navy, realized that they needed to be better about collecting good data, and he proposed an internationally coordinated program of scientific observations. This ultimately led to the first International Polar Year (IPY) in 1882-83.

Since then, there have been three more International Polar Years in 1932, 1957, and 2007. Each of these marked a milestone in scientific coordination and data stewardship. IPY1 established meteorological stations that still collect ongoing records today. IPY2 established more stations and made major advances in radio science but also highlighted the vulnerability of data during major social upheaval (World War II). IPY3, the International Geophysical Year, launched the modern scientific era and established the World Data Centers to share scientific data across geopolitical divides. IPY4 made real the nascent concepts of ethically open data policy, federated data search, and respectful inclusion of Indigenous knowledge.

Indeed, as the timeline below illustrates, IPY has been intertwined with the roots of international scientific organizations and data systems.                  

Now we plan IPY5 (2032-33). What advances will it bring? CODATA has a keen interest in ensuring that IPY5 is a success and marks another step forward in data stewardship. We believe that with adequate resources, the data stewardship community should be able to support major international science initiatives almost as a matter of course. We know how to do this, and at the same time we can take advantage of modern technologies and what we have learned to accelerate Earth system science understanding even more.

The purpose of IPY5 is to unite scientists and Indigenous knowledge holders to advance polar research and produce actionable insights for mitigating and adapting to environmental changes, while promoting international collaboration and inclusivity. It is based on seven core principles (with items of direct relevance to the data community highlighted here):

    • Fostering the widest possible international collaboration to produce knowledge for action with direct societal relevance.
    • Committing to inclusive and diverse practices, including the implementation of equitable and ethical standards for engagement and cooperation with Indigenous Peoples and their knowledge systems.
    • Striving for holistic, systemic, transdisciplinary research approaches that minimise environmental footprints. This includes co-design of research programs and co-production of knowledge across different knowledge systems, as well as ensuring that funding programs are directly supporting and financing Indigenous People´s comprehensive participation for the benefit of all parties.
    • Ensuring balanced involvement and information flow, identification of areas of common interest, and effective knowledge exchange across Arctic and Antarctic polar research communities and networks.
    • Encouraging  open science and open data, according to the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) and CARE (Collective benefit, Authority to control, Responsibility, and Ethics) data principles.
    • Encouraging effective and inclusive science communication, polar education, and public engagement, both in the polar regions and globally.
    • Engaging in capacity building and sharing for early-career scientists, Indigenous Peoples and those from historically under-represented groups across the polar regions and polar research disciplines.

The International Arctic Science Committee (IASC), the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR), the International Science Council (ISC), and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) have established an IPY5 Planning Group, and CODATA was recently accepted as a member. I am acting as the CODATA representative and want to involve the broad data community. Let’s make sure data stewardship is embedded in IPY planning and action.

To that end, a group of us have proposed an IPY5 Data Task Group to develop an initial data strategy for data to be FAIR, handled with CARE, and preserved with TRUST. It will be an approximately 16-month effort to provide resources and develop recommendations, building on existing systems while identifying gaps. Chantelle Verhey (Arctic Data Committee), Jonathan Kool (WDS and Standing Committee on Antarctic Data Management), and Michaela Miller (Southern Ocean Observing System) co-chair the task group, and I am acting as a coordinator or secretary. The task group is open to all, so please contact me if you are interested. We want to make sure we connect to relevant systems and repositories beyond traditional polar organizations.

Although formal acceptance of the task group is still pending, CODATA supported my attendance at  International Data Week and the subsequent Polar Data Forum. At IDW, we took a broad view. Michaela, Chantelle, and I led a working session entitled  “So much going on!” How to best coordinate international efforts for data management. The idea was to identify ways where repositories can work “glocally” and serve the idiosyncratic needs of their immediate community while also fitting into global and interdisciplinary initiatives.

After some discussion we focussed on one key tension: Data providers do not adhere well to standards making integration into common systems difficult. We recognized that increasing automation and AI can help mitigate this, but contextual information from the provider is still essential. For example, repositories should be able to accept any common data format, but providers must still define the variables they used. The general takeaway was that researchers need to improve their data hygiene and data repositories need to relax their standards. This is not groundbreaking, but it illustrates the need for collaborative effort.

At the Polar Data Forum in Hobart the following week, we held an initial, half-day workshop to delve more deeply into IPY data planning. Participants divided into groups addressing different data planning topics. Each group identified relevant resources and initiatives and proposed recommendations to address the issues.

The four topics addressed were:

  1. The minimum set of ideas and considerations that should be front of mind when planning large international initiatives.
  2. An inventory of existing polar archives, data tools, protocols, vocabularies, and systems. 
  3. Data advocacy and education for researchers and students.
  4. Funding for data planning, management, and coordination.

Each group produced detailed notes. The first group took a big picture view while the other three dug into more specifics. One online individual worked independently and clarified and reinforced several recommendations.

A central theme was that data management must be planned in advance and throughout a project. Data repositories must be identified and data systems defined before IPY begins, and this should be a requirement for IPY project approval. In that regard, an annotated inventory of data stewardship resources will be essential. We plan to develop a database or knowledge graph of these resources and welcome ideas and input. We would also like to see basic data training be a requirement of IPY participants. Ideally, a data professional would be embedded in every IPY project. At a minimum, data management funding must be included in every project and for the initiative as a whole.

Perhaps most critically, we as data professionals need to be looking forward. We need to be considering new and advanced methods using machine learning, cloud computing, and trusted research environments while remaining grounded in core principles such as FAIR, CARE, and TRUST. Equally important is the active and ethical inclusion of Indigenous knowledge. We only touched on this during the workshop. More dedicated effort is required.

CODATA sees IPY5 as an opportunity to demonstrate how solid data management is central to the success of any major scientific initiative. We aim to build on the history of past IPYs and ensure that the next IPY represents a step change in global data stewardship. Please join us: get in touch with Mark Parsons <parsonsm.work@icloud.com>.

FAIR Well 2023, and looking forward to 2024!

A message from Simon Hodson, Executive Director.

As is customary, before taking a break for the (northern hemisphere) mid-winter holidays and the New Year, I would like to highlight some of CODATA’s achievements in the year that is ending and look forward to activities in the coming year.  Highlights include the progress of the WorldFAIR project, an ambitious expansion of the International Data Policy Committee, a successful completion of the first phase of the Global Open Science Cloud initiative, and a Festival of Data at International Data Week.  The CODATA General Assembly elected a wonderful new President and Executive Committee, and approved an updated Strategic Plan which gives the organisation a strong sense of direction for the next four years.

WorldFAIR: ‘global cooperation on FAIR data policy and practice’

The WorldFAIR project has become the flagship for our Decadal Programme ‘Making Data Work for Global Grand Challenges’.  As coordinator of the project, and working with a fantastic consortium, we have been further refining a methodology and approach to advance implementation of the FAIR principles, and in particular those relating to interoperability and reusability, in a range of domain and cross-domain research areas.  

The WorldFAIR project was active at the March RDA Plenary in Gothenburg, at the EOSC Symposium in September, and at International Data Week in Salzburg in October.  It was also featured in the UNESCO-hosted event ‘Towards a FAIRer World’.  A series of webinars has been showcasing the work of the project and in particular that of the case studies.  You can access WorldFAIR deliverables from the website or our Zenodo collection.  As we head towards the end of the project, there will be a lot going on, so please do sign up to our newsletter!

One of the significant outputs will be the Cross-Domain Interoperability Framework, a set of practical recommendations for how to address the functional requirements to service FAIR data and metadata for cross-domain use.  The first draft module on ‘Discoverability’ is currently available for public review, and will be followed by modules on ‘Access’, ‘Integration’, ‘Controlled Vocabularies’, ‘Mappings’ and ‘Provenance’.  The CDIF development was considerably advanced by this year’s Dagstuhl Workshop ‘Defining a Core Metadata Framework for Cross-Domain Data Sharing and Reuse’.

Although the European Commission funded project will conclude at the end of May 2024, we are already exploring how to expand and sustain the initiative in the form of ‘WorldFAIR+’.  Thanks to a grant from the International Science Council, two further case studies relating to data in emergencies will be launched.  We are optimistic of adding a further case study in earth sciences as part of a collaboration with IUGS and Deeptime Digital Earth.  And discussions are ongoing with a number of partners, including ARDC, the Helmholtz Metadata Collaboration, CESSDA, KISTI and others.

FAIR Vocabularies in Population Research

Highly relevant to the work of the WorldFAIR project and to implementing the FAIR principles in different domains was the work of the joint IUSSP-CODATA Working Group on FAIR Vocabularies in Population Research.  Ably chaired by George Alter, and marshalling subject and technical expertise from a range of partners including UN Stats, OECD, SDMX and the DDI Alliance, the WG published its concluding report in June 2023.  FAIR Vocabularies in Population Research has been particularly well received and makes recommendations for SDMX, the DDI Alliance, IPUMS, as well as IUSSP and CODATA.  

International Data Policy Committee: data policy in times of crisis and expansion for a new challenge!

The topic of data policy for emergency situations has also been an important theme for the International Data Policy Committee (IDPC).  Hosted at UNESCO on 29 March, ‘Towards a FAIRer World’ examined the underlying ethical, human rights, and humanitarian frameworks needed to support data policy during crisis situations in an open science context, respecting the FAIR (data stewardship) and CARE (ethical) data governance principles.  This event led directly to the creation of a UNESCO and CODATA Working Group to develop contributions to the UNESCO Open Science Toolkit to assist with Data Policy for Times of Crisis.  The results, in the form of guidance, a checklist, and a factsheet, will be launched at the UN World Data Forum in Medellín, Colombia in November 2024.

Under the tireless leadership of Francis Crawley, the IDPC has undergone a transformation and renewal.  The IDPC’s new Action Plan identifies seven topics for action:

  1. Data policy for data quality, reliability, and integrity
  2. Data policy for science in crisis situations
  3. Data policy for education
  4. Data policy for AI
  5. Data policy for Open Science
  6. Data policy for the publication and communication of science
  7. Data policy for specific populations

To meet this ambitious agenda, a call was issued for new membership, and the IDPC has been considerably expanded.  It now comprises over 60 leading experts from over 30 countries.  Task Groups will be formed to address each of the topics.

Global Open Science Cloud Initiative

The International Symposium on Open Science Clouds, 4-6 September 2023 marked a successful conclusion to the first phase of the Global Open Science Clouds (GOSC) initiative, which rests on a strong partnership between CODATA and the GOSC International Programme Office, hosted at CNIC.  A significant community of cooperation has been created, with representatives from the major Open Science infrastructure initiatives around the world.  There is palpable enthusiasm for continuing the cooperation and there was general agreement that this should be the first of a series of similar events.  The GOSC Steering Group is now exploring the possibility of holding an ISOSC on the African continent in early 2025.

Advancing data science and the science of data

Marking 20 Years of the Data Science Journal, the CODATA DSJ published a collection of articles and essays exploring the history of data science and the relationship between data science and the science of data.

The CODATA Connect Early Career Working Group has continued its excellent work, completing a podcast series on Data for Disaster Risk Reduction, in partnership with the CODATA Task Group on FAIR Data for Disaster Risk Research, and launching a new one on Open Geo AI. 

Meanwhile, the CODATA-RDA Schools of Research Data Science had another successful year, running an in person school at the ICTP in Trieste and an online version in South Africa.  Both CODATA Connect and the CODATA-RDA SORDS have recently issued calls for new leadership and participants, so there will be exciting opportunities going forward.

A Festival of Data and a New Era for CODATA

The major conference of the year was the fourth International Data Week, in Salzburg, Austria, 23-26 October.  Combining the Research Data Alliance’s Plenary Meeting and SciDataCon, organised by CODATA and WDS, IDW 2023 attracted 834 participants (702 in person and 132 online) from 48 countries.  The feedback on the plenary sessions and the breakout sessions has been excellent.  

IDW was followed by the CODATA General Assembly, 27-28 October.  The GA elected Mercè Crosas as CODATA President.  Currently head of Computational Social Sciences at the Barcelona Supercomputing Centre, Mercè brings to the role a remarkable range of experience from a career that spans astrophysics, biotech and software startups, social sciences, and Open Public Data.  A strong Executive Committee was elected, notable by considerably improved gender balance and a prominent representation from international scientific union.  Barend Mons bade FAIRwell, becoming Past President and saying that he was now ‘Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Retired’.

The General Assembly also approved five new Task Groups, three continuing Task Groups and one new Working Group.  Alongside the strategic activities described above, each of these groups will contribute to the updated strategic plan, which was approved by the GA.  To be launched in the new year, Making Data Work to Improve our World, the CODATA Strategic Plan 2023-2027 presents our vision of a world in which science is empowered to address universal challenges through the transparent, trustworthy and equitable use of data and information. The strategy describes four strategic priorities which CODATA will pursue in order to help realise this vision.  In sum, we need to make data work to improve our world.

Looking forward to 2024!

The transition from 2023 to 2024 is certainly one of dynamic change.  CODATA has new leadership and a renewed vision.  2024 will see the compilation of the WorldFAIR project and the launch of WorldFAIR+; we will embark on the next phase of the Global Open Science Cloud initiative; the new expanded International Data Policy Committee will pursue its action plan; and the new (and renewed) Task Groups and Working Groups will set about their activities. February will also see the launch of the Data Science Without Boundaries project in which CODATA is a partner.

Important events early in the year are The Road to FAIR and Equitable Science Workshop at the Lorenz Centre in Leiden, 22-26 January, celebrating 10 years of the FAIR principles, and the FAIR Digital Object Summit in Berlin, 20-21 March.  CODATA will once again be partnering with the DDI Alliance on two workshops at Schloss Dagstuhl, to advance work on the DDI-CDI standard and on the Cross-Domain Interoperability Framework.

The CODATA Executive Committee will meet in Barcelona in October, where our new president will also host a workshop on data and AI issues for computational social sciences.  The priority event for CODATA in 2024 will be the UN Data Forum in Medellín, Colombia, where we intend to showcase a number of contributions to help make data work for global grand challenges.

The FAIR well message by CODATA Past-President, Barend Mons

Five years flew by, including a pandemic that locked us in our corners of the world for quite some time. One of the fond memories I will keep from my CODATA presidency is how the staff and the Executive Committee stand together, both in times of joint progression and in times that were challenging due to natural and geopolitical disasters. 

Before I dive in some scientific and policy content, let me first express my gratitude to the exceptional staff of the CODATA Secretariat. Simon and Hana, who operate as a Formula 1 pit stop team in good and bad times, as well as Laura and Asha…

I can see only one flaw in the team (which I share myself and probably even aggravated): they work too hard! But – they also know how to enjoy the rare moments of relaxation we had. In short, the team made my period as CODATA President a great experience and I am very proud that I have worked with such an impactful global organisation. Not that they are totally rid of me now…

My successor Mercè Crosas inherits not only the team, but also an impressive Executive Committee. The ‘ExComm’ of CODATA plays a very important and active role, and I have experienced it as a uniquely motivated group of strongly networked professionals that enables the global impact of CODATA. Mercè will be the ideal President now as she is a bridge builder. In the coming decade CODATA needs to be more than ever a consolidator and a convener of like-minded data stewards, scientists, policy makers and increasingly also the private sector.

The two new Vice-Presidents, Daisy and Richard, who both were ExComm members during my presidency and in whom I built a lot of trust, will form a great team with Mercè, other Officers and the Secretariat. 

Let me now move on to some achievements of which CODATA can be proud and reflect a bit on its future. I’d like to start with the initiative taken by our previous Vice-President Jianhui Li, named ‘The Global Open Science Cloud (GOSC)’, aimed to be a mechanism for collaboration among the Open Science Cloud-type initiatives springing up all around the world. This is an activity that is clearly in CODATA’s mandate and mission, referenced in the International Science Council (ISC) Action Plan, and continuing CODATA’s longstanding engagement with Open Science platform initiatives in Africa, South East Asia and elsewhere, as well as our major contribution to the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science. With the success of the first International Symposium on Open Science Clouds and the creation of an International Programme Office, GOSC is now a truly global initiative, where the leadership of regional open science initiatives collaborates towards global interoperability of data and services, one of the core aims of CODATA for the coming decade.

The second one is WorldFAIR. In collaboration with GO FAIR for the FAIR Implementation Profile methodology, and with RDA as a partner, this is a true ‘DataTogether’ project, but I want to applaud Simon and the team of CODATA for their leadership in this project. I sincerely hope that the intended expansion of the project to a multi-annual programme, provisionally called WorldFAIR+, will take the approach to a next level and optimally use the global networks and mandates of the participating organisations to contribute to global convergence and interoperability of data and services. 

Finally, we jointly started a professional outlet for what we now call FAIR Enabling Resources, ranging from vocabularies used and maintained by recognised expert communities, like those collaborating in GOSC and WorldFAIR. This innovative platform is called FAIRconnect and supports the global community of data stewards, organisations and funders that take FAIR seriously. FAIR is everywhere now, but implementing it properly requires a lot of skills, tooling and resources. FAIRconnect is meant to be the place where machines and people can find FAIR enabling resources that are increasingly qualified by the professional data stewardship community. 

CODATA, with its strong, growing and executed mandate of the International Science Council is set to play a leading role in the policies and practices around good data stewardship and data-intensive science and innovation. As Mercè stressed in her candidacy statement, CODATA should continue to collaborate well with the other international data organisations.  WDS, as the ISC affiliated body dealing with high-quality data repositories and also fully committed to the FAIR principles, will be a valuable sister organisation. RDA will continue its valuable grass roots role, addressing major data issues and CODATA will continue to collaborate with the RDA Secretariat, leadership and with many of the RDA WGs. GO FAIR will play its part in networking those organisations that align with the interpretation and implementation of the FAIR principles as they were originally conceived and adopted, including CODATA, its parent organisation (ISC) and its global networks. 

And again, I hope to be able to contribute to and support several of these exciting projects as the Past-President, without being in the way of the new leadership!

FAIR Data for Disaster Risk Research – Task Group renewal proposal

Bapon Fakhruddin and Li Guoqing, co-chairs

After four terms of study, the award winning FAIR Data for Disaster Risk Research (FAIR-DRR) has focused itself on addressing enabling technology (i.e. decision support system, rapid damage mapping, etc.), scientific questions, technical challenges, and best practices of disaster data standards and applications in risk assessment across disciplines, development partners and governments.  FAIR-DRR also developed a data ecosystem by integrated other networks to work collaboratively (i.e. IRDR of UNDRR, GEO-DRR, NASA DRR working group, SDG, Disaster Statistic etc.) and applied data for cross-domain studies.  These activities closely allied with the ISC’s Decadal Programme “Making data work for cross-domain grand challenges”.

FAIR-DRR is an increasingly important activity linking and ensuring coherence of major global milestones – the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR), Sustainable Development Goal (SDG), Paris Agreement for Climate Change and the New Urban Agenda (NUA)-Habitat III.

The experiences of the Covid-19 pandemic in the past year have made all disciplines keenly aware that solutions to complex and difficult problems require data to be readily assessable and actionable by machines using big data in combination with the most advanced hardware and software technologies. Our technology is advancing rapidly, however, our data systems are not able to achieve the same milestones. The fundamental enabler of data-driven science is an ecosystem of resources that enable data to be FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Re-usable) for humans and machines. This ecosystem must include effective, maximally automated stewardship of data, and effective terminologies,  metadata specifications and partnerships.

Following these works the Fifth term of the FAIR-DRR task group proposed the following objectives for the 2022-2023 term.

  • Volunteer Rapid Disaster Monitoring and Mapping in collaboration with Earth-GEO
  • Enhance interdisciplinary data integration using FAIR-DRR’s sequence, partnership with other networks and documenting good practices.
  • Engage with users and sectors for greater alignment and consistency of hazard definitions, standardisation of data loss quantification and risk assessment
  • Demonstrate transdisciplinary approaches linking climate scientists, engineers and sectoral professionals to identify future emerging and complex research using data
  • Capacity building using monthly newsletters, policy papers, conference, webinars and white papers.

In this video, Li Guoqing and Bapon Fakhruddin lay out the key activities and achievements of the Task Group in the past terms, detail their objectives for the next two years and invite participation in FAIR DRR.