Comments
Invited Review Comment #243 Thorsten Trippel @ 2026-10-05 09:35
Review of “NFDI-RFC – A Community-Driven Standardization Service for Research Data Management”
Overall Assessment
The manuscript addresses an important and timely challenge for the German National Research Data Infrastructure (NFDI): how community-driven standardization activities can be organized in a transparent, participatory, and sustainable manner. The authors should be commended for tackling a topic that is highly relevant to research data management and for proposing a practical mechanism inspired by established Request for Comments (RFC) processes.
The paper is particularly valuable because it initiates a discussion on how NFDI can contribute to the development, dissemination, and adoption of standards and best practices across disciplinary boundaries. The goal of lowering barriers to participation and creating opportunities for broader community involvement is laudable and aligns well with the broader objectives of the NFDI.
At the same time, the current manuscript remains largely conceptual and leaves several fundamental questions unanswered. In particular, the governance model, sustainability assumptions, stakeholder involvement, quality assurance mechanisms, and relationship to existing national and international standardization processes require considerably more elaboration. While the proposal is promising, many claims are currently presented as assumptions rather than being supported by a clearly defined operational framework. I therefore recommend substantial revision before publication.
Major Comments
-
Terminological precision: “norms” vs. “standards”
Line 2 refers to research data management as hinging on “norms”. In the context of technical and organizational standardization, the term standards would be more appropriate. The current wording may create confusion between social norms and technical standards.
-
The designation “NFDI-RFC” appears premature
Throughout the manuscript, the proposed process is presented as an “NFDI-RFC” service.
However, the manuscript does not sufficiently clarify the institutional status of the proposal. As presented, the initiative appears to have been developed by a limited group of contributors and has not yet undergone formal adoption through NFDI-wide governance structures. This creates the impression that the proposed process already represents an official NFDI mechanism, whereas it may currently be more accurate to describe it as a proposal for an NFDI-wide service. A clearer distinction between
- the current implementation initiative,
- the proposed governance model, and
- potential future NFDI-wide adoption
-
Missing discussion of stakeholder motivation
The manuscript repeatedly emphasizes openness, transparency, participation, and low-threshold engagement. However, the paper does not discuss a crucial question:
- Why should stakeholders participate?
- Many of the stakeholders that might be expected to contribute are already active in other established standardization environments, including DIN, ISO, disciplinary infrastructures, scholarly societies, and domain-specific communities.
- The manuscript would benefit from a more explicit discussion of the incentives for participation and the added value offered by the proposed process relative to existing mechanisms.
-
Implicit criticism of existing standardization processes
At several points (e.g., lines 62, 76, and related passages), the manuscript suggests that the proposed process is more transparent, more iterative, more accessible, and more community-oriented than existing standardization mechanisms. However, these comparisons remain largely implicit. The reader is left wondering:
- Which shortcomings of existing processes are being addressed?
- Why are existing mechanisms insufficient?
- In what concrete ways does the proposed process overcome these limitations?
- Without such an analysis, it is difficult to assess the necessity of the proposed framework.
-
Relationship to established standardization bodies remains unclear
The manuscript states that the proposed process bridges the gap between grassroots practice and formal standardization through organizations such as DIN and ISO. This is an important claim, yet the mechanisms by which such a bridge would be created are not described in sufficient detail. Questions that remain unanswered include:
- How are existing standards identified and considered?
- How are overlaps with existing DIN, ISO, IETF, W3C, RDA, or disciplinary standards prevented?
- What happens if an RFC proposes a solution that conflicts with an established standard?
- How are standards from adjacent domains incorporated into the review process?
- These issues are especially important because the examples presented in the manuscript (e.g., APIs, metadata standards, terminology services) are areas where numerous mature standards already exist.
- Governance structures are insufficiently specified
Several entities appear throughout the manuscript, including:
- RDM Expert Group
- RFC Editors
- Stakeholders
- Community Members
- NFDI Sections
Of these, only the NFDI Sections are clearly established organizational entities.
The manuscript does not describe:
- how Expert Groups are formed,
- how Editors are selected,
- who appoints them,
- how representation is ensured,
- how conflicts are resolved,
- how accountability is maintained.
Consequently, key governance decisions currently appear dependent on actors whose authority and legitimacy remain undefined.
- Quality assurance remains largely unspecified
The manuscript repeatedly refers to quality, review, and validation. However, the actual review mechanism remains unclear. The paper should explain:
- who performs reviews,
- what qualifications reviewers should possess,
- how reviewers are identified,
- how disciplinary expertise is ensured,
- how conflicting reviews are resolved,
- how consensus is established.
Without such information, the notion of quality assurance remains largely aspirational.
- Sustainability and long-term maintenance require deeper consideration
The manuscript repeatedly refers to persistent, citable documents and long-term maintenance.
This raises important sustainability questions.
Creating citable RFC documents implies long-term accessibility, stable identifiers, versioning, governance, and archival infrastructure.
The manuscript currently does not specify:
- who operates the system,
- who funds it,
- which institution commits to long-term stewardship,
- how persistence beyond project funding cycles is guaranteed.
Given that standards often remain relevant for decades rather than years, this is a central issue that should be addressed explicitly.
- Public consultation does not automatically guarantee community engagement
The proposal introduces time-boxed public comment periods. While this is a useful mechanism, public availability alone does not ensure meaningful participation. The manuscript would benefit from discussing how relevant experts are identified and actively involved. Otherwise, there is a risk that consultation periods receive little feedback, not because consensus exists but because key communities remain unaware of ongoing discussions.
- Glossary governance requires further elaboration
The proposal includes a shared glossary of key concepts. This is a valuable idea. However, terminology management is often one of the most challenging aspects of standardization. The manuscript should explain:
- who maintains the glossary,
- how definitions are approved,
- how conflicts between competing definitions are resolved,
- how consistency between RFCs is ensured.
This becomes particularly important as the number of RFCs grows over time.
Minor Comments
Line 19
A space appears to be missing between “community” and “aligned”.
Line 91
The statement regarding research data becoming “comparable, interoperable, reusable and sustainable” largely repeats arguments already made earlier in the manuscript.
Line 106
The framework is described as “inclusive and accessible”. It would be helpful to explain which concrete design features support these objectives.
Line 115
„only after the comment period“ commenting period
Lines 142 ff.
The manuscript introduces different document types and tracks. The decision-making process determining which track applies to a given RFC should be clarified.
Line 159
The NFDI-RFC template is referenced but not described or linked in sufficient detail.
Lines 160 ff.
The role of NFDI Sections in the evaluation process requires further explanation, particularly regarding responsibilities and decision-making authority.
Lines 171 ff.
The process for assigning official RFC numbers should be specified. Is numbering automated, editor-driven, or institutionally managed?
Lines 195 ff.
The wording suggests a “chapter”; this may be more accurately described as a “section”.
Line 204
The term “foundational artifact” appears ambiguous and should be defined more precisely, especially in a multidisciplinary context such as NFDI.
Lines 211-212
The discussion of scope and target audience is reasonable, although these elements are already common practice in many standardization processes and could be contextualized accordingly.
Lines 250 ff.
The meaning of “a public and well-organized corpus of documents” could be specified more clearly.
Lines 253 ff.
The integration of DIN and ISO standards is mentioned, but the proposed mechanism remains unclear.
References
The bibliography should be expanded to include relevant literature on standardization processes themselves, including established governance frameworks from ISO, DIN, and IETF. This would help situate the proposal within the broader landscape of standardization methodologies.
Recommendation
Revision
The manuscript presents a highly relevant and potentially valuable contribution to ongoing discussions on community-driven standardization within the NFDI. The proposed RFC approach is promising and deserves further consideration by the community. However, the current version remains largely conceptual and leaves important questions regarding governance, stakeholder involvement, sustainability, quality assurance, and the relationship to existing standardization ecosystems unanswered. Addressing these issues would substantially strengthen the manuscript and improve its practical applicability. I therefore recommend revision prior to acceptance.
Transparency Statement:
A large language model (LLM) was used exclusively to support the formulation, editing, and structuring of this review. No non-public information obtained through the review process was shared with the system. The LLM was used only on the basis of the reviewer's own notes and draft observations in a privacy-compliant commercial environment. All evaluations, criticisms, conclusions, and recommendations represent the independent judgment of the reviewer, who bears full responsibility for the contents of this review.