PREreview of A maturity model for catalogues of semantic artefacts

Thank you for this work. However, it is important to note that not all resources in the comparison table are the same type: some are ontology look-up services / repositories (e.g., AgroPortal, OLS), others are wider registries of standards/databases/policies (e.g., FAIRsharing), including -- but not limited to -- ontologies. As such, their scope and functionalities are inevitably different. This means that, for resources like FAIRsharing, many of the dimensions (e.g. machine-readability and human readability) are implemented, but relevant to what is in scope for the resource. We suggest that this distinction is make clear.

More specifically for FAIRsharing, the following dimension features should be enabled in addition to those already selected (unless I am misunderstanding your definitions, in which case please get in touch if you have any questions):

• custom vs standard vocabulary: we have a custom vocabulary for describing all FAIRsharing records, however this draws from a set of standard vocabularies. How can this be best represented?

• curation by owner (our maintainers *are* the owners of the resource)

• human readable

• machine readable

• metadata by editor

• governance rules

• governance description

• community suggestion

• transparency versioning

Finally, as a generic comment, the 'fully' vs 'customised' oss doesn’t take into account if the system runs on partially (but not completely) open-source software.

Thank you.

Best wishes,

Allyson Lister, FAIRsharing Content and Community Coordinator (contact@fairsharing.org)

Competing interests

The author declares that they have no competing interests.