Nanopublications LDF server

Matches in Nanopublications for { ?s <https://purl.org/fair-metrics/terms/rationale> ?o ?g. }

• nanopub.RA6ETcEOEBQ2cP7rxPHcdf5h2RXHZZpdPvehohpiWABAQ.assertion rationale "Access to a resource may be limited by the specified communication protocol. In particular, we are worried about access to technical specifications and any costs associated with implementing the protocol. Protocols that are closed source or that have royalties associated with them could prevent users from being able to obtain the resource" nanopub.RA6ETcEOEBQ2cP7rxPHcdf5h2RXHZZpdPvehohpiWABAQ.provenance.
• nanopub.RApFSf-6RYbJF9O2oqDiGD1nteWav5y-ndFEmsUgIzK6c.assertion rationale "Most people use a search engine to initiate a search for a particular digital resource of interest. If the resource or its metadata are not indexed by web search engines, then this would substantially diminish an individual's ability to find and reuse it. Thus, the ability to discover the resource should be tested using i) its identifier, ii) other text-based metadata." nanopub.RApFSf-6RYbJF9O2oqDiGD1nteWav5y-ndFEmsUgIzK6c.provenance.
• nanopub.RA0cAAP6m2jtyXUjXEoB4DzGydzSi7QUyaQUYP4-78JjA.assertion rationale "Not all content can be made available without restriction. For instance, access and distribution of personal health data may be restricted by law or by organizational policy. In such cases, it is important that the protocol by which such content can be accessed is fully specified. Ideally, electronic content can be obtained first by applying for access. Once the requester is formally authorized to access the content, they may receive it in some electronic means, for instance by obtaining an download URL, or through a more sophisticated transaction mechanism (e.g. authenticate, authorize), or by any other means. The goal should be to reduce the time it takes for valid requests to be fulfilled." nanopub.RA0cAAP6m2jtyXUjXEoB4DzGydzSi7QUyaQUYP4-78JjA.provenance.
• nanopub.RAY_FnSV9ZrD8qJLhPYBoI1dt8ma7p5XPMJwe7_epEJ-s.assertion rationale "Cross-references to data from third-party's FAIR data and metadata will naturally degrade over time, and become 'stale links'. In such cases, it is important for FAIR providers to continue to provide descriptors of what the data was to assist in the continued interpretation of those third-party data. As per FAIR Principle F3, this metadata remains discoverable, even in the absence of the data, because it contains an explicit reference to the IRI of the data." nanopub.RAY_FnSV9ZrD8qJLhPYBoI1dt8ma7p5XPMJwe7_epEJ-s.provenance.
• nanopub.RAWDVSOkJwo6iLF7nF5wmw-mxrcahwQ7ZNNO_E6VEVhrA.assertion rationale "The unambiguous communication of knowledge and meaning (what symbols are, and how they relate to one another) necessitates the use of languages that are capable of representing these concepts in a machine-readable manner." nanopub.RAWDVSOkJwo6iLF7nF5wmw-mxrcahwQ7ZNNO_E6VEVhrA.provenance.
• nanopub.RAVhLRWG-6ka_E58kiB9dgpWcsnzDdcDIa4YWrOwAYKGU.assertion rationale "It is not possible to unambiguously interpret metadata represented as simple keywords or other non-qualified symbols. For interoperability, it must be possible to identify data that can be integrated like-with-like. This requires that the data, and the provenance descriptors of the data, should (where reasonable) use vocabularies and terminologies that are, themselves, FAIR." nanopub.RAVhLRWG-6ka_E58kiB9dgpWcsnzDdcDIa4YWrOwAYKGU.provenance.
• nanopub.RASu1_MVbqSBVkWrYeSxoTt0WGQZek7-LGfk6O3131IZA.assertion rationale "Various communities have recognized that maximizing the usability of their data requires them to adopt a set of guidelines for metadata (often in the form of 'minimal information about...' models). Non-compliance with these standards will often render a dataset 'reuseless' because critical information about its context or provenance is missing. However, adherence to community standards does more than just improve reusability of the data. The software used by the community for analysis and visualization often depends on the (meta)data having certain fields; thus, non-compliance with standards may result in the data being unreadable by its associated tools. As such, data should be (individually) certified as being compliant, likely through some automated process (e.g. submitting the data to the community's online validation service)" nanopub.RASu1_MVbqSBVkWrYeSxoTt0WGQZek7-LGfk6O3131IZA.provenance.
• nanopub.RAoVkOYeyfFzQeN8SvIavD4YATjuwufabc7jHrChqR7Z0.assertion rationale "The change to an identifier scheme will have widespread implications for resource lookup, linking, and data sharing. Providers of digital resources must ensure that they have a policy to manage changes in their identifier scheme, with a specific emphasis on maintaining/redirecting previously generated identifiers." nanopub.RAoVkOYeyfFzQeN8SvIavD4YATjuwufabc7jHrChqR7Z0.provenance.
• nanopub.RAqMxnBJOG91C5nBaJiAcI7WY6V98KzDja7f5sBXyMj48.assertion rationale "This metric extit{does not} attempt to measure (or even define) 'Richness' - this will be defined in a future Metric. This metric is intended to test the format of the metadata - machine readability of metadata makes it possible to optimize discovery. For instance, Web search engines suggest the use of particular structured metadata elements to optimize search. Thus, the machine-readability aspect can help people and machines find a digital resource of interest." nanopub.RAqMxnBJOG91C5nBaJiAcI7WY6V98KzDja7f5sBXyMj48.provenance.
• nanopub.RA1iFcLGiR5mCbyx6JqBmAMZm_zm4yjogQAJvBwEi7hkU.assertion rationale "The uniqueness of an identifier is a necessary condition to unambiguously refer that resource, and that resource alone. Otherwise, an identifier shared by multiple resources will confound efforts to describe that resource, or to use the identifier to retrieve it. Examples of identifier schemes include, but are not limited to URN, IRI, DOI, Handle, trustyURI, LSID, etc. For an in-depth understanding of the issues around identifiers, please see http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2001414" nanopub.RA1iFcLGiR5mCbyx6JqBmAMZm_zm4yjogQAJvBwEi7hkU.provenance.
• nanopub.RAP36_goSXA2MVGffq35PTan9QDU-v4Fo7N29Rwhq1I9o.assertion rationale "One of the reasons that HTML is not suitable for machine-readable knowledge representation is that the hyperlinks between one document and another do not explain the nature of the relationship - it is 'unqualified'. For Interoperability, the relationships within and between data must be more semantically rich than 'is (somehow) related to'. Numerous ontologies include richer relationships that can be used for this purpose, at various levels of domain-specificity. For example, the use of skos for terminologies (e.g. exact matches), or the use of SIO for genomics (e.g. 'has phenotype' for the relationship between a variant and its phenotypic consequences). The semantics of the relationship do not need to be 'strong' - for example, 'objectX wasFoundInTheSameBoxAs objectY' is an acceptable qualified reference Similarly, dbxrefs must be predicated with a meaningful relationship what is the nature of the cross-reference? Finally, data silos thwart interoperability. Thus, we should reasonably expect that some of the references/relations point outwards to other resources, owned by third-parties; this is one of the requirements for 5 star linked data." nanopub.RAP36_goSXA2MVGffq35PTan9QDU-v4Fo7N29Rwhq1I9o.provenance.
• nanopub.RAz0Y_itpUvxUdpntsyUAvkc3wzbDKxZvV0s9v0st_no0.assertion rationale "A core aspect of data reusability is the ability to determine, unambiguously and with relative ease, the conditions under which you are allowed to reuse the (meta)data. Thus, FAIR data providers must make these terms openly available. This applies both to data (e.g. for the purpose of third-party integration with other data) and for metadata (e.g. for the purpose of third-party indexing or other administrative metrics)" nanopub.RAz0Y_itpUvxUdpntsyUAvkc3wzbDKxZvV0s9v0st_no0.provenance.
• nanopub.RAP8dgLk5LLzgA5pylBs1jCjYeWVxVX9-m2QuZntyq1Ts.assertion rationale "Reusability is not only a technical issue; data can be discovered, retrieved, and even be machine-readable, but still not be reusable in any rational way. Reusability goes beyond 'can I reuse this data?' to other important questions such as 'may I reuse this data?', 'should I reuse this data', and 'who should I credit if I decide to use it?'" nanopub.RAP8dgLk5LLzgA5pylBs1jCjYeWVxVX9-m2QuZntyq1Ts.provenance.
• nanopub.RA89wgSKqLd4srPBTH5mls8q-YkGc7biy2tfliQo95jHs.assertion rationale "The discovery of digital object should be possible from its metadata. For this to happen, the metadata must explicitly contain the identifier for the digital resource it describes, and this should be present in the form of a qualified reference, indicating some manner of 'about' relationship, to distinguish this identifier from the numerous others that will be present in the metadata. In addition, since many digital objects cannot be arbitrarily extended to include references to their metadata, in many cases the only means to discover the metadata related to a digital object will be to search based on the GUID of the digital object itself." nanopub.RA89wgSKqLd4srPBTH5mls8q-YkGc7biy2tfliQo95jHs.provenance.