Nanopublications LDF server

Matches in Nanopublications for { ?s <https://w3id.org/fair/icc/terms/implementation-examples> ?o ?g. }

• A1.1-Explanation implementation-examples "The most common example of a compliant protocol is the HTTP protocol that underlies the majority of Web traffic. It has additional useful features, including the ability to request metadata in a preferred format, and/or to inquire as to the formats that are available. It is also widely supported by software and common programming languages." assertion.
• A1-Explanation implementation-examples "An example of a standardized access protocol is the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP1); however, FAIR does not preclude non-mechanized access protocols, such as a verbal request to the data holder in the case of highly sensitive data, so long as the access protocol is explicit and clearly defined. Conditions of compliance are further specified in sub-principles A1.1 and A1.2." assertion.
• A1.2-Explanation implementation-examples "Again, the most common example of a compliant protocol is the HTTP protocol. Another example is the life science AAI protocol. Brewster et al. (https://doi.org/10.1162/dint_a_00029) describe an early implementation of an ontology-based approach to this challenge." assertion.
• F1-Explanation implementation-examples "A common example of a useful identifier is the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) which is guaranteed by the DOI specification to be globally unique and persistent. DOIs provide an additional service, under principle A1, of being able to direct calls to the source data to the location of that data, even if the identified data moves. This ensures that identifiers are stable and valid beyond the project that generated them. In some circumstances, again with DOIs being an example, third-party persistent identifiers may also provide support for principle A2 (that metadata exists beyond the lifespan of the data) since these identifiers may still be responsive to Web calls, and be capable of providing metadata, even if the source resource is no longer active. For a discussion on identifiers see doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.2001414 and doi:10.5281/zenodo.3267434 ." assertion.
• A2-Explanation implementation-examples "Examples of early attempts to address this critical principle relates closely to the principles of digital curation (http://www.dcc.ac.uk/) including the concept of a FAIR compliant DMP (Data Management Plan; http://www.dcc.ac.uk/resources/data-management-plans) (doi:10.1162/dint_a_00043). Many other efforts are underway to improve the long-term stewardship of reusable digital resources." assertion.
• I1-Explanation implementation-examples "The most widely-accepted choice to adhere to this principle, at the present time, is the Resource Description Framework (RDF) which is the W3C?s recommendation for how to represent knowledge on the Web in a machine-accessible format (https://www.w3.org/RDF/). Other choices may also be acceptable, for instance when they are already in widespread use within a given community. In that case, it would be helpful for the community to also provide a ?translator? between their preferred format, and a more widely used format such as RDF." assertion.
• I2-Explanation implementation-examples "Ontologies defined in the ?Web Ontology Language? (OWL) and shared via a publicly accessible registry (e.g. BioPortal for life science ontologies; https://bioportal.bioontology.org/) are examples of formally represented, accessible, mapped, and shared knowledge representations in a broadly applicable language for knowledge representation, that are also compliant with the Findability requirements of FAIR, since BioPortal provides a machine-accessible search interface." assertion.
• I3-Explanation implementation-examples "It is worth noting as an example that several ?upper ontologies? such as the SemanticScience Integrated Ontology (https://bioportal.bioontology.org/ontologies/SIO) have a wide range of precisely-defined relationships that can be used as-is, or as a starting-point for a newly-minted relationship that is more specific than the one provided in the upper-ontology. The benefit of ?inheriting? from higher-level relationships is that agents capable of understanding these higher level concepts, can infer at least a basic interpretation of the intent of the new relationship coined within the community, and therefore enhances interoperability." assertion.
• R1.1-Explanation implementation-examples "There are good reasons for choosing a CC0 license for data (http://sulab.org/2016/08/open-data-should-mean-cc0/) and these considerations should be assessed, alongside all other considerations, when a community decides on the license they wish to apply. It is critical, however, that a license is chosen. The community should then ensure that a qualified link to that license is contained in the metadata record." assertion.
• R1.2-Explanation implementation-examples "Provenance descriptions can for instance be implemented following community specific templates according to the PROV-Template (https://provenance.ecs.soton.ac.uk/prov-template/) approach. These templates allow to predefine the structure of the intended collection of provenance information using variables which are later instantiated with appropriate data extracted from existing process output. Such templates also reduce the burden on community members to deeply understand the highly structured PROV ontology, and the well-defined data structures that emerge from its use - that is to say, PROV should not be treated as a simple vocabulary from which terms can be selected, but rather as a model that constrains how those terms must be used in relation to one another. Several early tools are under development to make the construction of FAIR metadata easier, including for instance CEDAR (https://more.metadatacenter.org/tools-training/outreach/cedar-template-model), CASTOR (https://www.castoredc.com/for-researchers/) and the knowledge models in the Data Stewardship Wizard (https://ds-wizard.org, doi:10.1162/dint_a_00043)." assertion.
• R1.3-Explanation implementation-examples "An example of minimal information standards is the�MIAME standard (doi:10.1038/ng1201-365), and various metadata profiles have been defined on top of specifications (e.g. various DCAT profiles)." assertion.
• R1-Explanation implementation-examples "The term ?plurality? is used to indicate that the metadata author should be as generous as possible, not presuming who the consumer might be, and therefore provide as much metadata as possible to support the widest variety of use-cases and agent needs. The sub-principles R1.1, R1.2 and R1.3 define some critical types of attributes that contribute to R1." assertion.
• F3-Explanation implementation-examples "An example of a technology that provides this link is FAIR Data Point (doi:10.1162/dint_a_00031), which is based on the Data Catalogue model (DCAT, https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/) that provides not only unique identifiers for potentially multiple layers of metadata, but also provides a single, predictable, and searchable path through these layers of descriptors, down to the data object itself." assertion.
• F4-Explanation implementation-examples "An example of a generic searchable resource that supports manual exploration is Google Dataset Search (https://toolbox.google.com/datasetsearch); however, this suffers from several of the problems mentioned above, in particular, that it indexes only certain types of metadata (schema.org) and the search cannot be automated under the Google Terms of Service, and therefore cannot be implemented within FAIR software." assertion.
• F2-Explanation implementation-examples "Examples of metadata schemata can be found in FAIRsharing (https://fairsharing.org/standards/, doi:10.1038/s41587-019-0080-8, [McQuilton et al. Data Intell. DI-2019-0028, 2019]) and include for instance the Data Documentation Initiative (DDI) (https://doi.org/10.25504/FAIRsharing.1t5ws6), the HCLS Dataset Descriptors (https://fairsharing.org/FAIRsharing.s248mf), and many domain-specific ?minimal information? models that have been invented." assertion.