Nanopublications LDF server

Matches in Nanopublications for { ?s <https://w3id.org/fair/maturity_indicator/terms/Gen2/rationale> ?o ?g. }

• Gen2_MI_A1.2 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." assertion.
• Gen2_MI_I2B 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. In this strict Maturity Indicator, we test if the vocabulary terms resolve to machine-readable linked data. A second Maturity Indicator (Gen2-FM-I2A) is looser than this MI." assertion.
• Gen2_MI_I1A 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. There is debate in the community about what languages would be considered "knowledge representation languages", as such this Maturity Indicator is broken into two sub-MIs (Gen2-FM-I1A and Gen2-FM-I1B). This MI takes a loose definition, that any kind of structured information is sufficient." assertion.
• Gen2_MI_A2 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." assertion.
• Gen2_MI_F2A rationale "Structured data is inherently easier for machines to accurately process and interpret. Even loosely structured metadata can have reliable parsers built to consume it, including those of major search engines. Thus, it improves the findability of the record." assertion.
• Gen2_MI_F1A 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" assertion.
• Gen2_MI_F3 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." assertion.
• Gen2_MI_R1.1 rationale "Data that does not have a license cannot (legitimately) be reused, since the conditions of that reuse are not known." assertion.
• Gen2_MI_A1.1 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." assertion.
• Gen2_MI_F1B rationale "The change to an identifier scheme will have widespread implications for resource lookup, linking, and data sharing. Providers of digital resources must try to use GUID types that are guaranteed, by stable third-parties, to be persistent. This includes stable providers of PURLs." assertion.
• Gen2_MI_F2B rationale "Structured, grounded data is inherently easier for machines to accurately process and interpret, in particular by generic agents, who are able to precisely determine the meaning of an element based on it being a GUID (and thus, more FAIR)" assertion.
• Gen2_MI_F4 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." assertion.
• Gen2_MI_I1B 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. There is debate in the community about what languages would be considered "knowledge representation languages", as such this Maturity Indicator is broken into two sub-MIs (Gen2-FM-I1A and Gen2-FM-I1B). This MI takes a strict interpretation, accepting only formats that are ontologically-grounded and machine-resolvable." assertion.
• Gen2_MI_I2A 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. In this loose MI, we test only if the vocabulary terms resolve (e.g. to a human-readable page). We do not test if they resolve to machine-readable information. A second Maturity Indicator (Gen2-FM-I2B) is for that stricter test." assertion.
• Gen2_MI_I3 rationale "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." assertion.