Nanopublications LDF server

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

• nanopub.RAY_FnSV9ZrD8qJLhPYBoI1dt8ma7p5XPMJwe7_epEJ-s.assertion comments "None" nanopub.RAY_FnSV9ZrD8qJLhPYBoI1dt8ma7p5XPMJwe7_epEJ-s.provenance.
• nanopub.RAoVkOYeyfFzQeN8SvIavD4YATjuwufabc7jHrChqR7Z0.assertion comments "A first version of this metric would focus on just checking a URL that resolves to a document. We can't verify that document. A second version would indicate how to structure the data policy document with a particular section (similar to how the CC licenses now have a formal structure in RDF). A third version would insist that that document and section is signed by an approved organization and made available in an appropriate repository." nanopub.RAoVkOYeyfFzQeN8SvIavD4YATjuwufabc7jHrChqR7Z0.provenance.
• nanopub.RAWDVSOkJwo6iLF7nF5wmw-mxrcahwQ7ZNNO_E6VEVhrA.assertion comments "michel: there must be a syntax and associated semantics for that language. This is sufficient mark: there needs to be some identity or denotation in the language; ('vanilla') xml and json are not FAIR, so should fail this test *** can you (i) identify elements and (ii) make statements about them, and iii) is there a formally defined interpretation for that -> HTML fails; PDF fails shared -> that there are many users of the language . acknowledged within your community -> hard to prove. . could we use google to query for your filetype (can't discriminate between different models) -> has a media type --> This SHOULD be stated as a IANA code [IANA-MT] standardization of at least this listing process is a good measure of 'sharedness' broadly applicable . that the language is extensible to a domain of interest . you can define your own elements in accordance with the semantics of the language gff3 is not in the IANA list -> what steps would the community need to execute to be listed here? cases like GFF, PDB are not broadly applicable biopax -> is defined vnd.biopax.rdf+xml and built on rdf -> allows users to create new elements and relate them jpg -> widely used, registered, but primarily for image content pdf -> registered, enables users to create their own dictionary." nanopub.RAWDVSOkJwo6iLF7nF5wmw-mxrcahwQ7ZNNO_E6VEVhrA.provenance.
• nanopub.RAVhLRWG-6ka_E58kiB9dgpWcsnzDdcDIa4YWrOwAYKGU.assertion comments "michel: there must be a syntax and associated semantics for that language. This is sufficient mark: there needs to be some identity or denotation in the language; ('vanilla') xml and json are not FAIR, so should fail this test *** can you (i) identify elements and (ii) make statements about them, and iii) is there a formally defined interpretation for that -> HTML fails; PDF fails shared -> that there are many users of the language . acknowledged within your community -> hard to prove. . could we use google to query for your filetype (can't discriminate between different models) -> has a media type --> This SHOULD be stated as a IANA code [IANA-MT] standardization of at least this listing process is a good measure of 'sharedness' broadly applicable . that the language is extensible to a domain of interest . you can define your own elements in accordance with the semantics of the language gff3 is not in the IANA list -> what steps would the community need to execute to be listed here? cases like GFF, PDB are not broadly applicable biopax -> is defined vnd.biopax.rdf+xml and built on rdf -> allows users to create new elements and relate them jpg -> widely used, registered, but primarily for image content pdf -> registered, enables users to create their own dictionary. " nanopub.RAVhLRWG-6ka_E58kiB9dgpWcsnzDdcDIa4YWrOwAYKGU.provenance.
• nanopub.RASu1_MVbqSBVkWrYeSxoTt0WGQZek7-LGfk6O3131IZA.assertion comments "Such certification services may not exist, but this principle serves to encourage the community to create both the standard(s) and the verification services for those standards. A potentially useful side-effect of this is that it might provide an opportunity for content-verification - e.g. the certification service provides a hash of the data, which can be used to validate that it has not been edited at a later date." nanopub.RASu1_MVbqSBVkWrYeSxoTt0WGQZek7-LGfk6O3131IZA.provenance.
• nanopub.RAqMxnBJOG91C5nBaJiAcI7WY6V98KzDja7f5sBXyMj48.assertion comments "None" nanopub.RAqMxnBJOG91C5nBaJiAcI7WY6V98KzDja7f5sBXyMj48.provenance.
• nanopub.RApFSf-6RYbJF9O2oqDiGD1nteWav5y-ndFEmsUgIzK6c.assertion comments "None" nanopub.RApFSf-6RYbJF9O2oqDiGD1nteWav5y-ndFEmsUgIzK6c.provenance.
• nanopub.RA6ETcEOEBQ2cP7rxPHcdf5h2RXHZZpdPvehohpiWABAQ.assertion comments "None" nanopub.RA6ETcEOEBQ2cP7rxPHcdf5h2RXHZZpdPvehohpiWABAQ.provenance.
• nanopub.RA0cAAP6m2jtyXUjXEoB4DzGydzSi7QUyaQUYP4-78JjA.assertion comments "None" nanopub.RA0cAAP6m2jtyXUjXEoB4DzGydzSi7QUyaQUYP4-78JjA.provenance.
• nanopub.RA1iFcLGiR5mCbyx6JqBmAMZm_zm4yjogQAJvBwEi7hkU.assertion comments "A first version of this metric would focus on just checking a URL that resolves to a document. We can't verify that document. A second version would indicate how to structure the data policy document with a particular section (similar to how the CC licenses now have a formal structure in RDF). A third version would insist that that document and section is signed by an approved organization and made available in an appropriate repository." nanopub.RA1iFcLGiR5mCbyx6JqBmAMZm_zm4yjogQAJvBwEi7hkU.provenance.
• nanopub.RA89wgSKqLd4srPBTH5mls8q-YkGc7biy2tfliQo95jHs.assertion comments "In practice there are issues related to the format of the metadata document that might make a simple string search impossible. For example, relative URLs in HTML and qnames in XML/RDF. We should engage in some community discussion about exactly how to execute this Metric." nanopub.RA89wgSKqLd4srPBTH5mls8q-YkGc7biy2tfliQo95jHs.provenance.
• nanopub.RAP36_goSXA2MVGffq35PTan9QDU-v4Fo7N29Rwhq1I9o.assertion comments "None" nanopub.RAP36_goSXA2MVGffq35PTan9QDU-v4Fo7N29Rwhq1I9o.provenance.
• nanopub.RAz0Y_itpUvxUdpntsyUAvkc3wzbDKxZvV0s9v0st_no0.assertion comments "None" nanopub.RAz0Y_itpUvxUdpntsyUAvkc3wzbDKxZvV0s9v0st_no0.provenance.
• nanopub.RAP8dgLk5LLzgA5pylBs1jCjYeWVxVX9-m2QuZntyq1Ts.assertion comments "Many data formats have fields specifically for Provenance information. -> could fairsharing curate these 4 fields? for every format and vocabulary? Some formats do not have these fields. For example, although gff can have arbitrary headers, the standard itself does not provide specific fields to capture detailed provenance. It therefore would" nanopub.RAP8dgLk5LLzgA5pylBs1jCjYeWVxVX9-m2QuZntyq1Ts.provenance.