Nanopublications LDF server

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

• A1.2-Explanation implementation-considerations "Current choices are for communities to choose protocols to use when controlling access of agents to meta(data). Preferably these should be as generic as possible and as domain specific as necessary. Attempts to harmonize AAI approaches are numerous, but not covered in this article." assertion.
• A1.1-Explanation implementation-considerations "Current challenges are to explicitly and fully document access protocols that are not open/free (for example, access only after personal contact) and make those protocols available as a clearly identified facet of the machine-readable metadata. Current choices are for communities to choose standardized communication protocols that are open, free and universally implementable. " assertion.
• F1-Explanation implementation-considerations "Current challenges relate to ensuring the longevity of identifiers - in particular, that identifiers created by a project/community should survive the termination of the project or the dissolution of the community. Obtaining a persistent identifier, therefore, may require reliance on a third-party organization that promises longevity, and maintains these identifiers independently of the project/community. Current choices are for each community to choose, for all appropriate digital resources (i.e. data and metadata), identifier registration service(s) such as these that ensure global uniqueness and that also comply with the community-defined criteria for identifier persistence and resolvability." assertion.
• F2-Explanation implementation-considerations "It is a challenge for each domain-specific community to define their own metadata descriptors necessary for optimizing findability. The minimal ‘richness’ of the metadata should be defined so that it serves its intended purpose and should also be guided by the requirements of the other FAIR principles. This then poses a challenge to each community to create machine-actionable templates that facilitate capturing uniform and harmonized metadata about similar data resources among all community stakeholders, and to provide a means to ensure that this metadata is updated and curated (doi:10.5281/zenodo.3267434)." assertion.
• F3-Explanation implementation-considerations "It is a challenge to each community to choose a machine-actionable metadata model that explicitly links a resource and its metadata." assertion.
• F4-Explanation implementation-considerations "Current challenges are numerous, significantly limiting, and largely outside of the control of the average data provider. First, there is no single-source for search that currently indexes all possible metadata fields in all domains. Second, there is no uniform way to execute a search, and thus every search tool must be accessed with tool-specific software. Finally, many search engines forbid automated searches, precluding their use by FAIR-enabled software. Various initiatives are emerging that attempt to address this, at least in part, by providing a well-defined, machine-accessible search interface over indexed metadata. Nevertheless, to our knowledge, none of these currently index all possible metadata properties, nor do they span all possible domains/communities; rather, they focus on specific metadata schemas such as schema.org, at the expense of other well-established metadata formats such as DCAT, and/or are limited to specific communities such as biotechnology, astronomy, law, or government/administration. Current choices are for each community to choose, and publicly declare, what search engine to use for their own purposes, general or field-specific, and should at a minimum provide metadata following the standard that is indexed by the search engine of choice. They should also provide a machine-readable interface definition that would allow an automated search without human intervention." assertion.
• A2-Explanation implementation-considerations "Current choices/challenges are for communities to choose/define a persistence policy for metadata that describes data that may not always be available, choose/define machine-actionable templates for a persistence policy document for metadata, and in addition choose/define a machine-actionable scheme to reference the metadata persistence policy." assertion.
• I1-Explanation implementation-considerations "Communities will have to choose an available technology or decide how they will otherwise deal with multiple representations and languages. In any case, they will have to make sure that each data item that is the same in multiple resources is interpreted in exactly the same way by every agent (human and computer), and that how items across resources relate to one another can be unambiguously understood by all agents (doi:10.1162/dint_a_00040). The key consideration in this regard is that FAIR speaks to the ability of data to be reused by a generic agent, rather than a community-specific agent. This is most easily accomplished by making the knowledge available in the most widely used format(s), even if this means duplication of the information in the community-specific format." assertion.
• I2-Explanation implementation-considerations "Current considerations are for communities to ensure that terminology systems and, for instance, the units of measure, classifications, and relationship definitions are themselves FAIR. Thesauri that are proprietary and not universally accessible should be avoided wherever possible, because machines (and indeed particular countries, regions or communities as a whole) may not have the authority to access their definitions, such that even data that is accessible after authentication via A1.2 may not be useful to an agent that has no authority to access the concept definitions used within that data." assertion.
• I3-Explanation implementation-considerations "The considerations and choices made here are based on the same reasoning as the decisions made for principle I2. Vocabularies (often formal ontologies) of both concepts and relationships exist, and an appropriate relationship should either be selected from one of these, or “coined” and properly published following the FAIR Principles." assertion.
• R1.1-Explanation implementation-considerations "A current challenge is that there is currently no well-defined relationship(s) that can be used to distinguish a license that applies to the data being described, versus a license that applies to the metadata record itself, resulting in potential ambiguity in the interpretation of a license referred-to in the metadata record. Current choices are for communities to choose which usage license(s) or licensing requirements to reusable digital resources as well as to their metadata for its own purposes, but also consider broader reuse than originally anticipated or intended." assertion.
• R1.2-Explanation implementation-considerations "Current choices are for communities to choose a set of metadata descriptions to optimize provenance to optimally enable machine and human reusability for its own purposes. These choices, and, as argued before the richness of the provenance associated with a digital resource will strongly influence its actual reuse. Therefore, the implementation considerations for implementing according to this principle are inherently the same as described for principle F2, but now more focused on appropriateness for reuse than on findability per se." assertion.
• R1.3-Explanation implementation-considerations "Current choices are for a community to choose which practices to use for data and metadata, taking into full consideration the relevant inter-domain interoperability requirements. Communities must then take-on the challenge of deciding which metadata elements, addressed within their community’s “boutique” standard(s), should be additionally represented using a more global standard (principles F2 and R1.2), even if this results in duplication of metadata, such that it can be used for search and interpretation by more generic, third-party agents." assertion.