forked from FAIRMetrics/Metrics
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
ALL.html
1240 lines (1072 loc) · 49.9 KB
/
ALL.html
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<!--Converted with LaTeX2HTML 2008 (1.71)
original version by: Nikos Drakos, CBLU, University of Leeds
* revised and updated by: Marcus Hennecke, Ross Moore, Herb Swan
* with significant contributions from:
Jens Lippmann, Marek Rouchal, Martin Wilck and others -->
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Full Collection of FAIR Metrics, July 4, 2018</TITLE>
<META NAME="description" CONTENT="Full Collection of FAIR Metrics, July 4, 2018">
<META NAME="keywords" CONTENT="ALL">
<META NAME="resource-type" CONTENT="document">
<META NAME="distribution" CONTENT="global">
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="LaTeX2HTML v2008">
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Style-Type" CONTENT="text/css">
<LINK REL="STYLESHEET" HREF="ALL.css">
</HEAD>
<BODY >
<P>
<P>
<P>
<CENTER>
<H1>FAIR Metrics ALL</H1>
</CENTER>
<DIV CLASS="author_info">
<P ALIGN="CENTER"><STRONG>Mark D. Wilkinson, Susanna-Assunta Sansone,</STRONG></P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER"><STRONG>Erik Schultes, Peter Doorn,</STRONG></P>
<P ALIGN="CENTER"><STRONG>Luiz Olavo Bonino da Silva Santos, Michel Dumontier</STRONG></P>
</DIV>
<P>
<P>
<P>
<DIV ALIGN="CENTER">
</DIV>
<P>
<CENTER>
<TABLE WIDTH='800px' CELLPADDING=3 BORDER="1">
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142><SPAN CLASS="textit">FIELD</SPAN></TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><SPAN CLASS="textit">DESCRIPTION</SPAN></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>Metric Identifier</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255>FM-F1A: <code>https://purl.org/fair-metrics/FM_F1A</code></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>Metric Name</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255>Identifier Uniqueness</TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>To which principle does it apply?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255>F1</TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>What is being measured?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255>Whether there is a scheme to uniquely identify the digital resource.</TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>Why should we measure it?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255>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</TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>What must be provided?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255>URL to a registered identifier scheme.</TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>How do we measure it?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255>An identifier scheme is valid if and only if it is described in a repository that can register and present such identifier schemes (e.g. fairsharing.org). <BR>
<BR>
<P>
Information about the identifier scheme must be presented with a machine-readable document containing the FM1 attribute with the URL to where the scheme is described. see specification for implementation.</TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>What is a valid result?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255>Present or Absent</TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>For which digital resource(s) is this relevant?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255>All</TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>Examples of their application across types of digital resource</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
Ontology <BR>
- Gene Ontology: http://www.ebi.ac.uk/miriam/main/
<BR>
datatypes/MIR:00000022
<BR>
- HISCO: [link]
<BR>
This resource has not described or registered their identifier scheme. A recommended course of action would be to XXX.
<BR>
Model/format
- RDFS: https://fairsharing.org/bsg-s000283
<BR>
Repository <BR>
- JWS Online: https://www.ebi.ac.uk/miriam/main
<BR>/collections/MIR:00000130 <BR>
- DANS EASY: <BR>
<BR>
Database <BR>
- ArrayExpress: https://fairsharing.org/biodbcore-000305 <BR>
-> FAIRsharing will implement the FAIR Metric specification to provide a machine-readable link to the MIRIAM repository (for life science content)
<BR>
API <BR>
- smartAPI’s API
<BR>
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/WebsmartAPI
<BR>/smartAPI/master/docs/iodocs/smartapi.json <BR>
-> the smartAPI repository will provide accessible specification of the identifier scheme that is embedded in that metadata document.
<BR>
Journal
<BR>
http://www.nature.com/developers/documentation/
<BR>
metadata-resources/doi <BR>
-> the web site will have to provide a machine-readable pointer to the official DOI specification.
<BR>
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142><P>
Comments</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
A first version of this metric would focus on just checking a URL that resolves to a document. We can’t verify that document. <BR>
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).
<BR>
A third version would insist that that document and section is signed by an approved organization and made available in an appropriate repository.</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
<P>
<DIV ALIGN="CENTER">
</DIV>
<P>
<TABLE CELLPADDING=3 BORDER="1">
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142><SPAN CLASS="textit">FIELD</SPAN></TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><SPAN CLASS="textit">DESCRIPTION</SPAN></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>Metric Identifier</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255>FM-F1B: <code>https://purl.org/fair-metrics/FM_F1B</code></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>Metric Name</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255>Identifier persistence</TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>To which principle does it apply?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255>F1</TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>What is being measured?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255>Whether there is a policy that describes what the provider will do in the event an identifier scheme becomes deprecated.</TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>Why should we measure it?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
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.
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>What must be provided?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255>A URL that resolves to a document containing the relevant policy.</TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>How do we measure it?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255>Use an HTTP GET on URL provided. <BR></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>What is a valid result?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255>Present (a 200,202,203 or 206 HTTP response after resolving all and any prior redirects. e.g. 301 -> 302 -> 200 OK) or Absent (any other HTTP code)</TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>For which digital resource(s) is this relevant?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255>All</TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>Examples of their application across types of digital resource</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255>for each of the ‘canonical’ data types, examples, if available.
<BR>@todo
<BR>
<BR>
FAIR principles (scholarly publication in Nature Scientific Data)
<BR>
<code>https://www.doi.org/overview/DOI_article_ELIS3.pdf</code>
<BR>
http://www.nature.com/developers/
<BR>
documentation/metadata-resources/doi/ <BR>
<BR>
FAIR Principles (computable representation):
<BR>
https://github.com/FAIRDataInitiative/
<BR>
<code>FAIR-principles#fair-principles</code>
<BR>
For DSA-certified repositories (example below of 3TU-Datacentre at Delft) the identifier persistence policy is described in the self assessment:
<BR>
https://assessment.datasealofapproval.org/
<BR>
<code>assessment_187/seal/pdf/</code> <BR>
<BR>
DOI Handbook - ensuring persistence:
<BR>
<code>http://www.doi.org/doi_handbook/</code> <BR>
<code>6_Policies.html#6.5}</code></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142><P>
Comments</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
A first version of this metric would focus on just checking a URL that resolves to a document. We can’t verify that document. <BR>
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).
<BR>
A third version would insist that that document and section is signed by an approved organization and made available in an appropriate repository.</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
<P>
<P>
<DIV ALIGN="CENTER">
</DIV>
<P>
<TABLE CELLPADDING=3 BORDER="1">
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142><SPAN CLASS="textit">FIELD</SPAN></TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><SPAN CLASS="textit">DESCRIPTION</SPAN></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>Metric Identifier</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255>FM-F2: <code>https://purl.org/fair-metrics/FM_F2</code></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>Metric Name</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255>Machine-readability of metadata
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>To which principle does it apply?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255>F2 - Data are described with rich metadata</TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>What is being measured?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
The availability of machine-readable metadata that describes a digital resource.</TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>Why should we measure it?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
This metric <SPAN CLASS="textit">does not</SPAN> 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.
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>What must be provided?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
A URL to a document that contains machine-readable metadata for the digital resource. Furthermore, the file format must be specified.
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>How do we measure it?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255>HTTP GET on the metadata URL. A response of [a 200,202,203 or 206 HTTP response after resolving all and any prior redirects. e.g. 301 -> 302 -> 200 OK] indicates that there is indeed a document. The second URL should resolve to the record of a registered file format (e.g. DCAT, DICOM, schema.org etc.) in a registry like FAIRsharing. Future ehnancements to FAIRSharing may include tags that indicate whether or not a given file format is generally-agreed to be machine-readable <BR></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>What is a valid result?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
Machine-readable or Machine-not-readable
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>For which digital resource(s) is this relevant?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255>All</TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>Examples of their application across types of digital resource</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255>This URL can resolve to:
<P>
- A record in a metadata registry relevant to your digital object (e.g. FAIRsharing.org, FAIR Data Point, smartAPI editor)
- Your metadata on an HTML web page using schema.org
- A FAIR Accessor………...
<P>
Semanticscience Integrated Ontology :
http://semanticscience.org/ontology/sio.owl
https://biosharing.org/bsg-s002686
<P>
Example of a DANS metadata-record of an archived dataset:
https://easy.dans.knaw.nl/ui/datasets/id/easy-dataset:67859/tab/1
<P>
smartAPI’s API metadata: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/WebsmartAPI/
smartAPI/master/docs/iodocs/smartapi.json
<P>
Metadata record of a database:
- GEO https://fairsharing.org/biodbcore-000441
<P>
Metadata record of a standard:
- RDF https://fairsharing.org/bsg-s000559
<P>
Non-article Published Work
- my Zenodo Deposit for polyA (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.47641)
- myExperiment Workflow (http://www.myexperiment.org/workflows/2999.html)
- Jupyter notebook on GitHub (https://github.com/VidhyasreeRamu/</TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>GlobalClimateChange/blob/master/GlobalWarmingAnalysis.ipynb)
<P></TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255> </TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142><P>
Comments</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
none</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
<P>
<P>
<TABLE CELLPADDING=3 BORDER="1">
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142><SPAN CLASS="textit">FIELD</SPAN></TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><SPAN CLASS="textit">DESCRIPTION</SPAN></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>Metric Identifier</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255>FM-F3: <code>https://purl.org/fair-metrics/FM_F3</code></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>Metric Name</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
Resource Identifier in Metadata
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>To which principle does it apply?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255>F3 - metadata clearly and explicitly include the identifier of the data it describes</TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>What is being measured?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
Whether the metadata document contains the globally unique and persistent identifier for the digital resource.
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>Why should we measure it?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
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.
<P>
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.
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>What must be provided?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
The GUID of the metadata and the GUID of the digital resource it describes.
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>How do we measure it?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
Parsing the metadata for the given digital resource GUID.
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>What is a valid result?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
Present or absent
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>For which digital resource(s) is this relevant?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255>All</TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>Examples of their application across types of digital resource</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
None
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142><P>
Comments</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
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.
<P></TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
<P>
<P>
<TABLE CELLPADDING=3 BORDER="1">
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142><SPAN CLASS="textit">FIELD</SPAN></TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><SPAN CLASS="textit">DESCRIPTION</SPAN></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>Metric Identifier</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255>FM-F4: <code>https://purl.org/fair-metrics/FM_F4</code></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>Metric Name</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
Indexed in a searchable resource
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>To which principle does it apply?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
F4 - (meta)data are registered or indexed in a searchable resource
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>What is being measured?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
The degree to which the digital resource can be found using web-based search engines.
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>Why should we measure it?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
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.
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>What must be provided?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
The persistent identifier of the resource and one or more URLs that give search results of different search engines.
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>How do we measure it?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
We perform an HTTP GET on the URLs provided and attempt to to find the persistent identifier in the page that is returned. A second step might include following each of the top XX hits and examine the resulting documents for presence of the identifier.
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>What is a valid result?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
true - the persistent identifier was found in the search results.
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>For which digital resource(s) is this relevant?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255>All</TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>Examples of their application across types of digital resource</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
- my Zenodo Deposit for polyA <BR>
(https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.47641)
<BR>
Test Query: 10.5281/zenodo.47641 orthology
<BR>
GOOGLE: Pass (<code>#1</code> hit); BING: Fail (no hits); Yahoo: Fail (no hits); Baidu: Pass (<code>#1</code> hit)
<BR>
Test Query: “protein domain orthology RNA Processing”
<BR>
Google: Pass (Hit <code>#13</code> ); BING: Fail (not in top 40); Yahoo: Fail: (Not in top 40); Baidu: Pass (<code>#1</code> Hit)
<BR>
<P>
- myExperiment Workflow (http://www.myexperiment.org/workflows/2969.html)
<BR>
Test Query: “workflow common identifiers EMC ontology”
<BR>
GOOGLE: Pass (<code>#2</code> and <code>#5</code> hit); BING: Fail (not in top 40, though OTHER workflows were found in top 10!); Yahoo: Fail (not in top 40, though other workflows found in top 10); Baidu: Pass (5/10 pages contained a link to the workflow, but the workflow itself was not discovered)
<BR>
<P>
- Jupyter notebook on GitHub (https://github.com/
<BR>
VidhyasreeRamu/GlobalClimateChange/blob
<BR>/master/GlobalWarmingAnalysis.ipynb)
<BR>
Test Query: “github python climate change earth surface temperature”
<BR>
Google: Fail (not in top 40; other similar Jupyter notebooks found in github); Bing: Fail (not in top 40… but MANY links to Microsoft Surface! LOL!); Yahoo: Fail (not in top 40); Baidu: Fail (not even a github hit in top 40!)
<BR>
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142><P>
Comments</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255>None
<P></TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
<P>
<P>
<TABLE CELLPADDING=3 BORDER="1">
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142><SPAN CLASS="textit">FIELD</SPAN></TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><SPAN CLASS="textit">DESCRIPTION</SPAN></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>Metric Identifier</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255>FM-A1.1: <code>https://purl.org/fair-metrics/FM_A1.1</code></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>Metric Name</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
Access Protocol
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>To which principle does it apply?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
A1.1 - the protocol is open, free, and universally implementable
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>What is being measured?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
The nature and use limitations of the access protocol.
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>Why should we measure it?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
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.
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>What must be provided?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
i) A URL to the description of the protocol
<BR>
ii) true/false as to whether the protocol is open source
<BR>
iii) true/false as to whether the protocol is (royalty) free
<BR>
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>How do we measure it?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
Do an HTTP get on the URL to see if it returns a valid document. Ideally, we would have a universal database of communication protocols from which we can check this URL (this is now being created in FAIRSharing). We also check whether questions 2 and 3 are true or false.
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>What is a valid result?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
The HTTP GET on the URL should return a 200,202,203 or 206 HTTP response after resolving all and any prior redirects. e.g. 301 - 302 - 200 OK. The other two should return true/false ("true" is success)
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>For which digital resource(s) is this relevant?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255>All</TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>Examples of their application across types of digital resource</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255>None
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142><P>
Comments</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255>None
<P></TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
<P>
<P>
<TABLE CELLPADDING=3 BORDER="1">
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142><SPAN CLASS="textit">FIELD</SPAN></TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><SPAN CLASS="textit">DESCRIPTION</SPAN></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>Metric Identifier</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255>FM-A1.2: <code>https://purl.org/fair-metrics/FM_A1.2</code></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>Metric Name</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
Access authorization
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>To which principle does it apply?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
A1.2 - the protocol allows for an authentication and authorization procedure, where necessary
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>What is being measured?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
Specification of a protocol to access restricted content.
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>Why should we measure it?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
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.
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>What must be provided?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
i) true/false concerning whether authorization is needed
<BR>
ii) a URL that resolves to a description of the process to obtain access to restricted content.
<BR>
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>How do we measure it?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
computational validation of the data provided
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>What is a valid result?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
a valid answer contains a true or false for the first question. if true, an HTTP GET on the URL provided should return a 200, 202, 203, or 206 HTTP Response after resolving all redirects.
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>For which digital resource(s) is this relevant?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255>All</TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>Examples of their application across types of digital resource</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255>None
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142><P>
Comments</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255>None
<P></TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
<P>
<P>
<TABLE CELLPADDING=3 BORDER="1">
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142><SPAN CLASS="textit">FIELD</SPAN></TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><SPAN CLASS="textit">DESCRIPTION</SPAN></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>Metric Identifier</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255>FM-A2: <code>https://purl.org/fair-metrics/FM_A2</code></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>Metric Name</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
Metadata Longevity
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>To which principle does it apply?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
A2 - metadata are accessible, even when the data are no longer available
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>What is being measured?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
The existence of metadata even in the absence/removal of data
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>Why should we measure it?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
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.
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>What must be provided?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
URL to a formal metadata longevity plan
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>How do we measure it?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
Resolve the URL
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>What is a valid result?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
- Successful resolution
<BR>
- Returns a document that represents a plan or policy of some kind
<BR>
- Preferably certified (e.g. DSA)
<BR>
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>For which digital resource(s) is this relevant?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255>All metadata</TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>Examples of their application across types of digital resource</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255>None
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142><P>
Comments</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255>None
<P></TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
<P>
<P>
<TABLE CELLPADDING=3 BORDER="1">
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142><SPAN CLASS="textit">FIELD</SPAN></TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><SPAN CLASS="textit">DESCRIPTION</SPAN></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>Metric Identifier</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255>FM-I1: <code>https://purl.org/fair-metrics/FM_I1</code></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>Metric Name</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
Use a Knowledge Representation Language
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>To which principle does it apply?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
I1 - (meta)data use a formal, accessible, shared, and broadly applicable language for knowledge representation
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>What is being measured?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
use of a formal, accessible, shared, and broadly applicable language for knowledge representation.
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>Why should we measure it?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
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.
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>What must be provided?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
URL to the specification of the language
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>How do we measure it?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
- The language must have a BNF (or other specification language) <BR>
- The URL resolves (accessible) <BR>
- The document has an IANA media-type (i.e. it is sufficiently widely-accepted and shared that it has been registered) <BR>
- The language can be arbitrarily extended (e.g. PDBml can be used to represent knowledge, but only about proteins) <BR>
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>What is a valid result?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
BNF (or other?) found, Media-type of the document is registered in FAIRSharing.
<P>
Future: FAIRSharing has tags to indicate constrained vs. extendable languages?
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>For which digital resource(s) is this relevant?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255>All</TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>Examples of their application across types of digital resource</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255>None
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142><P>
Comments</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
michel: there must be a syntax and associated semantics for that language. This is sufficient <BR>
mark: there needs to be some identity or denotation in the language; (‘vanilla’) xml and json are not FAIR, so should fail this test
<BR>
<BR>
*** 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
<BR>
shared
<BR>
-> that there are many users of the language
<BR>
. acknowledged within your community
<BR>
-> hard to prove.
<BR>
. could we use google to query for your filetype (can’t discriminate between different models)
<BR>
-> has a media type
<BR>
<P>
-> This SHOULD be stated as a IANA code [IANA-MT]
<BR>
<P>
standardization of at least this listing process is a good measure of “sharedness”
<BR>
<P>
broadly applicable
<BR>
. that the language is extensible to a domain of interest
<BR>
. you can define your own elements in accordance with the semantics of the language
<BR>
<BR>
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 <BR>
biopax -> is defined vnd.biopax.rdf+xml and built on rdf -> allows users to create new elements and relate them <BR>
jpg -> widely used, registered, but primarily for image content
<BR>
pdf -> registered, enables users to create their own dictionary.
<BR>
<P></TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
<P>
<P>
<TABLE CELLPADDING=3 BORDER="1">
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142><SPAN CLASS="textit">FIELD</SPAN></TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><SPAN CLASS="textit">DESCRIPTION</SPAN></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>Metric Identifier</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255>FM-I2: <code>https://purl.org/fair-metrics/FM_I2</code></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>Metric Name</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
Use FAIR Vocabularies
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>To which principle does it apply?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
I2 - (meta)data use vocabularies that follow FAIR principles
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>What is being measured?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
The metadata values and qualified relations should themselves be FAIR, for example, terms from open, community-accepted vocabularies published in an appropriate knowledge-exchange format.
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>Why should we measure it?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
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.
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>What must be provided?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
IRIs representing the vocabularies used for (meta)data
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>How do we measure it?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
Resolve IRIs, check FAIRness of the returned document(s).
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>What is a valid result?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
Successful resolution; document is amenable to machine-parsing and identification of terms within it. It may be possible to use FAIRSharing to validate these vocabularies.
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>For which digital resource(s) is this relevant?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255>All</TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>Examples of their application across types of digital resource</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255>None
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142><P>
Comments</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
michel: there must be a syntax and associated semantics for that language. This is sufficient <BR>
mark: there needs to be some identity or denotation in the language; (‘vanilla’) xml and json are not FAIR, so should fail this test
<BR>
<BR>
*** 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
<BR>
shared
<BR>
-> that there are many users of the language
<BR>
. acknowledged within your community
<BR>
-> hard to prove.
<BR>
. could we use google to query for your filetype (can’t discriminate between different models)
<BR>
-> has a media type
<BR>
<P>
-> This SHOULD be stated as a IANA code [IANA-MT]
<BR>
<P>
standardization of at least this listing process is a good measure of “sharedness”
<BR>
<P>
broadly applicable
<BR>
. that the language is extensible to a domain of interest
<BR>
. you can define your own elements in accordance with the semantics of the language
<BR>
<BR>
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 <BR>
biopax -> is defined vnd.biopax.rdf+xml and built on rdf -> allows users to create new elements and relate them <BR>
jpg -> widely used, registered, but primarily for image content
<BR>
pdf -> registered, enables users to create their own dictionary.
<BR>
<P></TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
<P>
<P>
<TABLE CELLPADDING=3 BORDER="1">
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142><SPAN CLASS="textit">FIELD</SPAN></TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><SPAN CLASS="textit">DESCRIPTION</SPAN></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>Metric Identifier</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255>FM-I3: <code>https://purl.org/fair-metrics/FM_I3</code></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>Metric Name</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
Use Qualified References
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>To which principle does it apply?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
I3 - (meta)data include qualified references to other (meta)data
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>What is being measured?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
Relationships within (meta)data, and between local and third-party data, have explicit and ‘useful’ semantic meaning
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>Why should we measure it?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
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”.
<BR>
<BR>
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
<BR>
<BR>
Similarly, dbxrefs must be predicated with a meaningful relationship what is the nature of the cross-reference?
<BR>
<BR>
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. <BR>
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>What must be provided?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
Linksets (in the formal sense) representing part or all of your resource
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>How do we measure it?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
The linksets must have qualified references
<P>
At least one of the links must be in a different Web domain (or the equivalent of a different namespace for non-URI identifiers)
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>What is a valid result?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255><P>
- References are qualified
<BR>
- Qualities are beyond “Xref” or “is related to”
<BR>
- One of the cross-references points outwards to a distinct namespace
<BR>
<P></TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>For which digital resource(s) is this relevant?</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255>All</TD>
</TR>
<TR><TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=142>Examples of their application across types of digital resource</TD>
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" VALIGN="TOP" WIDTH=255>None
<P></TD>
</TR>