{"id":97,"title":"Relationships within (meta)data, and between local and third-party data, have explicit and ‘useful’ semantic meaning","url":"https://purl.org/fair-metrics/FM_I3","description":"Relationships within (meta)data, and between local and third-party data, have explicit and ‘useful’ semantic meaning\r\n\r\nOne 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”. \r\n\r\nNumerous 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 \r\n\r\nSimilarly, dbxrefs must be predicated with a meaningful relationship what is the nature of the cross-reference? \r\n\r\nFinally, 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. \r\n\r\nLinksets (in the formal sense) representing part or all of your resource","image":"","tags":"","type":"yesnobut","license":"","rationale":"","principle":"","fairmetrics":"I3","authors":[1]}