-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
As a curator I want to know the best practices for asserting "unknowable" #36
Comments
At present the semantics are to assign a Confidence with the definition along the lines of "I am confident and assert that that this attribute on this instance of this class is unknowable". Specific confidence levels that extend this concept to add "why?" are possible, for example:
It is perhaps best to use the fewest possible number of reasons as to why something is unknowable, as it is highly doutbful that curating to a finer granularity will actually result in meaningful broader data integration etc. The principal is, minimize the amount of down-stream re-interpretation you are forcing people to do. Downstream consumers of your assertions (e.g. scientists doing science with your data) are going to operate on a few boolean descisions as to wether or not the data are useful for their needs. |
Hm. See if this paper helps with documenting (unambiguously) what is meant by "unknown." Note that #DiSSCo folks are thinking hard about this and want to standardize use of "unknown" across their network if possible. See Quentin Groom, Mathias Dillen, Helen Hardy, Sarah Phillips, Luc Willemse, Zhengzhe Wu, Improved standardization of transcribed digital specimen data, Database, Volume 2019, 2019, baz129, https://doi.org/10.1093/database/baz129 Table 2 from their paper (regarding Unknown and incomplete data):
|
Thanks. All of these are valid assertions, none of these are the assertion of "unknowable" :) |
So, a good one for them to try and add!
|
Hm. unknown:indecipherable might be why something is "unknowable." |
Not the same I think. That is data is present, but computers can't infer on it. I find this somewhat telling. Rather than start with what curators might tell us, and try to get that in the standard, this seem to start with a digital product, and its nature. I.e. the most basic assertion a curator on the ground needs is "I can not do more with this because the physical thing is destroyed". Everything else for them is "bonus". |
No description provided.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: