arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv 2101.10883cs.SE
收藏

重新审视研究软件的FAIR

A Fresh Look at FAIR for Research Software

Daniel S. Katz, Morane Gruenpeter, Tom Honeyman, Lorraine Hwang, Mark D. Wilkinson, Vanessa Sochat, Hartwig Anzt, Carole Goble, for FAIR4RS Subgroup 1

摘要:

本文件记录了FAIR for Research Software(FAIR4RS)小组的讨论和审议,该小组重新审视了FAIR指导原则对科学数据管理和研究软件管理的适用性。我们讨论了理想的可复制的,开放的,可用的,公认的,可持续的和强大的研究软件的愿景,然后审查研究软件和数据的特性和实践的差异。这种对初始条件的愿景和理解可以作为尝试翻译和解释指导原则的背景,以更充分地与研究软件保持一致。我们发现,只要提供了大量的解释,许多原则仍然相对完整。“可找到”和“可证明”的基本原则尤其如此。我们发现,“互操作性”和“可重用性”特别容易出现广泛的,有时甚至是相反的解释。我们提出了两个新的原则模仿现有的,并提供修改后的指导性文字,这些原则,以帮助澄清我们的最终解释。在这一过程中发现了翻译方面的一系列差距,这些差距仍有待解决。最后,我们将考虑这些翻译后的原则在哪些方面与开篇所阐述的愿景有所差距。

英文摘要:

This document captures the discussion and deliberation of the FAIR for Research Software (FAIR4RS) subgroup that took a fresh look at the applicability of the FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship for research software. We discuss the vision of research software as ideally reproducible, open, usable, recognized, sustained and robust, and then review both the characteristic and practiced differences of research software and data. This vision and understanding of initial conditions serves as a backdrop for an attempt at translating and interpreting the guiding principles to more fully align with research software. We have found that many of the principles remained relatively intact as written, as long as considerable interpretation was provided. This was particularly the case for the "Findable" and "Accessible" foundational principles. We found that "Interoperability" and "Reusability" are particularly prone to a broad and sometimes opposing set of interpretations as written. We propose two new principles modeled on existing ones, and provide modified guiding text for these principles to help clarify our final interpretation. A series of gaps in translation were captured during this process, and these remain to be addressed. We finish with a consideration of where these translated principles fall short of the vision laid out in the opening.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑