FAIR Versus Open Data: A Comparison of Objectives and Principles

IF 1.3 3区 计算机科学 Q3 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Putu Hadi Purnama Jati, Yi Lin, Sara Nodehi, D. B. Cahyono, M. Reisen
{"title":"FAIR Versus Open Data: A Comparison of Objectives and Principles","authors":"Putu Hadi Purnama Jati, Yi Lin, Sara Nodehi, D. B. Cahyono, M. Reisen","doi":"10.1162/dint_a_00176","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article assesses the difference between the concepts of ‘open data’ and ‘FAIR data’ in data management. FAIR data is understood as data that complies with the FAIR Guidelines—data that is Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable—while open data was born out of awareness of the need to democratise data by improving its accessibility, based on the idea that data should not have limitations that prevent people from using it. This study compared FAIR data with open data by analysing relevant documents using a coding analysis with conceptual labels based on Kingdon's theory of agenda setting. The study found that in relation to FAIR data the problem stream focuses on the complexity of data collected for research, while open data primarily emphasises giving the public access to non-confidential data. In the policy stream, the two concepts share common standpoints in terms of making data available and reusable, although different approaches are adopted in practice to accomplish these goals. In the politics stream, stakeholders with different objectives support FAIR data and from those who support open data.","PeriodicalId":34023,"journal":{"name":"Data Intelligence","volume":"4 1","pages":"867-881"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Data Intelligence","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/dint_a_00176","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Abstract This article assesses the difference between the concepts of ‘open data’ and ‘FAIR data’ in data management. FAIR data is understood as data that complies with the FAIR Guidelines—data that is Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable—while open data was born out of awareness of the need to democratise data by improving its accessibility, based on the idea that data should not have limitations that prevent people from using it. This study compared FAIR data with open data by analysing relevant documents using a coding analysis with conceptual labels based on Kingdon's theory of agenda setting. The study found that in relation to FAIR data the problem stream focuses on the complexity of data collected for research, while open data primarily emphasises giving the public access to non-confidential data. In the policy stream, the two concepts share common standpoints in terms of making data available and reusable, although different approaches are adopted in practice to accomplish these goals. In the politics stream, stakeholders with different objectives support FAIR data and from those who support open data.
FAIR与开放数据:目标和原则的比较
本文评估了数据管理中“开放数据”和“公平数据”概念之间的差异。公平数据被理解为符合公平准则的数据,即可查找、可访问、可互操作和可重用的数据,而开放数据则是基于数据不应该有阻止人们使用它的限制这一理念,通过提高数据的可访问性来实现数据民主化的意识而诞生的。本研究基于Kingdon的议程设置理论,采用带有概念标签的编码分析方法,对相关文献进行了比较。研究发现,与FAIR数据相关的问题流集中在为研究收集的数据的复杂性上,而开放数据主要强调向公众提供非机密数据。在策略流中,这两个概念在使数据可用和可重用方面有共同的立场,尽管在实践中采用了不同的方法来实现这些目标。在政治流中,不同目标的利益相关者支持公平数据和支持开放数据的利益相关者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Data Intelligence
Data Intelligence COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
15.40%
发文量
40
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信