@hardistyar Replying to Making FAIR data for specimens accessible - #57 by hardistyar
This subtopic seems more suitable to my question, thus I am replying here.
Thank you for your explanation and the link to the webpage by Tim Berners-Lee.
My question was at a logical/user level, I recognize now. The question is, if links themselves get an existence of their own. That is, do they get an identifier and “traits” (attributes, children - I am out of my depth here). Thus, once you have a valid link, can this link have meaning of its own?
Concrete example: I am interested in implementing one or more chains of custody. These need to span the path of the specimen and information from the collection in the field, through lab work, genomics, isotopes analyses, morphology-anatomy, etc. and statistical analyses to official reporting for conservation applications, eg. evidence accepted in court trials, management decisions, national planning, etc.
A while ago I started designing a graph visualizing the path of the CoC through the ecosystem of existing biodiversity, genomics, statistical, etc. software and applications. This is a first draft NetworkGraph_20200727.pdf (53.7 KB)
In this graph, the links themselves carry information: Does an API exist or does a user need to manually “carry” the result of one program to another software and import/open it there? Additional information might be: how often do users use this link? Was this link validated by an authority? Can some quality measure be attached to this link? Etc.
As I understand it, so far we are talking about the nodes or objects, that is, the information content and structure associated with a digital object. Will it be important to consider the links between these objects as entities in their own right, too?