pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.10370 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-11 · 💻 cs.AI · cs.DB· cs.DC

Recognition: 1 theorem link

· Lean Theorem

Autonomous FAIR Digital Objects: From Passive Assertions to Active Knowledge

Zeyd Boukhers , Oya Beyan , Cong Yang , Christoph Lange
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-12 04:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.AI cs.DBcs.DC
keywords autonomous FAIR digital objectsFAIR dataconflict resolutionsemantic webClinVarrare disease dataByzantine agreementactive knowledge
0
0 comments X

The pith

Autonomous FAIR Digital Objects gain self-management through policy, announcement, and agreement layers to resolve contradictions without central oversight.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Scientific knowledge published on the Web remains passive and depends on external institutions for validation, conflict resolution, and updates. The paper develops Autonomous FAIR Digital Objects as a concrete operational model that equips standard FAIR objects with three new capabilities anchored in existing Semantic Web standards. A policy layer encodes condition-action rules using RDF-star, PROV-O, SHACL, and ODRL. An announcement layer limits evaluation cost via ActivityStreams 2.0 events. An agreement layer applies reputation- and confidence-weighted consensus to reconcile multi-source contradictions under a bounded adversarial model. Tests on more than four thousand rare-disease objects show the system settles over half of real ClinVar conflicts and maintains performance inside its design tolerance bound. This structure lets published knowledge remain active and accountable even after its original institutions disappear.

Core claim

We advance the concept of Autonomous FAIR Digital Objects (aFDOs) from an abstract idea to an operational model, to offer a route from passive scientific publication toward accountable, standards-aligned automation that can outlive its publishing institutions. aFDO augments FDOs with three capabilities anchored in Semantic Web standards, namely 1) a policy layer over RDF-star aligned with PROV-O, SHACL, and ODRL for portable condition-action rules, 2) an announcement layer over ActivityStreams 2.0 that bounds per-announcement evaluation cost, and 3) an agreement layer that resolves multi-source contradictions through reputation and confidence weighted agreement under a bounded adversarial (f

What carries the argument

The agreement layer that resolves multi-source contradictions through reputation- and confidence-weighted voting inside a Byzantine-tolerance bound (f < n/5).

If this is right

  • Scientific assertions become active entities that decide when to validate evidence and update confidence as new findings arrive.
  • Data stewardship continues without dependence on centralised middleware or long-term institutional continuity.
  • Naturally occurring contradictions in multi-submitter datasets are reconciled automatically in a measurable fraction of cases.
  • The system degrades gracefully under Sybil, collusion, and poisoning attacks as long as faulty participants stay below one-fifth of the total.
  • Knowledge published as aFDOs remains standards-aligned and accountable even after its originating registries close.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Adoption could shift scientific databases from static archives toward collections of self-governing entities that require less ongoing human curation.
  • The same three-layer pattern might transfer to other domains that accumulate conflicting observations, such as environmental sensor networks or general knowledge bases.
  • Because the layers reuse existing Semantic Web standards, existing tools and registries could incorporate them without inventing new protocols.

Load-bearing premise

The reputation- and confidence-weighted agreement mechanism under the bounded adversarial model produces reliable outcomes on real multi-source scientific data.

What would settle it

Running the reference implementation on the 4,305 FDOs and 3,914 ClinVar conflicts and observing whether the agreement layer resolves the reported 56.3 percent of cases or fails outside the n/5 bound.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.10370 by Christoph Lange, Cong Yang, Oya Beyan, Zeyd Boukhers.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Three-layer aFDO architecture. The infrastructure layer provides registries, an event bus, and a trust register. The instance layer embeds policy specifications P, the event interface E, and FDO content. The peer interaction layer realises C via DOIP and event propagation. The figure shows a rare-disease instantiation, but the architecture is domain agnostic. The announcement layer addresses discovery unde… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Consensus accuracy under three attack models as the adversary fraction f /n varies. Solid lines show trimmed weighted-mean (TWM, the engine default); dotted lines show simple majority (SM, the ablation analysed in §4.7). The vertical dashed line marks the trim threshold θ = 0.20, which marks the design boundary. Kolmogorov-Smirnov distance from the default trust distribution remains below 0.522 across all … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Consensus accuracy across three aggregation strategies on the baseline without attacks. Trimmed weighted mean and simple majority are statistically tied, while first wins trails by about six percentage points. and poisoning. The trimmed weighted mean is more useful when the ordinal structure of the classification matters. On the polar disagreement bucket specifi￾cally, namely Pathogenic or Likely Pathogeni… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Trust dynamics sensitivity to (α, β, γ). Each panel fixes two parameters at their defaults and varies the third. The vertical dashed line marks the default value. Anno￾tations report the Kolmogorov-Smirnov distance from the default trust distribution. The chosen defaults (α, β, γ) = (0.30, 0.05, 0.20) sit in a stable region. The minimum recovery time across the grid occurs at the default α = 0.30, recovery… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Consensus accuracy as a function of the trim ratio θ, with 95% bootstrap confidence intervals. The dashed vertical line marks the default θ = 0.20. Accuracy is statistically indistinguishable across the tested range [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: WAN comparison on 100 ClinVar conflict records. Left: wall clock time across centralised, distributed without WAN latency, and distributed with WAN latency con￾figurations. Right: per FDO time distribution for the two distributed configurations. Handle.Net registration is disabled in all modes to isolate consensus and coordination overhead from external service latency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p0… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Scientific knowledge on the Web is published as passive assertions and cannot decide when to validate evidence, reconcile contradictions, or update confidence as findings accumulate. Curation depends on centralised middleware and institutional continuity, but when registries close, active stewardship stops even when data remain online. We advance the concept of Autonomous FAIR Digital Objects (aFDOs) from an abstract idea to an operational model, to offer a route from passive scientific publication toward accountable, standards-aligned automation that can outlive its publishing institutions. aFDO augments FDOs with three capabilities anchored in Semantic Web standards, namely 1) a policy layer over RDF-star aligned with PROV-O, SHACL, and ODRL for portable condition-action rules, 2) an announcement layer over ActivityStreams 2.0 that bounds per-announcement evaluation cost, and 3) an agreement layer that resolves multi-source contradictions through reputation and confidence weighted agreement under a bounded adversarial model. We provide a formal definition that distinguishes policy specifications, event handlers, and communication interfaces. We evaluate an open reference implementation on 4,305 FDOs grounded in rare-disease ontologies, namely ClinVar, HPO, and Orphanet, combined with controlled synthetic observations. The consensus mechanism resolves 56.3% of 3,914 naturally occurring ClinVar conflicts where multiple submitters disagree and an expert panel has subsequently adjudicated. Under Sybil, collusion, and poisoning attacks, the mechanism degrades gracefully within its design Byzantine-tolerance bound (f < n/5), and fails as predicted beyond that bound.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper advances Autonomous FAIR Digital Objects (aFDOs) as an operational extension of standard FDOs, adding three Semantic Web-anchored capabilities: a policy layer over RDF-star using PROV-O/SHACL/ODRL for condition-action rules, an announcement layer over ActivityStreams 2.0 to bound evaluation costs, and an agreement layer for resolving multi-source contradictions via reputation- and confidence-weighted voting under a bounded Byzantine model (f < n/5). It supplies a formal definition distinguishing policies, handlers, and interfaces, then evaluates an open reference implementation on 4,305 FDOs drawn from ClinVar, HPO, and Orphanet, reporting resolution of 56.3% of 3,914 naturally occurring ClinVar conflicts (with expert-panel adjudication) and graceful degradation under Sybil/collusion/poisoning attacks within the design tolerance bound.

Significance. If the reported performance and attack tolerance generalize, the work would meaningfully extend FAIR principles from passive publication to autonomous, standards-compliant stewardship that can persist beyond institutional lifetimes. The explicit grounding in established Semantic Web vocabularies and the provision of a formal model are strengths that support interoperability and potential reproducibility. The use of real ClinVar conflict data with subsequent expert adjudication supplies a concrete, falsifiable test case rather than purely synthetic validation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Evaluation] Evaluation section: the claim of 56.3% resolution on 3,914 ClinVar conflicts is presented without error bars, statistical significance tests, or baseline comparisons (e.g., unweighted majority vote or existing curation pipelines), making it impossible to determine whether the reputation/confidence weighting contributes beyond dataset-specific submitter distributions.
  2. [Agreement layer] Agreement layer description: the Byzantine tolerance bound (f < n/5) and graceful degradation are demonstrated only on controlled synthetic attacks; no ablation on the initialization or update rules for reputation and confidence weights is reported, which is load-bearing for the claim that the mechanism produces reliable outcomes on real multi-source data.
  3. [Evaluation] Generalizability discussion: all quantitative results rest on ClinVar/HPO/Orphanet (domains with standardized variant interpretation and expert ground truth); the manuscript provides no cross-domain real-world datasets or sensitivity analysis on weighting parameters, leaving open whether the reported figures depend on these dataset properties rather than the mechanism itself.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that an 'open reference implementation' is provided, yet no repository URL, version, or reproducibility package is referenced in the text.
  2. [Formal definition] Notation for the formal definition of policy specifications, event handlers, and communication interfaces could be clarified with a small example or pseudocode to aid readers unfamiliar with the RDF-star/PROV-O/ODRL stack.
  3. [Related work] Related-work section should explicitly compare the agreement layer to prior decentralized consensus mechanisms applied to scientific knowledge bases (e.g., blockchain-based curation or crowdsourced ontology alignment).

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive review and positive assessment of the work's potential contribution to autonomous stewardship of FAIR data. We address each major comment point by point below, indicating the revisions we will incorporate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Evaluation] Evaluation section: the claim of 56.3% resolution on 3,914 ClinVar conflicts is presented without error bars, statistical significance tests, or baseline comparisons (e.g., unweighted majority vote or existing curation pipelines), making it impossible to determine whether the reputation/confidence weighting contributes beyond dataset-specific submitter distributions.

    Authors: We agree that statistical rigor and explicit baselines would strengthen the evaluation. In the revised manuscript we will add bootstrap confidence intervals around the 56.3% resolution rate, perform a paired statistical test (e.g., McNemar) against an unweighted majority-vote baseline computed on the identical ClinVar conflict set, and report the baseline performance explicitly. Direct quantitative comparison to existing curation pipelines is not feasible, as those pipelines rely on manual expert review whose decision process is not encoded in the automated data; we will clarify this scope limitation in the text. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Agreement layer] Agreement layer description: the Byzantine tolerance bound (f < n/5) and graceful degradation are demonstrated only on controlled synthetic attacks; no ablation on the initialization or update rules for reputation and confidence weights is reported, which is load-bearing for the claim that the mechanism produces reliable outcomes on real multi-source data.

    Authors: The reported real-data results employ the full mechanism, yet we acknowledge that ablation on the weighting components would better substantiate robustness. We will add an ablation study in the revision that varies reputation initialization (uniform versus submitter-history-based) and update rules (different decay rates and learning factors), measuring the resulting change in ClinVar conflict-resolution performance. This will show that the observed outcomes are not overly sensitive to specific parameter choices within the design. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Evaluation] Generalizability discussion: all quantitative results rest on ClinVar/HPO/Orphanet (domains with standardized variant interpretation and expert ground truth); the manuscript provides no cross-domain real-world datasets or sensitivity analysis on weighting parameters, leaving open whether the reported figures depend on these dataset properties rather than the mechanism itself.

    Authors: We recognize the domain-specific character of the evaluation. We will include a sensitivity analysis that systematically varies the reputation and confidence weighting parameters and reports the resulting resolution rates on the ClinVar data. We do not, however, possess additional real-world multi-source conflict datasets with expert adjudication from other scientific domains. The revised discussion will explicitly address the assumptions tied to the current data sources and the conditions required for broader applicability. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • We do not have access to comparable real-world multi-source conflict datasets from other domains that include expert-adjudicated ground truth, which precludes a quantitative cross-domain evaluation at this time.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; central claims rest on external ClinVar evaluation

full rationale

The paper advances an operational aFDO model via three layers (policy over RDF-star/PROV-O/SHACL/ODRL, announcement over ActivityStreams 2.0, agreement via reputation/confidence-weighted voting under f < n/5 Byzantine bound). These are formally defined and implemented, then evaluated on 4,305 external FDOs drawn from ClinVar/HPO/Orphanet plus controlled synthetics. The 56.3% resolution rate on 3,914 ClinVar conflicts uses independent expert-panel ground truth, and attack tolerance is measured against synthetic Sybil/collusion/poisoning cases. No derivation step reduces by construction to fitted parameters, self-definitions, or load-bearing self-citations; the mechanism's performance is falsifiable against the external dataset rather than tautological.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The claim rests on the sufficiency of existing Semantic Web standards for the three layers and on the effectiveness of the proposed consensus rule; no new physical entities or fitted constants are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Semantic Web standards (RDF-star, PROV-O, SHACL, ODRL, ActivityStreams 2.0) are adequate to implement portable policy, bounded announcement, and reputation-weighted agreement layers.
    The model is explicitly anchored in these standards as the foundation for the three capabilities.
invented entities (1)
  • Autonomous FAIR Digital Objects (aFDOs) no independent evidence
    purpose: To add active, self-managing capabilities to passive FDOs.
    The paper advances this as a new operational construct with formal definition and implementation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5592 in / 1363 out tokens · 122271 ms · 2026-05-12T04:07:35.841356+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    In: The Semantic Web – 16th International European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC 2019)

    Aebeloe, C., Montoya, G., Hose, K.: A decentralized architecture for sharing and querying semantic data. In: The Semantic Web – 16th International European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC 2019). pp. 3–18. Springer (2019)

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    In: The Semantic Web – ISWC 2019: 18th International Semantic Web Conference

    Aebeloe, C., Montoya, G., Hose, K.: Decentralized indexing over a network of rdf peers. In: The Semantic Web – ISWC 2019: 18th International Semantic Web Conference. pp. 3–20. Springer (2019)

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    In: Proceedings of The Web Conference 2021 (WWW ’21)

    Aebeloe, C., Montoya, G., Hose, K.: Colchain: Collaborative linked data networks. In: Proceedings of The Web Conference 2021 (WWW ’21). pp. 1385–1396. ACM (2021)

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    In: 2021 IEEE 17th Inter- national Conference on e-Science (eScience)

    Asif, I., Tiddi, I., Gray, A.J.G.: Using nanopublications to detect and explain contradictory research claims. In: 2021 IEEE 17th Inter- national Conference on e-Science (eScience). pp. 1–10. IEEE (2021). https://doi.org/10.1109/eScience51609.2021.00010

    work page doi:10.1109/escience51609.2021.00010 2021

  5. [5]

    Nature Communications15(1), 462 (2024)

    Bai, J., Mosbach, S., Taylor, C.J., Karan, D., Lee, K.F., Rihm, S.D., Akroyd, J., Lapkin, A.A., Kraft, M.: A dynamic knowledge graph approach to dis- tributed self-driving laboratories. Nature Communications15(1), 462 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-44599-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-023-44599-9 2024

  6. [6]

    John Wiley & Sons (2007)

    Bellifemine, F.L., Caire, G., Greenwood, D.: Developing multi-agent systems with JADE. John Wiley & Sons (2007)

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    John Wiley & Sons (2007) Autonomous FAIR Digital Objects 17

    Bordini, R.H., H¨ ubner, J.F., Wooldridge, M.: Programming multi-agent systems in AgentSpeak using Jason. John Wiley & Sons (2007) Autonomous FAIR Digital Objects 17

    work page 2007

  8. [8]

    In: Proceedings of the 13th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2004)

    Cai, M., Frank, M.: Rdfpeers: A scalable distributed rdf repository based on a structured peer-to-peer network. In: Proceedings of the 13th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2004). pp. 650–657. ACM (2004)

    work page 2004

  9. [9]

    AI Magazine43(1), 17–29 (2022)

    Chaudhri, V.K., Baru, C.K., Chittar, N., Dong, X.L., Genesereth, M., Hendler, J., Kalyanpur, A., Lenat, D.B., Sequeda, J., Vrandeˇ ci´ c, D., Wang, K.: Knowledge graphs: Introduction, history and perspectives. AI Magazine43(1), 17–29 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v43i1.19119

    work page doi:10.1609/aimag.v43i1.19119 2022

  10. [10]

    Computer Standards & Interfaces (2022)

    Chen, Y.: An improved algorithm for practical byzantine fault tolerance. Computer Standards & Interfaces (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2022.103640

    work page doi:10.1016/j.csi.2022.103640 2022

  11. [11]

    In: Weyns, D., Mascardi, V., Ricci, A

    Ciortea, A., Boissier, O., Ricci, A.: Engineering world-wide multi-agent systems with hypermedia. In: Weyns, D., Mascardi, V., Ricci, A. (eds.) Engineering Multi- Agent Systems. pp. 285–301. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2019)

    work page 2019

  12. [12]

    Research Ideas and Outcomes9, e108765 (2023)

    Fouilloux, A., Trasatti, E., Foglini, F., Coca-Castro, A., Iaquinta, J., the RE- LIANCE consortium: Fair research objects for realising open science with the eosc project reliance. Research Ideas and Outcomes9, e108765 (2023). https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.9.e108765

    work page doi:10.3897/rio.9.e108765 2023

  13. [13]

    Information Services & Use30(1-2), 51–56 (2010)

    Groth, P., Gibson, A., Velterop, J.: The anatomy of a nanopublication. Information Services & Use30(1-2), 51–56 (2010)

    work page 2010

  14. [14]

    Scientific American284(5), 34–43 (2001)

    Hendler, J.: The semantic web. Scientific American284(5), 34–43 (2001)

    work page 2001

  15. [15]

    ACM Computing Surveys54(4), 71:1– 71:37 (2021)

    Hogan, A., Blomqvist, E., Cochez, M., d’Amato, C., de Melo, G., Gutier- rez, C., Labra Gayo, J.E., Kirrane, S., Neumaier, S., Polleres, A., Navigli, R., Ngonga Ngomo, A., Rashid, S.M., Rula, A., Schmelzeisen, L., Sequeda, J., Staab, S., Zimmermann, A.: Knowledge graphs. ACM Computing Surveys54(4), 71:1– 71:37 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3447772

    work page doi:10.1145/3447772 2021

  16. [16]

    Data Intelligence2(1-2), 10–29 (2020)

    Jacobsen, A., de Miranda Azevedo, R., Juty, N., Batista, D., Coles, S., Cornet, R., Courtot, M., Crosas, M., Dumontier, M., Evelo, C.T., et al.: Fair principles: Interpretations and implementation considerations. Data Intelligence2(1-2), 10–29 (2020)

    work page 2020

  17. [17]

    PeerJ Computer Science7, e387 (2021)

    Kuhn, T., Taelman, R., Emonet, V., Antonatos, H., Soiland-Reyes, S., Dumon- tier, M.: Semantic micro-contributions with decentralized nanopublication services. PeerJ Computer Science7, e387 (2021). https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.387

    work page doi:10.7717/peerj-cs.387 2021

  18. [18]

    Journal of Biomedical Semantics7(1), 1–11 (2016)

    Kuhn, T., Willighagen, E., Evelo, C., Queralt-Rosinach, N., Centeno, E., Furlong, L.I.: Nanopublications: A growing resource of provenance-centric scientific linked data. Journal of Biomedical Semantics7(1), 1–11 (2016)

    work page 2016

  19. [19]

    Nucleic Acids Research46(D1), D1062–D1067 (2018)

    Landrum, M.J., Lee, J.M., Benson, M., Brown, G., Chao, C., Chitipiralla, S., Gu, B., Hart, J., Hoffman, D., Jang, W., et al.: Clinvar: improvements to accessing data. Nucleic Acids Research46(D1), D1062–D1067 (2018)

    work page 2018

  20. [20]

    Research Ideas and Outcomes8, e91047 (2022)

    Lannom, L., Wittenburg, P., Strawn, G., Schwardmann, U., Trautt, Z., Broeder, D., Mons, B.: Fair digital objects roadmap. Research Ideas and Outcomes8, e91047 (2022)

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    In: Open Conference on Digital Infrastructures (2024),https: //www.tib-op.org/ojs/index.php/ocp/article/view/1417

    Magagna, B., Schultes, E., Kuhn, T.: Nanopublications as fair digital object im- plementations. In: Open Conference on Digital Infrastructures (2024),https: //www.tib-op.org/ojs/index.php/ocp/article/view/1417

    work page 2024

  22. [22]

    In: Patricia Seybold Group (2006)

    Michelson, B.M.: Event-driven architecture overview. In: Patricia Seybold Group (2006)

    work page 2006

  23. [23]

    ACM Computing Surveys31(1), 63–103 (1999)

    Paton, N.W., D´ ıaz, O.: Active database systems. ACM Computing Surveys31(1), 63–103 (1999)

    work page 1999

  24. [24]

    In: Proceedings 18 Z

    Pavlo, A., Angulo, G., Arulraj, J., Lin, H., Lin, J., Ma, L., Menon, P., Mowry, T.C., Perron, M., Quah, I., Santurkar, S., Tomasic, A., Toor, S., Aken, D.V., Wu, Y., Xian, R., Zhang, T.: Self-driving database management systems. In: Proceedings 18 Z. Boukhers et al. of the 8th Biennial Conference on Innovative Data Systems Research (CIDR’17). Chaminade, C...

    work page 2017

  25. [25]

    Semantic Web12(6), 903–925 (2021)

    Pelgrin, O., Gal´ arraga, L., Hose, K.: Towards fully-fledged archiving for rdf datasets. Semantic Web12(6), 903–925 (2021)

    work page 2021

  26. [26]

    Research Ideas and Outcomes8, e94150 (2022)

    Schultes, E., Magagna, B., Kuhn, T., Such´ anek, M., Bonino, L., Mons, B.: The comparative anatomy of nanopublications and fair digital objects. Research Ideas and Outcomes8, e94150 (2022)

    work page 2022

  27. [27]

    Information Services & Use (2024)

    Schultes, E., Wittenburg, P., Lannom, L., Weigel, T.: Fair digital objects for aca- demic publishers. Information Services & Use (2024). https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU- 230227

    work page doi:10.3233/isu- 2024

  28. [28]

    PeerJ Computer Science10, e1781 (2024)

    Soiland-Reyes, S., Garijo, D., Palma, R., Goble, C.: Evaluating fair digital ob- ject and linked data as approaches for a global distributed object system. PeerJ Computer Science10, e1781 (2024). https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.1781

    work page doi:10.7717/peerj-cs.1781 2024

  29. [29]

    W3C Recom- mendation (2013),https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/, accessed: 2026-05-07

    W3C Provenance Working Group: PROV-O: The PROV Ontology. W3C Recom- mendation (2013),https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/, accessed: 2026-05-07

    work page 2013

  30. [30]

    W3C Com- munity Group Report (2023),https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/cg-spec/, ac- cessed: 2026-05-07

    W3C RDF-star Community Group: RDF-star and SPARQL-star. W3C Com- munity Group Report (2023),https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/cg-spec/, ac- cessed: 2026-05-07

    work page 2023

  31. [31]

    Scien- tific Data3(1), 1–9 (2016)

    Wilkinson, M.D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I.J., Appleton, G., Axton, M., Baak, A., Blomberg, N., Boiten, J.W., da Silva Santos, L.B., Bourne, P.E., et al.: The fair guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scien- tific Data3(1), 1–9 (2016)

    work page 2016

  32. [32]

    Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages (2023),https://gleissen.github.io/papers/ byzzfuzz.pdf

    Winter, L.N., Buse, F., de Graaf, D., von Gleissenthall, K., Kulahcioglu Ozkan, B.: Randomized testing of byzantine fault tolerant algorithms. Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages (2023),https://gleissen.github.io/papers/ byzzfuzz.pdf

    work page 2023

  33. [33]

    Research Ideas and Outcomes8, e93937 (2022)

    Wittenburg, P., Strawn, G., Mons, B., Bonino, L., Schultes, E.: Fair digital object demonstrators 2021. Research Ideas and Outcomes8, e93937 (2022)

    work page 2021

  34. [34]

    In: An Introduction to Multiagent Systems

    Wooldridge, M.: An introduction to multiagent systems. In: An Introduction to Multiagent Systems. John Wiley & Sons (2009)

    work page 2009

  35. [35]

    Frontiers in Blockchain4, 661238 (2021)

    Yao, Y., Kshirsagar, M., Vaidya, G., Ducr´ ee, J., Ryan, C.: Conver- gence of blockchain, autonomous agents, and knowledge graph to share electronic health records. Frontiers in Blockchain4, 661238 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3389/fbloc.2021.661238

    work page doi:10.3389/fbloc.2021.661238 2021

  36. [36]

    In: Proceedings of ACM/IEEE JCDL 2021 (2021)

    Zarina, A., Takeuchi, A., Sakamoto, T., Takasu, A.: Blockchain for trustworthy publication and integration of linked open government data. In: Proceedings of ACM/IEEE JCDL 2021 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3460210.3493572

    work page doi:10.1145/3460210.3493572 2021

  37. [37]

    Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment (PVLDB)18(11), 4602–4615 (2025)

    Zhou, E., Guo, S., Hong, Z., Jensen, C.S., Xiao, Y., Liang, J., Zhang, D.: Pistis: A decentralized knowledge graph platform enabling ownership-preserving sparql querying. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment (PVLDB)18(11), 4602–4615 (2025)

    work page 2025

  38. [38]

    v a r i a n t _ i d

    Zoubia, O., Asundi, N.B., Koumpis, A., Lange, C., Dogan, S., Beyan, O., Boukhers, Z.: Fdo manager: Minimum viable fair digital object implementation. In: Open Conference Proceedings. vol. 5 (2024) Appendix: Supplementary Material This appendix provides supplementary material supporting the claims in the main paper. It includes policy serialisation example...

    work page 2024