ArticleBalisage series on markup technologies2022
Human Readability of Data Files.
Article in Balisage series on markup technologies, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
In this era of big data and FAIR data, data formats must be machine interpretable. XML, among other standards, satisfies this requirement. Yet many standardization initiatives cite human readability as a second, key property in data format development. Examples include the development of STAR in the field of structural biology, W3C PROV for provenance, and even the continuing development of XML. This begs the question(s), what is meant by human readability and can this property be measured for a given data format or compared between competing standards? The broad topic of readability is considered with attention to the various aspects of written text which either foster or counter readability. Drawing on efforts in the educational system, a metric is proposed for estimating the relative human readability of structured data within an archival file format. Comparison is made between the same data represented in various formats, including JSON and XML, to help judge whether these standards have accomplished their simultaneous goals of machine interpretability and human readability.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.