CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 30

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Scholarly Ontology: modelling scholarly practices

Pertsas, Vayianos, Constantopoulos, Panos·2017·International Journal on Digital Libraries
DOI 10.1007/s00799-016-0169-3
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00799-016-0169-3

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There are various conceptual models classified into groups from representation of specific research areas to describing structure of scholarly documents, rhetorical elements and bibliographies [80, 112].

    “There are various conceptual models that are classified into groups from representation of specific research areas to describing structure of the scholarly documents, rhetorical elements and bibliographies [80, 112].”

    From Scholarly knowledge graphs through structuring scholarly communication: a review (2023) · cites this paper as [112]

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. Berman, F., Fox, G., Hey, A.J.G.: Grid Computing. Wiley, New York (2003) · DOI
  2. Research Infrastructures in the Digital Humanities. Science Policy Briefing, vol. 42. European Science Foundation, ISBN: 978-2-918428-50-3 (2011). http://www.esf.org/fileadmin/Public_documents/Publications/spb42_RI_DigitalHumanities.pdf
  3. Benardou, A., Constantopoulos, P., Dallas, C.: An approach to analyzing working practices of research communities in the humanities. Int. J. Humanit. Arts Comput. 7, 105–127 (2013) · DOI
  4. Case, D.O.: Looking for information: a survey of research on information seeking, needs, and behavior. Academic Press, San Diego, CA (2002)
  5. Bearman, D.: Overview and discussion points. In: Research agenda for networked cultural heritage. Getty AHIP, pp. 7–22 . Santa Monica, CA (1996)
  6. Brodaric, B., Gahegan, M.: Ontology use for semantic e-science. Semant. Web (2010). doi: 10.3233/SW-2010-0021 · DOI
  7. Thanos, C.: The future of digital scholarship. Procedia Comput. Sci. 38, 22–27 (2014) · DOI
  8. Thanos, C.: Mediation: the technological foundation of modern science. Data Sci. J. 13, 88–105 (2014) · DOI
  9. Palmer, C.L., Cragin, M.H.: Scholarship and disciplinary practices. Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. (2008) · DOI
  10. Sun, J., Loucopoulos, P., Zhao, L.: Representing and elaborating quality requirements: the QRA approach. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8217, pp. 446–453. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-41924-9_37 · DOI
  11. Tsakonas, G., Papatheodorou, C.: An ontological representation of the digital library evaluation domain. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 62(8), 1577–1593 (2011) · DOI
  12. Dietz, J.L.G.: Enterprise Ontology: Theory and Methodology, Enterprise Ontology (2006) · DOI
  13. Weske, M.: Business Process Management. Springer, Berlin (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-28616-2 · DOI
  14. Fox, M.S.: The TOVE project towards a common-sense model of the enterprise. In: Industrial and Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence and Expert Systems, vol. 604, p. 2534. Springer, Berlin (1992). doi: 10.1007/BFb0024952 · DOI
  15. Uschold, M., King, M., Moralee, S.: The enterprise ontology. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 13(1), 31–89 (1998) · DOI
  16. Malone, T.W., Crowston, K., Herman, G.A.G.A1.: Organizing Business Knowledge: The MIT Process Handbook. MIT Press, Cambridge (2003)
  17. Crofts, N., Doerr, M., Gill, T., Stead, S., Stiff, M. (eds.): Definition of the CIDOC conceptual reference model (version 5.0.1). ICOM/CIDOC CRM Special Interest Group (2009). http://cidoc.ics.forth.gr/official_release_cidoc.html
  18. Guizzardi, G., Wagner, G.: A unified foundational ontology and some applications of it in business modelling. In: CAiSE Workshops, pp. 129–143 (2004)
  19. Deelman, E., Gannon, D., Shields, M., Taylor, I.: Workflows and e-Science: an overview of workflow system features and capabilities. Futur. Gener. Comput. Syst. 25, 528–540 (2009) · DOI
  20. Benardou, A., Constantopoulos, P., Dallas, C., Gavrilis, D.: Understanding the information requirements of arts and humanities scholarship. IJDC 5, 18–33 (2010) · DOI
  21. Constantopoulos, P., Dallas, C., Doorn, P., Gavrilis, D., Gros, A., Stylianou, G.: Preparing DARIAH. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Virtual Systems and MultiMedia (VSMM08). Nicosia, Cyprus (2008). http://www.dcu.gr/dcu/Documents/documents/preparing-dariah/en/attachment
  22. Benardou, A., et al.: A conceptual model for scholarly research activity. In: Unsworth, J., Rosenbaum, H., Fisher, K.E. (eds.) iConference 2010 Proceedings (Urbana–Champaign, Ill., 2010), p. 2632 (2010)
  23. Doerr, M., Kritsotaki, A., Christophides, V., Kotzinos, D.: Reference Ontology for Knowledge Creation Processes. Collaborative Knowledge Creation, pp. 31–52. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-94-6209-004-0_3 · DOI
  24. Francesconi, F., Dalpiaz, F., Mylopoulos, J.: TBIM: A Language for Modelling and Reasoning about Business Plans. Conceptual Modelling. Springer, Berlin (2013)
  25. Doerr, M., Tzobanakis, M.: On information organization in annotation systems. In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, p. 189200. Springer, Berlin (2005)
  26. Sirin, E., Parsia, B., Grau, B. C., Kalyanpur, A., Katz, Y.: Pellet: A practical OWL-DL reasoner. 5(2), 5153 (2007). doi: 10.1016/j.websem.2007.03.004 · DOI
  27. TOULMIN, S.E.: The Uses of Argument, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003) · DOI · Paper page
  28. Soldatova, L.N., King, R.D.: An ontology of scientific experiments. J. R. Soc. Interface 3(11), 795–803 (2006) · DOI
  29. Sure, Y., Bloehdorn, S., Haase, P., Hartmann, J., Oberle, D.: The SWRC ontology semantic web for research communities. In: Presented at the EPIA’05: Proceedings of the 12th Portuguese Conference on Progress in Artificial Intelligence, Berlin (2005) · DOI
  30. Tifous, A., Ghali, El, A., Dieng-Kuntz, R., Giboin, A., Christina, C., Vidou, G., : An Ontology for Supporting Communities of Practice. ACM, New York (2007) · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Pertsas, V., & Constantopoulos, P.
Venue
International Journal on Digital Libraries
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2016-05-04
Volume
18
Issue
3
Pages
173-190
ISSN
  • 1432-5012
  • 1432-1300
DOI
10.1007/s00799-016-0169-3
Cited by
30
References
2
Language
en
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review