CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 177

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The anatomy of a nanopublication

Groth, Paul, Gibson, Andrew, Velterop, Jan·2010·Information Services and Use
DOI 10.3233/isu-2010-0613
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

As the amount of scholarly communication increases, it is increasingly difficult for specific core scientific statements to be found, connected and curated. Additionally, the redundancy of these statements in multiple fora makes it difficult to determine attribution, quality and provenance. To tackle these challenges, the Concept Web Alliance has promoted the notion of nanopublications (core scientific statements with associated context). In this document, we present a model of nanopublications along with a Named Graph/RDF serialization of the model. Importantly, the serialization is defined completely using already existing community-developed technologies. Finally, we discuss the importance of aggregating nanopublications and the role that the Concept Wiki plays in facilitating it.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3233/isu-2010-0613

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Nanopublications enable representation of scientific claims in a distinctive, identifiable, citable, and reusable format as named graphs.

    “Nanopublishing is a paradigm enabling the representation of scientific claims in a distinctive, identifiable, citable, and reusable format, i.e., as a named graph.”

    From Provenance-driven nanopublications: representing source lineage and trust networks for multi-source assertions (2025) · cites this paper as [3]

    The Core model (section 2) describes nanopublications as identifiable and citable, and A realization as Named Graphs (section 3) supports representing them with Named Graphs. The claim’s singular “as a named graph” is imprecise: section 3 says the simplest nanopublication has two Named Graphs, one for the statement and one for its annotations. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The current best approach to representing scientific assertions or facts in a machine-readable manner is through nanopublications.

    “The current best approach to representing scientific assertions or facts in a machine-readable manner is through the use of nanopublications, as they enable the precise identification, representation, access, and citation of individual assertions [3,4].”

    From Provenance-driven nanopublications: representing source lineage and trust networks for multi-source assertions (2025) · cites this paper as [3]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. J.J. Carroll, C. Bizer, P. Hayes and P. Stickler, Named graphs, provenance and trust, in: International World Wide Web Conference, Chiba, Japan, 2005, available at: http://www2005.org/cdrom/docs/p613.pdf.
  2. P. Ciccarese, E. Wu, G. Wong, M. Ocana, J. Kinoshita, A. Ruttenberg and T. Clark, The SWAN biomedical discourse ontology, Journal of Biomedical Informatics 41 (2008), 739-751.
  3. T. Groza, S. Handschuh, T. Clark, S.B. Shum and A.D. Waard, A short survey of discourse representation models, in: Workshop on Semantic Web Applications in Scientific Discourse (SWASD 2009), Washington, DC, USA, 2009.
  4. B. Mons and J. Velterop, Nano-publication in the e-science era, in: Workshop on Semantic Web Applications in Scientific Discourse (SWASD 2009), Washington, DC, USA, 2009.
  5. A. Passant, P. Ciccarese, J.G. Breslin and T. Clark, SWAN/SIOC: aligning scientific discourse representation and social semantics, in: Workshop on Semantic Web Applications in Scientific Discourse (SWASD 2009), Washington, DC, USA, 2009.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Groth, P., Gibson, A., & Velterop, J.
Venue
Information Services and Use
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2010-02
Volume
30
Issue
1-2
Pages
51-56
ISSN
  • 0167-5265
  • 1875-8789
DOI
10.3233/isu-2010-0613
Cited by
177
References
0
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (unspecified)

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