CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 34

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

OpenBiodiv: A Knowledge Graph for Literature-Extracted Linked Open Data in Biodiversity Science

Penev, Lyubomir, Dimitrova, Mariya, Senderov, Viktor, Zhelezov, Georgi, Georgiev, Teodor, Stoev, Pavel, Simov, Kiril·2019·Publications
DOI 10.3390/publications7020038
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Hundreds of years of biodiversity research have resulted in the accumulation of a substantial pool of communal knowledge; however, most of it is stored in silos isolated from each other, such as published articles or monographs. The need for a system to store and manage collective biodiversity knowledge in a community-agreed and interoperable open format has evolved into the concept of the Open Biodiversity Knowledge Management System (OBKMS). This paper presents OpenBiodiv: An OBKMS that utilizes semantic publishing workflows, text and data mining, common standards, ontology modelling and graph database technologies to establish a robust infrastructure for managing biodiversity knowledge. It is presented as a Linked Open Dataset generated from scientific literature. OpenBiodiv encompasses data extracted from more than 5000 scholarly articles published by Pensoft and many more taxonomic treatments extracted by Plazi from journals of other publishers. The data from both sources are converted to Resource Description Framework (RDF) and integrated in a graph database using the OpenBiodiv-O ontology and an RDF version of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) taxonomic backbone. Through the application of semantic technologies, the project showcases the value of open publishing of Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable (FAIR) data towards the establishment of open science practices in the biodiversity domain.

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 · 10.3390/publications7020038

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • SPAR is widely used in various projects and publications such as [74].

    “To fill the gap between domain-specific and semantic publishing ontology, Semantic Publishing and Referencing Ontology (SPAR) is widely used in various projects and publication such as [74].”

    From Scholarly knowledge graphs through structuring scholarly communication: a review (2023) · cites this paper as [74]

  • Some studies conducted casual and subjective evaluation with survey questions and research questions [70, 74, 76] of the KG structure without using precise evaluation measures.

    “Some studies, for example, conducted a casual and subjective evaluation with the help of survey questions and research questions [70, 74, 76] of the KG structure without using precise evaluation measures.”

    From Scholarly knowledge graphs through structuring scholarly communication: a review (2023) · cites this paper as [74]

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. Agosti, D., and Egloff, W. (2009). Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: The Plazi approach. BMC Res. Notes, 2. · DOI
  2. Sarkar, 2007, Biodiversity informatics: Organizing and linking information across the spectrum of life, Brief. Bioinform., 8, 347, 10.1093/bib/bbm037 · DOI
  3. Hobern, 2019, Connecting data and expertise: A new alliance for biodiversity knowledge, Biodivers. Data J., 7, e33679, 10.3897/BDJ.7.e33679 · DOI
  4. Senderov, 2016, The Open Biodiversity Knowledge Management System in Scholarly Publishing, Res. Ideas Outcomes, 2, e7757, 10.3897/rio.2.e7757 · DOI
  5. Egloff, 2017, Copyright and the Use of Images as Biodiversity Data, Res. Ideas Outcomes, 3, e12502, 10.3897/rio.3.e12502 · DOI
  6. Egloff, 2014, Open exchange of scientific knowledge and European copyright: The case of biodiversity information, ZooKeys, 414, 109, 10.3897/zookeys.414.7717 · DOI
  7. Guralnick, 2015, Community Next Steps for Making Globally Unique Identifiers Work for Biocollections Data, ZooKeys, 494, 133, 10.3897/zookeys.494.9352 · DOI
  8. Miller, J., Dikow, T., Agosti, D., Sautter, G., Catapano, T., Penev, L., Zhang, Z.-Q., Pentcheff, D., Pyle, R., and Blum, S. (2012). From taxonomic literature to cybertaxonomic content. BMC Biol., 10. · DOI
  9. Page, 2008, Biodiversity informatics: The challenge of linking data and the role of shared identifiers, Brief. Bioinform., 9, 345, 10.1093/bib/bbn022 · DOI
  10. Peterson, 2010, The big questions for biodiversity informatics, Syst. Biodivers., 8, 159, 10.1080/14772001003739369 · DOI
  11. Remsen, 2016, The use and limits of scientific names in biological informatics, ZooKeys, 550, 207, 10.3897/zookeys.550.9546 · DOI
  12. Patterson, 2010, Names are key to the big new biology, Trends Ecol. Evol., 25, 686, 10.1016/j.tree.2010.09.004 · DOI
  13. 2014, Wikidata: A free collaborative knowledgebase, Commun. ACM, 57, 78, 10.1145/2629489 · DOI
  14. Hutchison, 2007, DBpedia: A Nucleus for a Web of Open Data, The Semantic Web, Volume 4825, 722, 10.1007/978-3-540-76298-0_52 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Bingham, 2017, The Biodiversity Informatics Landscape: Elements, Connections and Opportunities, Res. Ideas Outcomes, 3, e14059, 10.3897/rio.3.e14059 · DOI
  16. Ratnasingham, 2007, Bold: The Barcode of Life Data System (http://www.barcodinglife.org), Mol. Ecol. Notes, 7, 355, 10.1111/j.1471-8286.2007.01678.x · DOI · Paper page
  17. Lepage, 2014, Avibase—A database system for managing and organizing taxonomic concepts, ZooKeys, 420, 117, 10.3897/zookeys.420.7089 · DOI
  18. Page, 2019, Ozymandias: A biodiversity knowledge graph, PeerJ, 7, e6739, 10.7717/peerj.6739 · DOI
  19. Senderov, 2017, OpenBiodiv: An Implementation of a Semantic System Running on top of the Biodiversity Knowledge Graph, Biodivers. Inf. Sci. Stand., 1, e20084
  20. Senderov, 2018, OpenBiodiv-O: Ontology of the OpenBiodiv knowledge management system, J. Biomed. Semant., 9, 5, 10.1186/s13326-017-0174-5 · DOI
  21. Wieczorek, J., Bloom, D., Guralnick, R., Blum, S., Döring, M., Giovanni, R., Robertson, T., and Vieglais, D. (2012). Darwin Core: An Evolving Community-Developed Biodiversity Data Standard. PLoS ONE, 7. · DOI
  22. Peroni, 2014, The semantic publishing and referencing ontologies, Semantic Web Technologies and Legal Scholarly Publishing, Volume 15, 121, 10.1007/978-3-319-04777-5_5 · DOI
  23. Catapano, T. (2019, February 19). TaxPub: An Extension of the NLM/NCBI Journal Publishing DTD for Taxonomic Descriptions, Journal Article Tag Suite Conference (JATS-Con) Proceedings 2010, Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK47081/.
  24. Penev, 2017, ARPHA-BioDiv: A toolbox for scholarly publication and dissemination of biodiversity data based on the ARPHA Publishing Platform, Res. Ideas Outcomes, 3, e13088, 10.3897/rio.3.e13088 · DOI
  25. Penev, 2010, Semantic tagging of and semantic enhancements to systematics papers: ZooKeys working examples, ZooKeys, 50, 1
  26. Penev, L., Catapano, T., Agosti, D., Georgiev, T., Sautter, G., and Stoev, P. (2019, February 20). Implementation of TaxPub, an NLM DTD extension for domain-specific markup in taxonomy, from the experience of a biodiversity publisher, Journal Article Tag Suite Conference (JATS-Con) Proceedings 2012, Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK100351/.
  27. Penev, 2011, XML schemas and mark-up practices of taxonomic literature, ZooKeys, 150, 89, 10.3897/zookeys.150.2213 · DOI
  28. GBIF Secretariat (2019, May 09). GBIF Backbone Taxonomy. Checklist Dataset. Available online: https://doi.org/10.15468/39omei. · DOI
  29. Janowicz, 2014, Five stars of Linked Data vocabulary use, Semant. Web, 5, 173, 10.3233/SW-140135 · DOI
  30. Laureys, 2018, Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities (CETAF) best practices in electronic publishing in taxonomy, Eur. J. Taxon., 475, 1

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Penev, L., Dimitrova, M., Senderov, V., Zhelezov, G., Georgiev, T., Stoev, P., & Simov, K.
Venue
Publications
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2019-05-29
Volume
7
Issue
2
Pages
38
ISSN
2304-6775
DOI
10.3390/publications7020038
Cited by
34
References
1
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)
Funders
H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (642241, 764840)

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