No abstract

Knowledge Organization Systems (e.g. taxonomies and ontologies) continue to contribute benefits in the design of information systems by providing a shared conceptual underpinning for developers, users, and automated systems. However, the standard mechanisms for the management of KOSs changes are inadequate for systems built on top of thousands of data sources or with the involvement of hundreds of individuals. In this work, we review standard sources of change for KOSs (e.g. institutional shifts; standards cycles; cultural and political; distribution, etc) and then proceed to catalog new sources of change for KOSs ranging from massively cooperative development to always-on automated extraction systems. Finally, we reflect on what this means for the design and management of KOSs.

Model organism databases (MODs) facilitate the connections between published research papers with genes and other biological information. MODs aim to make research data easier to access to the research community, especially for researchers relying on genetic data and other information about a specific species. This paper follows previous research (Beradini, et al. 2016) that attempted to use quantitative data to determine if and how literature curated by a MOD makes a difference to the access and reuse of the curated data. The research addresses whether articles that have been through the detailed curation process of a MOD are more likely to be cited when compared to 'similar' articles that are not curated. For this research, citations for articles curated by FlyBase, a MOD for genetic and molecular data for the Drosophilidae insect family, were compared with articles identified as having similar genetic and molecular data, but not yet given a detailed curation by FlyBase. In addition, citation counts from a larger set of articles retrieved through a title and keyword search for Drosophilidae are also compared.

Open Information Extraction (OIE) is the task of the unsupervised creation of structured information from text. OIE is often used as a starting point for a number of downstream tasks including knowledge base construction, relation extraction, and question answering. While OIE methods are targeted at being domain independent, they have been evaluated primarily on newspaper, encyclopedic or general web text. In this article, we evaluate the performance of OIE on scientific texts originating from 10 different disciplines. To do so, we use two state-of-the-art OIE systems using a crowd-sourcing approach. We find that OIE systems perform significantly worse on scientific text than encyclopedic text. We also provide an error analysis and suggest areas of work to reduce errors. Our corpus of sentences and judgments are made available.

No abstract