scholarly journals Training and hackathon on building biodiversity knowledge graphs

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joel Sachs ◽  
Roderic Page ◽  
Steven J Baskauf ◽  
Jocelyn Pender ◽  
Beatriz Lujan-Toro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Graph ◽  
Graph Database ◽  
Biodiversity Informatics ◽  
Biodiversity Data ◽  
Specific Knowledge ◽  
Biodiversity Knowledge ◽  
Training Event ◽  
Web Infrastructure ◽  
Ongoing Development ◽  
Knowledge Graphs

Knowledge graphs have the potential to unite disconnected digitized biodiversity data, and there are a number of efforts underway to build biodiversity knowledge graphs. More generally, the recent popularity of knowledge graphs, driven in part by the advent and success of the Google Knowledge Graph, has breathed life into the ongoing development of semantic web infrastructure and prototypes in the biodiversity informatics community. We describe a one week training event and hackathon that focused on applying three specific knowledge graph technologies – the Neptune graph database; Metaphactory; and Wikidata - to a diverse set of biodiversity use cases.We give an overview of the training, the projects that were advanced throughout the week, and the critical discussions that emerged. We believe that the main barriers towards adoption of biodiversity knowledge graphs are the lack of understanding of knowledge graphs and the lack of adoption of shared unique identifiers. Furthermore, we believe an important advancement in the outlook of knowledge graph development is the emergence of Wikidata as an identifier broker and as a scoping tool. To remedy the current barriers towards biodiversity knowledge graph development, we recommend continued discussions at workshops and at conferences, which we expect to increase awareness and adoption of knowledge graph technologies.

scholarly journals The Pensoft Data Publishing Workflow: The FAIRway from articles to Linked Open Data

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lyubomir Penev ◽  
Teodor Georgiev ◽  
Viktor Senderov ◽  
Mariya Dimitrova ◽  
Pavel Stoev
Keyword(s):  
Open Data ◽  
Structured Data ◽  
Linked Open Data ◽  
Data Publishing ◽  
Knowledge Graph ◽  
Supplementary File ◽  
Biodiversity Data ◽  
Text Format ◽  
Biodiversity Knowledge ◽  
Data Elements

As one of the first advocates of open access and open data in the field of biodiversity publishiing, Pensoft has adopted a multiple data publishing model, resulting in the ARPHA-BioDiv toolbox (Penev et al. 2017). ARPHA-BioDiv consists of several data publishing workflows and tools described in the Strategies and Guidelines for Publishing of Biodiversity Data and elsewhere: Data underlying research results are deposited in an external repository and/or published as supplementary file(s) to the article and then linked/cited in the article text; supplementary files are published under their own DOIs and bear their own citation details. Data deposited in trusted repositories and/or supplementary files and described in data papers; data papers may be submitted in text format or converted into manuscripts from Ecological Metadata Language (EML) metadata. Integrated narrative and data publishing realised by the Biodiversity Data Journal, where structured data are imported into the article text from tables or via web services and downloaded/distributed from the published article. Data published in structured, semanticaly enriched, full-text XMLs, so that several data elements can thereafter easily be harvested by machines. Linked Open Data (LOD) extracted from literature, converted into interoperable RDF triples in accordance with the OpenBiodiv-O ontology (Senderov et al. 2018) and stored in the OpenBiodiv Biodiversity Knowledge Graph. Data underlying research results are deposited in an external repository and/or published as supplementary file(s) to the article and then linked/cited in the article text; supplementary files are published under their own DOIs and bear their own citation details. Data deposited in trusted repositories and/or supplementary files and described in data papers; data papers may be submitted in text format or converted into manuscripts from Ecological Metadata Language (EML) metadata. Integrated narrative and data publishing realised by the Biodiversity Data Journal, where structured data are imported into the article text from tables or via web services and downloaded/distributed from the published article. Data published in structured, semanticaly enriched, full-text XMLs, so that several data elements can thereafter easily be harvested by machines. Linked Open Data (LOD) extracted from literature, converted into interoperable RDF triples in accordance with the OpenBiodiv-O ontology (Senderov et al. 2018) and stored in the OpenBiodiv Biodiversity Knowledge Graph. The above mentioned approaches are supported by a whole ecosystem of additional workflows and tools, for example: (1) pre-publication data auditing, involving both human and machine data quality checks (workflow 2); (2) web-service integration with data repositories and data centres, such as Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLD), Integrated Digitized Biocollections (iDigBio), Data Observation Network for Earth (DataONE), Long Term Ecological Research (LTER), PlutoF, Dryad, and others (workflows 1,2); (3) semantic markup of the article texts in the TaxPub format facilitating further extraction, distribution and re-use of sub-article elements and data (workflows 3,4); (4) server-to-server import of specimen data from GBIF, BOLD, iDigBio and PlutoR into manuscript text (workflow 3); (5) automated conversion of EML metadata into data paper manuscripts (workflow 2); (6) export of Darwin Core Archive and automated deposition in GBIF (workflow 3); (7) submission of individual images and supplementary data under own DOIs to the Biodiversity Literature Repository, BLR (workflows 1-3); (8) conversion of key data elements from TaxPub articles and taxonomic treatments extracted by Plazi into RDF handled by OpenBiodiv (workflow 5). These approaches represent different aspects of the prospective scholarly publishing of biodiversity data, which in a combination with text and data mining (TDM) technologies for legacy literature (PDF) developed by Plazi, lay the ground of an entire data publishing ecosystem for biodiversity, supplying FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable data to several interoperable overarching infrastructures, such as GBIF, BLR, Plazi TreatmentBank, OpenBiodiv and various end users.

scholarly journals Knowledge Graphs

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roderic Page
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Management ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Personal Knowledge ◽  
Knowledge Graph ◽  
Specific Knowledge ◽  
Management Tools ◽  
Global Projects ◽  
Knowledge Graphs ◽  
Constructing Knowledge ◽  
Knowledge Management Tools

Knowledge graphs embody the idea of "everything connected to everything else." As attractive as this seems, there is a substantial gap between the dream of fully interconnected knowledge and the reality of data that is still mostly siloed, or weakly connected by shared strings such as taxonomic names. How do we move forward? Do we focus on building our own domain- or project-specific knowledge graphs, or do we engage with global projects such as Wikidata? Do we construct knowledge graphs, or focus on making our data "knowledge graph ready" by adopting structured markup in the hope that knowledge graphs will spontaneously self-assemble from that data? Do we focus on large-scale, database-driven projects (e.g., triple stores in the cloud), or do we rely on more localised and distributed approaches, such as annotations (e.g., hypothes.is), "content-hash" systems where a cryptographic hash of the data is also its identifier (Elliott et al. 2020), or the growing number of personal knowledge management tools (e.g., Roam, Obsidian, LogSeq)? This talk will share experiences (the good, bad, and the ugly) as I have tried to transition from naïve advocacy to constructing knowledge graphs (Page 2019), or participating in their construction (Page 2021).

scholarly journals ROBOKOP: an abstraction layer and user interface for knowledge graphs to support question answering

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (24) ◽  
pp. 5382-5384 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth Morton ◽  
Patrick Wang ◽  
Chris Bizon ◽  
Steven Cox ◽  
James Balhoff ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
User Interface ◽  
Question Answering ◽  
Supplementary Information ◽  
Knowledge Graph ◽  
Graph Database ◽  
Database Queries ◽  
Complex Queries ◽  
Abstraction Layer ◽  
Software License ◽  
Knowledge Graphs

Abstract Summary Knowledge graphs (KGs) are quickly becoming a common-place tool for storing relationships between entities from which higher-level reasoning can be conducted. KGs are typically stored in a graph-database format, and graph-database queries can be used to answer questions of interest that have been posed by users such as biomedical researchers. For simple queries, the inclusion of direct connections in the KG and the storage and analysis of query results are straightforward; however, for complex queries, these capabilities become exponentially more challenging with each increase in complexity of the query. For instance, one relatively complex query can yield a KG with hundreds of thousands of query results. Thus, the ability to efficiently query, store, rank and explore sub-graphs of a complex KG represents a major challenge to any effort designed to exploit the use of KGs for applications in biomedical research and other domains. We present Reasoning Over Biomedical Objects linked in Knowledge Oriented Pathways as an abstraction layer and user interface to more easily query KGs and store, rank and explore query results. Availability and implementation An instance of the ROBOKOP UI for exploration of the ROBOKOP Knowledge Graph can be found at http://robokop.renci.org. The ROBOKOP Knowledge Graph can be accessed at http://robokopkg.renci.org. Code and instructions for building and deploying ROBOKOP are available under the MIT open software license from https://github.com/NCATS-Gamma/robokop. Supplementary information Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

scholarly journals Ozymandias: A biodiversity knowledge graph

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roderic D. M. Page
Keyword(s):  
Shared Knowledge ◽  
Knowledge Graph ◽  
Web Interface ◽  
Biodiversity Data ◽  
Knowledge Space ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Biodiversity Knowledge

AbstractEnormous quantities of biodiversity data are being made available online, but much of this data remains isolated in their own silos. One approach to breaking these silos is to map local, often database-specific identifiers to shared global identifiers. This mapping can then be used to construct a knowledge graph, where entities such as taxa, publications, people, places, specimens, sequences, and institutions are all part of a single, shared knowledge space. Motivated by the 2018 GBIF Ebbe Nielsen Challenge I explore the feasibility of constructing a “biodiversity knowledge graph” for the Australian fauna. These steps involved in constructing the graph are described, and examples its application are discussed. A web interface to the knowledge graph (called “Ozymandias”) is available at https://ozymandias-demo.herokuapp.com.

scholarly journals Strategies for Assembling the Biodiversity Knowledge Graph

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roderic Page
Keyword(s):  
Life Sciences ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
Knowledge Graph ◽  
Supporting Evidence ◽  
Domain Specific ◽  
Biodiversity Knowledge ◽  
Comprehensive Knowledge ◽  
International Image ◽  
Knowledge Graphs ◽  
Semantic Publishing

This talk explores different strategies for assembling the “biodiversity knowledge graph” (Page 2016). The first is a centralised, crowd-sourced approach using Wikidata as the foundation. Wikidata is becoming increasingly attractive as a knowledge graph for the life sciences (Waagmeester et al. 2020), and I will discuss some of its strengths and limitations, particularly as a source of bibliographic and taxonomic information. For example, Wikidata’s handling of taxonomy is somewhat problematic given the lack of clear separation of taxa and their names. A second approach is to build biodiversity knowledge graphs from scratch, such as OpenBioDiv (Penev et al. 2019) and my own Ozymandias (Page 2019). These approaches use either generalised vocabularies such as schema.org, or domain specific ones such as TaxPub (Catapano 2010) and the Semantic Publishing and Referencing Ontologies (SPAR) (Peroni and Shotton 2018), and to date tend to have restricted focus, whether geographic (e.g., Australian animals in Ozymandias) or temporal (recent taxonomic literature, OpenBioDiv). A growing number of data sources are now using schema.org to describe their data, including ORCID and Zenodo, and efforts to extend schema.org into biology (Bioschemas) suggest we may soon be able to build comprehensive knowledge graphs using just schema.org and its derivatives. A third approach is not to build an entire knowledge graph, but instead focus on constructing small pieces of the graph tightly linked to supporting evidence, for example via annotations. Annotations are increasingly used to mark up both the biomedical literature (e.g., Kim et al. 2015, Venkatesan et al. 2017) and the biodiversity literature (Batista-Navarro et al. 2017). One could argue that taxonomic databases are essentially lists of annotations (“this name appears in this publication on this page”), which suggests we could link literature projects such as the Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL) to taxonomic databases via annotations. Given that the International Image Interoperability Framework (IIIF) provides a framework for treating publications themselves as a set of annotations (e.g., page images) upon which other annotations can be added (Zundert 2018), this suggests ways that knowledge graphs could lead directly to visualising the links between taxonomy and the taxonomic literature. All three approaches will be discussed, accompanied by working examples.

scholarly journals Connecting data and expertise: a new alliance for biodiversity knowledge

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald Hobern ◽  
Brigitte Baptiste ◽  
Kyle Copas ◽  
Robert Guralnick ◽  
Andrea Hahn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Research Policy ◽  
Coordination Mechanism ◽  
Environmental Research ◽  
Biodiversity Informatics ◽  
Biodiversity Data ◽  
Global Alliance ◽  
Global Biodiversity Information Facility ◽  
Sustainable Solutions ◽  
Biodiversity Knowledge ◽  
Global Biodiversity

There has been major progress over the last two decades in digitising historical knowledge of biodiversity and in making biodiversity data freely and openly accessible. Interlocking efforts bring together international partnerships and networks, national, regional and institutional projects and investments and countless individual contributors, spanning diverse biological and environmental research domains, government agencies and non-governmental organisations, citizen science and commercial enterprise. However, current efforts remain inefficient and inadequate to address the global need for accurate data on the world's species and on changing patterns and trends in biodiversity. Significant challenges include imbalances in regional engagement in biodiversity informatics activity, uneven progress in data mobilisation and sharing, the lack of stable persistent identifiers for data records, redundant and incompatible processes for cleaning and interpreting data and the absence of functional mechanisms for knowledgeable experts to curate and improve data. Recognising the need for greater alignment between efforts at all scales, the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) convened the second Global Biodiversity Informatics Conference (GBIC2) in July 2018 to propose a coordination mechanism for developing shared roadmaps for biodiversity informatics. GBIC2 attendees reached consensus on the need for a global alliance for biodiversity knowledge, learning from examples such as the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health (GA4GH) and the open software communities under the Apache Software Foundation. These initiatives provide models for multiple stakeholders with decentralised funding and independent governance to combine resources and develop sustainable solutions that address common needs. This paper summarises the GBIC2 discussions and presents a set of 23 complementary ambitions to be addressed by the global community in the context of the proposed alliance. The authors call on all who are responsible for describing and monitoring natural systems, all who depend on biodiversity data for research, policy or sustainable environmental management and all who are involved in developing biodiversity informatics solutions to register interest at https://biodiversityinformatics.org/ and to participate in the next steps to establishing a collaborative alliance. The supplementary materials include brochures in a number of languages (English, Arabic, Spanish, Basque, French, Japanese, Dutch, Portuguese, Russian, Traditional Chinese and Simplified Chinese). These summarise the need for an alliance for biodiversity knowledge and call for collaboration in its establishment.

scholarly journals Ozymandias: a biodiversity knowledge graph

PeerJ ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. e6739 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roderic D.M. Page
Keyword(s):  
Data Cleaning ◽  
Shared Knowledge ◽  
Knowledge Graph ◽  
Web Interface ◽  
Biodiversity Data ◽  
Knowledge Space ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Biodiversity Knowledge ◽  
Over Time

Enormous quantities of biodiversity data are being made available online, but much of this data remains isolated in silos. One approach to breaking these silos is to map local, often database-specific identifiers to shared global identifiers. This mapping can then be used to construct a knowledge graph, where entities such as taxa, publications, people, places, specimens, sequences, and institutions are all part of a single, shared knowledge space. Motivated by the 2018 GBIF Ebbe Nielsen Challenge I explore the feasibility of constructing a “biodiversity knowledge graph” for the Australian fauna. The data cleaning and reconciliation steps involved in constructing the knowledge graph are described in detail. Examples are given of its application to understanding changes in patterns of taxonomic publication over time. A web interface to the knowledge graph (called “Ozymandias”) is available at https://ozymandias-demo.herokuapp.com.

Mobile Software Assurance Informed through Knowledge Graph Construction: The OWASP Threat of Insecure Data Storage

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzanna Schmeelk ◽  
Lixin Tao
Keyword(s):  
Data Storage ◽  
Program Analysis ◽  
Web Application ◽  
Security Analysis ◽  
Knowledge Graph ◽  
Healthcare Applications ◽  
Sensitive Data ◽  
Knowledge Graphs ◽  
Mobile Malware Detection ◽  
Software Assurance

Many organizations, to save costs, are movinheg to t Bring Your Own Mobile Device (BYOD) model and adopting applications built by third-parties at an unprecedented rate.  Our research examines software assurance methodologies specifically focusing on security analysis coverage of the program analysis for mobile malware detection, mitigation, and prevention.  This research focuses on secure software development of Android applications by developing knowledge graphs for threats reported by the Open Web Application Security Project (OWASP).  OWASP maintains lists of the top ten security threats to web and mobile applications.  We develop knowledge graphs based on the two most recent top ten threat years and show how the knowledge graph relationships can be discovered in mobile application source code.  We analyze 200+ healthcare applications from GitHub to gain an understanding of their software assurance of their developed software for one of the OWASP top ten moble threats, the threat of “Insecure Data Storage.”  We find that many of the applications are storing personally identifying information (PII) in potentially vulnerable places leaving users exposed to higher risks for the loss of their sensitive data.

scholarly journals TransET: Knowledge Graph Embedding with Entity Types

Electronics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. 1407
Author(s):  
Peng Wang ◽  
Jing Zhou ◽  
Yuzhang Liu ◽  
Xingchen Zhou
Keyword(s):  
Link Prediction ◽  
State Of The Art ◽  
Score Function ◽  
Graph Embedding ◽  
Vector Spaces ◽  
Knowledge Graph ◽  
Semantic Features ◽  
Knowledge Graphs ◽  
Real World Datasets ◽  
Low Dimensional

Knowledge graph embedding aims to embed entities and relations into low-dimensional vector spaces. Most existing methods only focus on triple facts in knowledge graphs. In addition, models based on translation or distance measurement cannot fully represent complex relations. As well-constructed prior knowledge, entity types can be employed to learn the representations of entities and relations. In this paper, we propose a novel knowledge graph embedding model named TransET, which takes advantage of entity types to learn more semantic features. More specifically, circle convolution based on the embeddings of entity and entity types is utilized to map head entity and tail entity to type-specific representations, then translation-based score function is used to learn the presentation triples. We evaluated our model on real-world datasets with two benchmark tasks of link prediction and triple classification. Experimental results demonstrate that it outperforms state-of-the-art models in most cases.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document