skip to main content
10.1145/3360901.3364435acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesk-capConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper
Open Access

Open Research Knowledge Graph: Next Generation Infrastructure for Semantic Scholarly Knowledge

Authors Info & Claims
Published:23 September 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Despite improved digital access to scholarly knowledge in recent decades, scholarly communication remains exclusively document-based. In this form, scholarly knowledge is hard to process automatically. We present the first steps towards a knowledge graph based infrastructure that acquires scholarly knowledge in machine actionable form thus enabling new possibilities for scholarly knowledge curation, publication and processing. The primary contribution is to present, evaluate and discuss multi-modal scholarly knowledge acquisition, combining crowdsourced and automated techniques. We present the results of the first user evaluation of the infrastructure with the participants of a recent international conference. Results suggest that users were intrigued by the novelty of the proposed infrastructure and by the possibilities for innovative scholarly knowledge processing it could enable.

References

  1. Hugo F. Alrøe and Egon Noe. 2014. Second-Order Science of Interdisciplinary Research: A Polyocular Framework for Wicked Problems. Constructivist Foundations (2014), 65--76.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Amir Aryani and Jingbo Wang. 2017. Research Graph: Building a Distributed Graph of Scholarly Works using Research Data Switchboard. In Open Repositories CONFERENCE .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Sören Auer, Viktor Kovtun, Manuel Prinz, Anna Kasprzik, Markus Stocker, and Maria Esther Vidal. 2018. Towards a Knowledge Graph for Science. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Web Intelligence, Mining and Semantics .Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Iz Beltagy, Arman Cohan, and Kyle Lo. 2019. SciBERT: Pretrained Contextualized Embeddings for Scientific Text. CoRR , Vol. abs/1903.10676 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Olivier Bodenreider. 2004. The unified medical language system (UMLS): integrating biomedical terminology. Nucleic acids research , Vol. 32, suppl_1 (2004).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Piotr Bojanowski, Edouard Grave, Armand Joulin, and Tomas Mikolov. 2017. Enriching Word Vectors with Subword Information. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics , Vol. 5 (2017), 135--146.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Jeroen Bosman, Ian Bruno, Chris Chapman, Bastian Greshake Tzovaras, Nate Jacobs, Kramer, and et al. 2017. The Scholarly Commons - principles and practices to guide research communication. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/6c2xtGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Brodaric Boyan, Reitsma Femke, and Qiang Yi. 2008. SKIing with DOLCE: toward an e-Science Knowledge Infrastructure. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications , Vol. 183, Formal Ontology in Information Systems (2008), 208--219.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Adrian Burton, Hylke Koers, Paolo Manghi, Markus Stocker, Martin Fenner, Amir Aryani, Sandro La Bruzzo, Michael Diepenbroek, and Uwe Schindler. 2017. The Scholix Framework for Interoperability in Data-Literature Information Exchange . D-Lib Magazine , Vol. Volume 23, 1/2 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Michelle Cheatham, Adila Krisnadhi, Reihaneh Amini, Pascal Hitzler, Krzysztof Janowicz, Adam Shepherd, Tom Narock, Matt Jones, and Peng Ji. 2018. The GeoLink knowledge graph . Big Earth Data , Vol. 2, 2 (2018), 131--143.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Herbert Van de Sompel and Carl Lagoze. 2009. All aboard: toward a machine-friendly scholarly communication system. In The Fourth Paradigm .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Anita De Waard, Leen Breure, Joost G Kircz, and Herre Van Oostendorp. 2006. Modeling rhetoric in scientific publications. In International Conference on Multidisciplinary Information Sciences and Technologies, InSciT2006 .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. P. Donohoe, J. Sherman, and A. Mistry. 2015. The Long Road to JATS. In Journal Article Tag Suite Conference (JATS-Con) Proceedings 2015 [Internet]. Bethesda (MD): National Center for Biotechnology Information (US).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Mohnish Dubey, Debayan Banerjee, Debanjan Chaudhuri, and Jens Lehmann. 2018. EARL: Joint Entity and Relation Linking for Question Answering over Knowledge Graphs. In The Semantic Web -- ISWC 2018. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 108--126.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Paolo Ferragina and Ugo Scaiella. 2010. TAGME: on-the-fly annotation of short text fragments (by wikipedia entities).. In CIKM , , Jimmy Huang, Nick Koudas, Gareth J. F. Jones, Xindong Wu, Kevyn Collins-Thompson, and Aijun An (Eds.). ACM, 1625--1628.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Karen L. Hanson, Tim DiLauro, and Mark Donoghue. 2015. The RMap Project: Capturing and Preserving Associations Amongst Multi-Part Distributed Publications. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM/IEEE-CE JCDL. ACM, 281--282.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Alexander Hars. 2001. Designing Scientific Knowledge Infrastructures: The Contribution of Epistemology. Information Systems Frontiers , Vol. 3, 1 (2001), 63--73.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Xuezhe Ma and Eduard H. Hovy. 2016. End-to-end Sequence Labeling via Bi-directional LSTM-CNNs-CRF. CoRR , Vol. abs/1603.01354 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Vera G. Meister. 2017. Towards a Knowledge Graph for a Research Group with Focus on Qualitative Analysis of Scholarly Papers. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Enabling Open Semantic Science co-located with 16th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2017). 71--76.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Andrea Moro, Alessandro Raganato, and Roberto Navigli. 2014. Entity Linking meets Word Sense Disambiguation: a Unified Approach. TACL , Vol. 2 (2014), 231--244.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Silvio Peroni. 2014. The Semantic Publishing and Referencing Ontologies . In Semantic Web Technologies and Legal Scholarly Publishing. Law, Governance and Technology, Vol. 15. Springer, Cham, 121--193.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Juan Ramos et almbox. 2003. Using tf-idf to determine word relevance in document queries. In Proceedings of the first instructional conference on machine learning, Vol. 242. Piscataway, NJ, 133--142.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Ahmad Sakor, Isaiah Onando Mulang, Kuldeep Singh, Saeedeh Shekarpour, Maria Esther Vidal, Jens Lehmann, and Sören Auer. 2019. Old is gold: linguistic driven approach for entity and relation linking of short text. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies . 2336--2346.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Denny Vrandevc ić and Markus Krötzsch. 2014. Wikidata: A Free Collaborative Knowledgebase . Commun. ACM , Vol. 57, 10 (2014), 78--85.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Open Research Knowledge Graph: Next Generation Infrastructure for Semantic Scholarly Knowledge

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Conferences
            K-CAP '19: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Knowledge Capture
            September 2019
            281 pages
            ISBN:9781450370080
            DOI:10.1145/3360901
            • General Chairs:
            • Mayank Kejriwal,
            • Pedro Szekely,
            • Program Chair:
            • Raphaël Troncy

            Copyright © 2019 Owner/Author

            This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 23 September 2019

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • short-paper

            Acceptance Rates

            Overall Acceptance Rate55of198submissions,28%

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader