A practical ontology for the large-scale modeling of scholarly artifacts and their usage

ABSTRACT

The large-scale analysis of scholarly artifact usage is constrained primarily by current practices in usage data archiving, privacy issues concerned with the dissemination of usage data, and the lack of a practical ontology for modeling the usage domain. As a remedy to the third constraint, this article presents a scholarly ontology that was engineered to represent those classes for which large-scale bibliographic and usage data exists, supports usage research, and whose instantiation is scalable to the order of 50 million articles along with their associated artifacts (e.g. authors and journals) and an accompanying 1 billion usage events. The real world instantiation of the presented abstract ontology is a semantic network model of the scholarly community which lends the scholarly process to statistical analysis and computational support. We present the ontology, discuss its instantiation, and provide some example inference rules for calculating various scholarly artifact metrics.

REFERENCES

• 1: H. Peter Alesso , Craig F. Smith, Developing Semantic Web Services, AK Peters Ltd, 2004
• 2: C. Bizer. D2R - a database to RDF mapping language. In The Twelth International World Wide Web Conference (WWW03), Budapest, Hungary, May 2003.
• 3: J. Bollen, M. A. Rodriguez, and H. Van de Sompel. Journal status. Scientometrics, 69(3), December 2006.
• 4: Johan Bollen , Herbert Van de Sompel, An architecture for the aggregation and analysis of scholarly usage data, Proceedings of the 6th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital libraries, June 11-15, 2006, Chapel Hill, NC, USA [doi>10.1145/1141753.1141821]
• 5: J. Bollen and H. Van de Sompel. Mapping the structure of science through usage. Scientometrics, 69(2), 2006.
• 6: J. Bollen and H. Van de Sompel. Usage impact factor: the effects of sample characteristics on usage-based impact metrics. {in review}, 2006.
• 7: Johan Bollen , Herbert Van de Sompel , Joan A. Smith , Rick Luce, Toward alternative metrics of journal impact: a comparison of download and citation data, Information Processing and Management: an International Journal, v.41 n.6, p.1419-1440, December 2005 [doi>10.1016/j.ipm.2005.03.024]
• 8: Tim Brody , Stevan Harnad , Leslie Carr, Earlier Web usage statistics as predictors of later citation impact: Research Articles, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, v.57 n.8, p.1060-1072, June 2006 [doi>10.1002/asi.v57:8]
• 9: T. Burners-Lee, W3C/MIT, R. Fielding, D. Software, L. Masinter, and A. Systems. Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax, January 2005.
• 10: E. Garfield. Journal impact factor: a brief review. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 161:979--980, 1999.
• 11: Marcos André Gonçalves , Ming Luo , Rao Shen , Mir Farooq Ali , Edward A. Fox, An XML Log Standard and Tool for Digital Library Logging Analysis, Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries, p.129-143, September 16-18, 2002
• 12: Michael J. Kurtz , Guenther Eichhorn , Alberto Accomazzi , Carolyn Grant , Markus Demleitner , Stephen S. Murray , Nathalie Martimbeau , Barbara Elwell, The bibliometric properties of article readership information: Research Articles, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, v.56 n.2, p.111-128, January 2005 [doi>10.1002/asi.v56:2]
• 13: C. Lagoze and J. Hunter. The ABC ontology and model. Journal of Digital Information, 2(2), 2001.
• 14: R. Lee. Scalability report on triple store applications. Technical report, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, July 2004.
• 15: A. Magkanaraki, G. Karvounarakis, T. T. Anh, V. Christophides, and D. Plexousakis. Ontology ontology storage and querying. Technical report, École Nationale Supérieure des Télécommunications, April 2002.
• 16: F. Manola and E. Miller. RDF primer: W3C recommendation, February 2004.
• 17: D. L. McGuinness and F. van Harmelen. OWL web ontology language overview, February 2004.
• 18: Natalya Fridman Noy , Ray W. Fergerson , Mark A. Musen, The Knowledge Model of Protégé-2000: Combining Interoperability and Flexibility, Proceedings of the 12th European Workshop on Knowledge Acquisition, Modeling and Management, p.17-32, October 02-06, 2000
• 19: K. Portwin and P. Parvatikar. Building and managing a massive triple store: An experience report. In XTech: Building Web 2.0, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2006.
• 20: E. Prud'hommeaux and A. Seaborne. SPARQL query language for RDF, October 2004.
• 21: M. A. Rodriguez. Grammar-based random walkers in semantic networks. http://tinyurl.com/278jtf, 2007.
• 22: G. Rust. Ontologyx. In Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records Workshop Proceedings, Dublin, Ohio, May 2005.
• 23: P. T. Shepherd. Project COUNTER-Setting international standards for online usage statistics. Journal of Information Processing and Management, 47(4):245 -- 257, 2004.
• 24: S. B. Shum, E. Motta, and J. Domingue. Scholonto: an ontology-based digital library server for research documents and discourse. International Journal on Digital Libraries, 3(3):237--248, 2000.
• 25: J. F. Sowa. Principles of Semantic Networks: Explorations in the Representation of Knowledge. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Mateo, CA, 1991.
• 26: S. Staab , J. Angele , S. Decker , M. Erdmann , A. Hotho , A. Maedche , H.-P. Schnurr , R. Studer , Y. Sure, Semantic community Web portals, Proceedings of the 9th international World Wide Web conference on Computer networks : the international journal of computer and telecommunications netowrking, p.473-491, June 2000, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.2 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
      I.2.4 Knowledge Representation Formalisms and Methods
          Subjects: Semantic networks

Additional Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.3 INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL
      H.3.7 Digital Libraries
          Subjects: Standards

General Terms:
Design, Standardization

Keywords:
resource description framework and schema, semantic networks, web ontology language