Pensoft have recently introduced “nanopubs”, small structured publications that can be thought of as containing the minimum possible statement that could be published. Nanopubs are promoted as FAIR, that is findable, accessible, interoperabile, and reusable. I like the idea of nanopubs, but the examples I have seen so far are problematic.
I've created a GitHub repository so that I can keep track of the examples of JSON-LD that I've seen being actively used, for example embedded in web sites, or accessed using an API. The repository is https://github.com/rdmpage/wild-json-ld. The list is by no means exhaustive, I hope to add more examples as I come across them. One reason for doing this is to learn what others are doing.
Following on from previous posts The Semantic Web made fun: d3sparql and The Biodiversity Heritage Library meets Wikidata via Wikispecies: adding author identifiers to BioStor I've put together an example query that can be used to extract a taxonomic classification from Wikidata.
I've been playing with the graph database Neo4J to investigate aspects of the classification of taxa in GBIF's backbone classification. Neo4J is a graph database, and a number of people in biodiversity informatics have been playing with it. Nicky Nicolson at Kew has a nice presentation using graph databases to handle names Building a names backbone, and the Open Tree of Life project use it in their tree machine.
Steve Baskauf has concluded a thoughtful series of blog posts on RDF and biodiversity informatics with http://baskauf.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/confessions-of-rdf-agnostic-part-7.html. In this post he discussed the "Rod Page Challenge", which was a series of grumpy posts I wrote (starting with this one) where I claimed RDF basically sucked, and to illustrate this I issued a challenge for people to do something interesting with some RDF I provided.
Readers of this blog will know that I'm sceptical about the current value of linked data and RDF in biodiversity informatics. But I came across an interesting paper on RDF and biocuration that suggests a good "use case" for RDF in constructing and curating taxonomic databases. The paper is "Catching inconsistencies with the semantic web: a biocuration case study" (PDF here) by Jerven Bolleman and Sebastien Gehant.
Quick final comment on the TDWG Challenge - what is RDF good for?. As I noted in the previous post, Olivier Rovellotti (@orovellotti) and Javier de la Torre (@jatorre) have produced some nice visualisations of the frog data set: Nice as these are, I can't help feeling that they actually help make my point about the current state of RDF in biodiversity informatics.
OK, a bit of hyperbole in the morning. One of the goals of RDF is to create the Semantic Web, an interwoven network of data seamlessly linked by shared identifiers and shared vocabularies. Everyone uses the same identifiers for the same things, and when they describe these things they use the same terms. Simples. Of course, the reality is somewhat different.
Being in an unusually constructive mood, I've spent the last couple of days playing with the TreeBASE II API, in an effort to find out how hard it would be to replace TreeBASE's frankly ghastly interface. After some hair pulling and bad language I've got something to work. It's very crude, but gives a glimpse at what can be done.
One of the potentially powerful features of TreeBASE II is availability of a RDF version of a study. This means that, in principle, one could take the RDF for a TreeBASE study, combine it with RDF from other sources, and generate a richer view of a particular study.