diff --git a/ontologies/sci-doc-rdf.owl b/ontologies/sci-doc-rdf.owl
deleted file mode 100644
index 03e3b0c..0000000
--- a/ontologies/sci-doc-rdf.owl
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,513 +0,0 @@
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-]>
-
-
-
-
- 2014-03-14
- Almudena Ruiz-Iniesta
- Scientific Discourse Ontology
- This ontology establishes the classes for annotating scientific documents according to their scientific discourse elemnts
- 0.1
- This work is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- has part
- A related resource that is included either physically or logically in the described resource.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- is part of
- A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- has relation
- A related resource.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Background
-
-
-
- Liakata et al. 2008, Liakata, M., Teufel, S., Siddharthan, A., & Batchelor, C. R. (2010, May). Corpora for the Conceptualisation and Zoning of Scientific Papers. In LREC.
- Theoterical information about the domain.
-
-According to the annotation scheme proposed by Liakata et. al 2008, generally accepted background knowledge and previous work accepted background knowledge and previous work.
-
-According to [DEO] ontology: Presentation of information that is essential for understanding the situation or problem that is the subject of the publication. In a journal article, the background is usually part of the Introduction, but may be present as separated section.
-
-
- [DEO] Discourse Elements Ontology, http://purl.org/spar/deo
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- CommonGround
-
-
- [Teufel 2010] The Structure of Scientific Articles: Applications to Citation Indexing and Summarization
-Simone Teufel (University of Cambridge)
-
- Knowloedge that is known by everyone in the domain. According to [Teufel 2010] Common Ground is defined as "no knowledge claim raised".
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Conclusion
-
-
- The most important take-home message of the study.
-
-According to [Liakata 2008], conclusions are statements inferred from observations and results, which support or reject a research hypothesis or summarise the findings of an investigation.
- [Liakata 2008] Liakata, M., & Soldatova, L. (2008). Guidelines for the annotation of general scientific concepts. Aberystwyth University, JISC Project Report http://ie-repository.jisc.ac.uk/88.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Contribution
-
-
- Indicates why the work is important.
-
-The Deo ontology [DEO] defines contribution as a description of the part that this publication plays in the overall field.
- [DEO] Discourse Elements Ontology, http://purl.org/spar/deo
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Discussion
-
-
- As stated in Deo [DEO], discussion is an interpretation of the results obtained and an analysis of their significance, in support of conclusions.
- [DEO] Discourse Elements Ontology, http://purl.org/spar/deo
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Experiment
-
- How the study was structured and how it was carried out (experimental setup, metrics and details)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- FutureWork
-
-
- The perspective of the work. Suggestions about how to improve the work (own or general)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Goal
-
- According to [Liakata 2008]: A goal of an investigation is the target state of the investigation where intended discoveries are made, approaches are tested, problems are demonstrated, tasks formulated etc.
- [Liakata 2008] Liakata, M., & Soldatova, L. (2008). Guidelines for the annotation of general scientific concepts. Aberystwyth University, JISC Project Report http://ie-repository.jisc.ac.uk/88.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Hypothesis
-
- A hypothesis is an educated guess about how things work. A hypothesis should be something that you can test.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Limitations
-
- Limitations of the author's work
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Method
-
-
- How the author performed the experiment. Technique/s used to achieve the goal/s.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The stimulus for achieving the goal of the investigation, the reason to carry out the investigation [Liakata 2008]
- [Liakata 2008] Liakata, M., & Soldatova, L. (2008). Guidelines for the annotation of general scientific concepts. Aberystwyth University, JISC Project Report http://ie-repository.jisc.ac.uk/88.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- ProblemStatement
-
-
- States a specific research question.
-Deo ontology [DEO] defines this class as a concise description of the issues that needed to be addressed by a work described in the document.
-
-
- [DEO] Discourse Elements Ontology, http://purl.org/spar/deo
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- RelatedWork
-
-
- Work done by others in the same domain, this includes also the related work of the author's own work.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Result
-
-
- Data collected during experimentation.
-
-According to Deo ontology definition[DEO] : The report of the specific findings of an investigation, given without discussion or conclusion being drawn.
- [DEO] Discourse Elements Ontology, http://purl.org/spar/deo
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Classes related to the scientific discourse elements
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- discourse element
-
- An element of a document that carries out a rhetorical function.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- future work
-
- A proposal for new investigation to be undertaken in order to continue and advance the work described in the publication.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- methods
-
- A description in a research paper documenting the specialized methods used in the work described. This description is often combined with a description of the materials used, in a section entitled 'Methods and Materials', 'Experimental' or a related term.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- model
-
- A description of a model used or produced by the work described in the publication.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- problem statement
-
- A concise description of the issues that needed to be addressed by a work described in the document.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- related work
-
- The authors' critical review of current knowledge by specific reference to others' work, both in terms of substantive findings and theoretical and methodological contributions to a particular topic. This description is often included within the introduction section.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- results
-
- The report of the specific findings of an investigation, given without discussion or conclusion being drawn.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- background
-
- Presentation of information that is essential for understanding the situation or problem that is the subject of the publication. In a journal article, the background is usually part of the Introduction, but may be present as separated section.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- conclusion
-
- A reflection on the preceding text, summarizing the evidence, arguments or premises presented in the document and their logical outcomes. Conclusions are a fundamental feature in academic research publications, and may be included in the Discussion section.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- contribution
-
- A description of the part that this publication plays in the overall field.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- discussion
-
- An interpretation and discussion of the results obtained and an analysis of their significance, in support of conclusions. These conclusions may be part of this discussion or may be included in a separate section of the document.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- motivation
-
- A description of the justification for undertaking the work described in the publication.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
diff --git a/ontologies/sci-doc-v02-rdf.owl b/ontologies/sci-doc-v02-rdf.owl
deleted file mode 100644
index 94b4380..0000000
--- a/ontologies/sci-doc-v02-rdf.owl
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,1560 +0,0 @@
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-]>
-
-
-
-
- Almudena Ruiz-Iniesta
- This work is licensed under a http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
- 0.1
- This ontology establishes the classes to annotate scientific documents according to their scientific discourse elements.
-It imports the next ontologies: DEO and CiTO
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- This annotation property is used for exemplifying possible requirements the content pattern provides a solution for. Requirements are expressed as natural language competency questions.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- This annotation property should be assigned with a URI, which points to the possible reference ontology which the annotated pattern was extracted from (i.e. the reference ontology that the ontology elements have been deeply or partially cloned by). The range is not explicit in the definition of the annotation property because it would turn the ontology to OWL Full. E.g. The participation pattern is extracted from the Dolce Ultra Lite ontology, hence the value for this annotation property is http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- This annotation property is useful for content ontology design patterns. Its value is a URI, which refers to another content ontology design pattern which is a component of the annotated one.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- This annotation property is used for briefly describing the benefits and/or possible trade-offs when using the CP.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- This annotation property is used in order to describe the intent of the content pattern.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- This property can be used to annotate a unit test (e.g. in the form of a SPARQL query) to be launched to evaluate an ontology against a requirement-based task.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- This annotation property is used for referring a cloned ontology entity to its cloning source.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- This annotation property is useful for content ontology design patterns and its elements. Its value is a URI, which refers either to a content ontology design pattern that is specialized by the annotated one, or to an ontology element that is specialized by the annotated one.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- This annotation property should be assigned with a URI, which points to the concept schema, page, or anything else from which the annotated pattern was reengineered. If the source does not have any URI e.g., a printed book, this property value should provide information as precise as possible in order to identify the source. This property is alternative to the extractedFrom property because it is used when the pattern come from a concept schema which is not an owl ontology. For example content ontology design patterns, which are reengineered from data model patterns, rdf schemas, etc. should be annotatd with this property. E.g. The basicpersonalfoaf pattern is extracted from the rdf FOAF specification, hence the value for this annotation property is http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/20071002.rdf
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- This annotation property can be used to indicate other CPs (if any) that specialize, generalize, inlcude, or are components of the CP. Furthermore, this field may indicate other CPs that are typically used in conjunction with the described one. Important similarities and differences with other patterns can be also described here.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- This annotation property is used for describing examples of instantiation of the Content OP. For example, for the part-of Content OP (which represents part-whole relations) a possible scenario is the sentence: "the brain is part of the human body". Scenarios are expressed as natural language sentences.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- has part
- A related resource that is included either physically or logically in the described resource.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- is part of
- A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- has relation
- A related resource.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- agrees with
- The citing entity agrees with statements, ideas or conclusions presented in the cited entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- cites
- A statement that the citing entity cites the cited entity, either directly and explicitly (as in the reference list of a journal article), indirectly (e.g. by citing a more recent paper by the same group on the same topic), or implicitly (e.g. as in artistic quotations or parodies, or in cases of plagiarism).
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- cites as authority
- The citing entity cites the cited entity as one that provides an authoritative description or definition of the subject under discussion.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- cites as data source
- The citing entity cites the cited entity as source of data.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- cites as evidence
- The citing entity cites the cited entity as source of factual evidence for statements it contains.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- cites as metadata document
- The citing entity cites the cited entity as being the container of metadata describing the citing entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- cites as potential solution
- The citing entity cites the cited entity as providing or containing a possible solution to the issues being discussed.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- cites as recommended reading
- The citing entity cites the cited entity as an item of recommended reading. This property can be used, for example, to describe references in a lecture reading list, where the cited references are relevant to the general topic of the lecture, but might not be individually cited within the text of the lecture. Similarly, it could be used to describe items in a 'Suggested further reading' list at the end of a book chapter.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- cites as related
- The citing entity cites the cited entity as one that is related.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- cites as source document
- The citing entity cites the cited entity as being the entity from which the citing entity is derived, or about which the citing entity contains metadata.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- cites for information
- The citing entity cites the cited entity as a source of information on the subject under discussion.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- compiles
- Note: This property has been imported from the CiTO4Data ontology, usage of which has been deprecated.
- The citing entity is used to create or compile the cited entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- confirms
- The citing entity confirms facts, ideas or statements presented in the cited entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- contains assertion from
- The citing entity contains a statement of fact or a logical assertion (or a collection of such facts and/or assertions) originally present in the cited entity. This object property is designed to be used to relate a separate abstract, summary or nanopublication to the cited entity upon which it is based.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- corrects
- The citing entity corrects statements, ideas or conclusions presented in the cited entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- credits
- The citing entity acknowledges contributions made by the cited entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- critiques
- The citing entity critiques statements, ideas or conclusions presented in the cited entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- derides
- The citing entity express contempt for the cited entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- describes
- The citing entity describes the cited entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- disagrees with
- The citing entity disagrees with statements, ideas or conclusions presented in the cited entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- discusses
- The citing entity discusses statements, ideas or conclusions presented in the cited entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- disputes
- The citing entity disputes statements, ideas or conclusions presented in the cited entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- documents
- The citing entity documents information about the cited entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- extends
- The citing entity extends facts, ideas or understandings presented in the cited entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- gives background to
- The cited entity provides background information for the citing entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- gives support to
- The cited entity provides intellectual or factual support for the citing entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- has reply
- The cited entity evokes a reply from the citing entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- includes excerpt from
- An excerpt is more general than a quotation. It is generally used to indicate a re-published extract from a book, instruction manual, film, radio programme, etc, that need not be what someone said. For example:
-
-Oxford 01865
-Oxshott 01372
-Oxted 01883
-Oxton 01578
-
-is an excerpt from the UK Dialling Codes section of the Oxford Telephone Directory.
- The citing entity includes one or more excerpts from the cited entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- includes quotation from
- A quotation is a repetition of what someone has said, and is presented "within quotation marks", for example:
-
-On June 4th 1940, Winston Churchill made a speech on the radio that has since become famous, that included the words: " . . . we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender . . ."
- The citing entity includes one or more quotations from the cited entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- is agreed with by
- The cited entity contains statements, ideas or conclusions with which the citing entity agrees.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- is cited as authority by
- The cited entity is cited as providing an authoritative description or definition of the subject under discussion in the citing entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- is cited as data source by
- The cited entity is cited as a data source by the citing entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- is cited as evidence by
- The cited entity is cited for providing factual evidence to the citing entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- is cited as metadata document by
- The cited entity is cited as being the container of metadata relating to the citing entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- is cited as potential solution by
- The cited entity is cited as providing or containing a possible solution to the issues being discussed in the citing entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- is cited as recommended reading
- The cited entity is cited by the citing entity as an item of recommended reading. This property can be used, for example, to describe references in a lecture reading list, where the cited references are relevant to the general topic of the lecture, but might not be individually cited within the text of the lecture. Similarly, it could be used to describe items in a 'Suggested further reading' list at the end of a book chapter.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- is cited as related by
- The cited entity is cited as being related to the citing entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- is cited as source document by
- The cited entity is cited as being the entity from which the citing entity is derived, or about which the citing entity contains metadata.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- is cited by
- A statement of fact that the cited entity (the subject of the triple) is cited by the citing entity (the object of the triple).
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- is cited for information by
- The cited entity is cited as a source of information on the subject under discussion in the citing entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- is compiled by
- Note: This property has been imported from the CiTO4Data ontology, usage of which has been deprecated.
- The cited entity is created or compiled by using the citing entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- is confirmed by
- The cited entity presents facts, ideas or statements that are confirmed by the citing entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- is corrected by
- The cited entity presents statements, ideas or conclusions that are corrected by the citing entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- is credited by
- The cited entity makes contributions that are acknowledged by the citing entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- is critiqued by
- The cited entity presents statements, ideas or conclusions that are critiqued by the citing entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- is derided by
- The cited entity contains ideas or conclusions with which the citing express contempt for.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- is described by
- The cited entity is described by the citing entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- is disagreed with by
- The cited entity presents statements, ideas or conclusions that are disagreed with by the citing entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- is discussed by
- The cited entity presents statements, ideas or conclusions that are discussed by the citing entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- is disputed by
- The cited entity presents statements, ideas or conclusions that are disputed by the citing entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- is documented by
- Information about the cited entity is documented by the citing entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- is extended by
- The cited entity presents facts, ideas or understandings that are extended by the citing entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- is parodied by
- The characteristic style or content of the cited entity is imitated by the citing entity for comic effect, usually without explicit citation.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- is plagiarized by
- The cited entity is plagiarized by the author of the citing entity, who includes within the citing entity textual or other elements from the cited entity without formal acknowledgement of their source. The cited entity is thus not explicitly cited from within the citing entity, according to the norms of scholarly practice, but is cited implicitly.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- is qualified by
- The cited entity presents statements, ideas or conclusions that are qualified or have conditions placed upon them by the citing entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- is refuted by
- The cited entity presents statements, ideas or conclusions that are refuted by the citing entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- is retracted by
- The cited entity is formally retracted by the citing entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- is reviewed by
- The cited entity presents statements, ideas or conclusions that are reviewed by the citing entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- is ridiculed by
- The cited entity or aspects of its contents are ridiculed by the citing entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- is speculated on by
- The cited entity is cited because the citing article contains speculations on its content or ideas.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- is supported by
- The cited entity receives intellectual or factual support from the citing entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- is updated by
- The cited entity presents statements, ideas, hypotheses or understanding that are updated by the cited entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- likes
- A property that permits you to express appreciation of or interest in something, or to express that it is worth thinking about even if you do not agree with its content, enabling social media 'likes' statements to be encoded in RDF. Use of this property does NOT imply the existence of a formal citation of the entity that is 'liked'.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- obtains background from
- The citing entity obtains background information from the cited entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- obtains support from
- The citing entity obtains intellectual or factual support from the cited entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- parodies
- The citing entity imitates the characteristic style or content of the cited entity for comic effect, usually without explicit citation.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- plagiarizes
- The author of the citing entity plagiarizes the cited entity, by including textual or other elements from the cited entity without formal acknowledgement of their source. The citing entity thus contains no explicit citation of the cited entity, according to the norms of scholarly practice, but cites it implicitly.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- provides assertion for
- The cited entity contains and is the original source of a statement of fact or a logical assertion (or a collection of such facts and/or assertions) that is to be found in the citing entity. This inverse object property is designed to be used to relate a cited entity to a separate abstract, summary or nanopublication based upon it.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- provides conclusions for
- The cited entity presents conclusions that are used in work described in the citing entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- provides data for
- The cited entity presents data that are used in work described in the citing entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- provides excerpt for
- The cited entity contains information that is excerpted by (used as an excerpt within) the citing entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- provides method for
- The cited entity details a method that is used in work described by the citing entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- provides quotation for
- The cited entity contains information that is quoted by (used as a quotation within) the citing entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- qualifies
- The citing entity qualifies or places conditions or restrictions upon statements, ideas or conclusions presented in the cited entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- refutes
- The citing entity refutes statements, ideas or conclusions presented in the cited entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- replies to
- The citing entity replies to statements, ideas or criticisms presented in the cited entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- retracts
- The citing entity constitutes a formal retraction of the cited entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- reviews
- The citing entity reviews statements, ideas or conclusions presented in the cited entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- ridicules
- The citing entity ridicules the cited entity or aspects of its contents.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- shares authors with
- The citing entity has at least one author in common with the cited entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- speculates on
- The citing entity speculates on something within the cited entity, without firm evidence.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- supports
- The citing entity provides intellectual or factual support for statements, ideas or conclusions presented in the cited entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- updates
- The citing entity updates statements, ideas, hypotheses or understanding presented in the cited entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- uses conclusions from
- The citing entity describes work that uses conclusions presented in the cited entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- uses data from
- The citing entity describes work that uses data presented in the cited entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- uses method in
- The citing entity describes work that uses a method detailed in the cited entity.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- has setting
- A relation between entities and situations, e.g. 'this morning I've prepared my coffee with a new fantastic Arabica' (i.e.: (an amount of) a new fantastic Arabica hasSetting the preparation of my coffee this morning).
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- is setting for
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Background
-
-
- Liakata et al. 2008, Liakata, M., Teufel, S., Siddharthan, A., & Batchelor, C. R. (2010, May). Corpora for the Conceptualisation and Zoning of Scientific Papers. In LREC.
- Theoterical information about the domain.
-
-According to the annotation scheme proposed by Liakata et. al 2008, generally accepted background knowledge and previous work accepted background knowledge and previous work.
-
-According to [DEO] ontology: Presentation of information that is essential for understanding the situation or problem that is the subject of the publication. In a journal article, the background is usually part of the Introduction, but may be present as separated section.
-
-
- [DEO] Discourse Elements Ontology, http://purl.org/spar/deo
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- CommonGround
-
-
- [Teufel 2010] The Structure of Scientific Articles: Applications to Citation Indexing and Summarization
-Simone Teufel (University of Cambridge)
-
- Knowloedge that is known by everyone in the domain. According to [Teufel 2010] Common Ground is defined as "no knowledge claim raised".
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Conclusion
-
- The most important take-home message of the study.
-
-According to [Liakata 2008], conclusions are statements inferred from observations and results, which support or reject a research hypothesis or summarise the findings of an investigation.
- [Liakata 2008] Liakata, M., & Soldatova, L. (2008). Guidelines for the annotation of general scientific concepts. Aberystwyth University, JISC Project Report http://ie-repository.jisc.ac.uk/88.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Contribution
-
- Indicates why the work is important.
-
-The Deo ontology [DEO] defines contribution as a description of the part that this publication plays in the overall field.
- [DEO] Discourse Elements Ontology, http://purl.org/spar/deo
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Discussion
-
- As stated in Deo [DEO], discussion is an interpretation of the results obtained and an analysis of their significance, in support of conclusions.
- [DEO] Discourse Elements Ontology, http://purl.org/spar/deo
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Experiment
-
- How the study was structured and how it was carried out (experimental setup, metrics and details)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- FutureWork
-
- The perspective of the work. Suggestions about how to improve the work (own or general)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Goal
-
- According to [Liakata 2008]: A goal of an investigation is the target state of the investigation where intended discoveries are made, approaches are tested, problems are demonstrated, tasks formulated etc.
- [Liakata 2008] Liakata, M., & Soldatova, L. (2008). Guidelines for the annotation of general scientific concepts. Aberystwyth University, JISC Project Report http://ie-repository.jisc.ac.uk/88.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Hypothesis
-
- A hypothesis is an educated guess about how things work. A hypothesis should be something that you can test.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Limitations
-
- Limitations of the author's work
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Method
-
- How the author performed the experiment. Technique/s used to achieve the goal/s.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Model
-
- A statement about a theoretical model or framework
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The stimulus for achieving the goal of the investigation, the reason to carry out the investigation [Liakata 2008]
- [Liakata 2008] Liakata, M., & Soldatova, L. (2008). Guidelines for the annotation of general scientific concepts. Aberystwyth University, JISC Project Report http://ie-repository.jisc.ac.uk/88.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Observation
-
- The data/phenomena recorded within an investigation
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- ProblemStatement
-
- States a specific research question.
-Deo ontology [DEO] defines this class as a concise description of the issues that needed to be addressed by a work described in the document.
-
-
- [DEO] Discourse Elements Ontology, http://purl.org/spar/deo
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- RelatedWork
-
- Work done by others in the same domain, this includes also the related work of the author's own work.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Result
-
- Data collected during experimentation.
-
-According to Deo ontology definition[DEO] : The report of the specific findings of an investigation, given without discussion or conclusion being drawn.
- [DEO] Discourse Elements Ontology, http://purl.org/spar/deo
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Classes related to the scientific discourse elements
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- citation act
- A citation act is a particular situation in which an entity cites another entity for some reasons.
-
-This class is particularly useful to reify a citation statement built through any CiTO property. For instance, the following statement
-
-:paper1 cito:extends :paper2
-
-can be alternatively described as
-
-[] a cito:CitationAct ;
-cito:hasCitingEntity :paper1 ;
-cito:hasCitationEvent cito:extends ;
-cito:hasCitedEntity :paper2 .
-
-These reification can be very useful to combine CiTO properties with other vocabularies or to handle scenario in which none of the citations described in CiTO can be applied.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Situation
-
-
-
- 1
-
-
- A view on a set of entities. It can be seen as a 'relational context', reifying a relation.
-For example, a PlanExecution is a context including some actions executed by agents according to certain parameters and expected tasks to be achieved from a Plan; a DiagnosedSituation is a context of observed entities that is interpreted on the basis of a Diagnosis, etc.
-Situation is also able to represent reified n-ary relations, where isSettingFor is the top-level relation for all binary projections of the n-ary relation. If used in a transformation pattern for n-ary relations, the designer should take care of:
-- creating only one situation for each instance of an n-ary relation, otherwise the 'identification constraint' (Calvanese et al., IJCAI 2001) could be violated
-- adding an 'exact cardinality' restriction corresponding to the arity of the n-ary relation, otherwise the designer would actually represent a polymorphic relation.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
diff --git a/ontologies/sci-doc.owl b/ontologies/sci-doc.owl
index 66bf8bd..9fe4213 100644
--- a/ontologies/sci-doc.owl
+++ b/ontologies/sci-doc.owl
@@ -1,733 +1,1626 @@
-
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
+
]>
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- http://purl.org/spar/deo
-
-
- This ontology establishes the classes for annotating scientific documents according to their scientific discourse elemnts
-
-
-
- 2014-03-14
-
-
-
- Scientific Discourse Ontology
-
-
-
- 0.1
-
-
-
- Almudena Ruiz-Iniesta
-
-
-
- This work is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- http://purl.org/dc/terms/hasPart
- A related resource that is included either physically or logically in the described resource.
-
-
-
- http://purl.org/dc/terms/hasPart
- has part
-
-
-
- http://purl.org/dc/terms/isPartOf
- A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
-
-
-
- http://purl.org/dc/terms/isPartOf
- is part of
-
-
-
- http://purl.org/dc/terms/relation
- A related resource.
-
-
-
- http://purl.org/dc/terms/relation
- has relation
-
-
-
- #Background
- Theoterical information about the domain.
+ xmlns:situation="http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/cp/owl/situation.owl#"
+ xmlns:sci-doc="http://purl.org/drinventor/sci-doc#"
+ xmlns:deo="http://purl.org/spar/deo#">
+
+ Almudena Ruiz-Iniesta
+ Oscar Corcho
+ This ontology establishes the classes to annotate scientific documents according to their scientific discourse elements, and to describe citations and their purpose. It imports the ontology DEO and CiTO, and extends CiTO with some additional properties to encode a simpler way of expressing citation purposes.
+ This work is licensed under a http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
+ 0.2
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ This annotation property is used for exemplifying possible requirements the content pattern provides a solution for. Requirements are expressed as natural language competency questions.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ This annotation property should be assigned with a URI, which points to the possible reference ontology which the annotated pattern was extracted from (i.e. the reference ontology that the ontology elements have been deeply or partially cloned by). The range is not explicit in the definition of the annotation property because it would turn the ontology to OWL Full. E.g. The participation pattern is extracted from the Dolce Ultra Lite ontology, hence the value for this annotation property is http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ This annotation property is useful for content ontology design patterns. Its value is a URI, which refers to another content ontology design pattern which is a component of the annotated one.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ This annotation property is used for briefly describing the benefits and/or possible trade-offs when using the CP.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ This annotation property is used in order to describe the intent of the content pattern.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ This property can be used to annotate a unit test (e.g. in the form of a SPARQL query) to be launched to evaluate an ontology against a requirement-based task.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ This annotation property is used for referring a cloned ontology entity to its cloning source.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ This annotation property is useful for content ontology design patterns and its elements. Its value is a URI, which refers either to a content ontology design pattern that is specialized by the annotated one, or to an ontology element that is specialized by the annotated one.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ This annotation property should be assigned with a URI, which points to the concept schema, page, or anything else from which the annotated pattern was reengineered. If the source does not have any URI e.g., a printed book, this property value should provide information as precise as possible in order to identify the source. This property is alternative to the extractedFrom property because it is used when the pattern come from a concept schema which is not an owl ontology. For example content ontology design patterns, which are reengineered from data model patterns, rdf schemas, etc. should be annotatd with this property. E.g. The basicpersonalfoaf pattern is extracted from the rdf FOAF specification, hence the value for this annotation property is http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/20071002.rdf
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ This annotation property can be used to indicate other CPs (if any) that specialize, generalize, inlcude, or are components of the CP. Furthermore, this field may indicate other CPs that are typically used in conjunction with the described one. Important similarities and differences with other patterns can be also described here.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ This annotation property is used for describing examples of instantiation of the Content OP. For example, for the part-of Content OP (which represents part-whole relations) a possible scenario is the sentence: "the brain is part of the human body". Scenarios are expressed as natural language sentences.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ has part
+ A related resource that is included either physically or logically in the described resource.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ is part of
+ A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ has relation
+ A related resource.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ bases
+ A citing sentence is classified as BASIS when the author uses the cited work as starting point or motivation and extends on the cited work.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ compares with
+ A citing sentence is classified as COMPARISON when it compares or contrasts the work in the cited paper with the author’s work. It overlaps with the first category when the citing sentence says one approach is not as good as the other approach. In this case we use the first category.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ criticizes
+ The citing work criticizes a cited work. Criticism can be positive or negative. A citing sentence is classified as CRITICISM when it mentions the weakness/strengths of the cited approach, negatively or positively criticizes the cited approach, neg/positively evaluates the cited source.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ A citing sentence is classified as NEUTRAL when it doesn’t come under any of the above categories.
+ neutral with respect to
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ substantiates
+ A citing sentence is classified as SUBSTANTIATION when the cited paper and the citing paper support each other.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ uses
+ A citing sentence is classified as USE when the citing paper uses the method, data, tool or other (idea, for example) of the cited paper.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ agrees with
+ The citing entity agrees with statements, ideas or conclusions presented in the cited entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ cites
+ A statement that the citing entity cites the cited entity, either directly and explicitly (as in the reference list of a journal article), indirectly (e.g. by citing a more recent paper by the same group on the same topic), or implicitly (e.g. as in artistic quotations or parodies, or in cases of plagiarism).
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ cites as authority
+ The citing entity cites the cited entity as one that provides an authoritative description or definition of the subject under discussion.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ cites as data source
+ The citing entity cites the cited entity as source of data.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ cites as evidence
+ The citing entity cites the cited entity as source of factual evidence for statements it contains.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ cites as metadata document
+ The citing entity cites the cited entity as being the container of metadata describing the citing entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ cites as potential solution
+ The citing entity cites the cited entity as providing or containing a possible solution to the issues being discussed.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ cites as recommended reading
+ The citing entity cites the cited entity as an item of recommended reading. This property can be used, for example, to describe references in a lecture reading list, where the cited references are relevant to the general topic of the lecture, but might not be individually cited within the text of the lecture. Similarly, it could be used to describe items in a 'Suggested further reading' list at the end of a book chapter.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ cites as related
+ The citing entity cites the cited entity as one that is related.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ cites as source document
+ The citing entity cites the cited entity as being the entity from which the citing entity is derived, or about which the citing entity contains metadata.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ cites for information
+ The citing entity cites the cited entity as a source of information on the subject under discussion.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ compiles
+ Note: This property has been imported from the CiTO4Data ontology, usage of which has been deprecated.
+ The citing entity is used to create or compile the cited entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ confirms
+ The citing entity confirms facts, ideas or statements presented in the cited entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ contains assertion from
+ The citing entity contains a statement of fact or a logical assertion (or a collection of such facts and/or assertions) originally present in the cited entity. This object property is designed to be used to relate a separate abstract, summary or nanopublication to the cited entity upon which it is based.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ corrects
+ The citing entity corrects statements, ideas or conclusions presented in the cited entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ credits
+ The citing entity acknowledges contributions made by the cited entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ critiques
+ The citing entity critiques statements, ideas or conclusions presented in the cited entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ derides
+ The citing entity express contempt for the cited entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ describes
+ The citing entity describes the cited entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ disagrees with
+ The citing entity disagrees with statements, ideas or conclusions presented in the cited entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ discusses
+ The citing entity discusses statements, ideas or conclusions presented in the cited entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ disputes
+ The citing entity disputes statements, ideas or conclusions presented in the cited entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ documents
+ The citing entity documents information about the cited entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ extends
+ The citing entity extends facts, ideas or understandings presented in the cited entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ gives background to
+ The cited entity provides background information for the citing entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ gives support to
+ The cited entity provides intellectual or factual support for the citing entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ has reply
+ The cited entity evokes a reply from the citing entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ includes excerpt from
+ An excerpt is more general than a quotation. It is generally used to indicate a re-published extract from a book, instruction manual, film, radio programme, etc, that need not be what someone said. For example:
+
+Oxford 01865
+Oxshott 01372
+Oxted 01883
+Oxton 01578
+
+is an excerpt from the UK Dialling Codes section of the Oxford Telephone Directory.
+ The citing entity includes one or more excerpts from the cited entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ includes quotation from
+ A quotation is a repetition of what someone has said, and is presented "within quotation marks", for example:
+
+On June 4th 1940, Winston Churchill made a speech on the radio that has since become famous, that included the words: " . . . we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender . . ."
+ The citing entity includes one or more quotations from the cited entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ is agreed with by
+ The cited entity contains statements, ideas or conclusions with which the citing entity agrees.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ is cited as authority by
+ The cited entity is cited as providing an authoritative description or definition of the subject under discussion in the citing entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ is cited as data source by
+ The cited entity is cited as a data source by the citing entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ is cited as evidence by
+ The cited entity is cited for providing factual evidence to the citing entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ is cited as metadata document by
+ The cited entity is cited as being the container of metadata relating to the citing entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ is cited as potential solution by
+ The cited entity is cited as providing or containing a possible solution to the issues being discussed in the citing entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ is cited as recommended reading
+ The cited entity is cited by the citing entity as an item of recommended reading. This property can be used, for example, to describe references in a lecture reading list, where the cited references are relevant to the general topic of the lecture, but might not be individually cited within the text of the lecture. Similarly, it could be used to describe items in a 'Suggested further reading' list at the end of a book chapter.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ is cited as related by
+ The cited entity is cited as being related to the citing entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ is cited as source document by
+ The cited entity is cited as being the entity from which the citing entity is derived, or about which the citing entity contains metadata.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ is cited by
+ A statement of fact that the cited entity (the subject of the triple) is cited by the citing entity (the object of the triple).
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ is cited for information by
+ The cited entity is cited as a source of information on the subject under discussion in the citing entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ is compiled by
+ Note: This property has been imported from the CiTO4Data ontology, usage of which has been deprecated.
+ The cited entity is created or compiled by using the citing entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ is confirmed by
+ The cited entity presents facts, ideas or statements that are confirmed by the citing entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ is corrected by
+ The cited entity presents statements, ideas or conclusions that are corrected by the citing entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ is credited by
+ The cited entity makes contributions that are acknowledged by the citing entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ is critiqued by
+ The cited entity presents statements, ideas or conclusions that are critiqued by the citing entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ is derided by
+ The cited entity contains ideas or conclusions with which the citing express contempt for.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ is described by
+ The cited entity is described by the citing entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ is disagreed with by
+ The cited entity presents statements, ideas or conclusions that are disagreed with by the citing entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ is discussed by
+ The cited entity presents statements, ideas or conclusions that are discussed by the citing entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ is disputed by
+ The cited entity presents statements, ideas or conclusions that are disputed by the citing entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ is documented by
+ Information about the cited entity is documented by the citing entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ is extended by
+ The cited entity presents facts, ideas or understandings that are extended by the citing entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ is parodied by
+ The characteristic style or content of the cited entity is imitated by the citing entity for comic effect, usually without explicit citation.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ is plagiarized by
+ The cited entity is plagiarized by the author of the citing entity, who includes within the citing entity textual or other elements from the cited entity without formal acknowledgement of their source. The cited entity is thus not explicitly cited from within the citing entity, according to the norms of scholarly practice, but is cited implicitly.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ is qualified by
+ The cited entity presents statements, ideas or conclusions that are qualified or have conditions placed upon them by the citing entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ is refuted by
+ The cited entity presents statements, ideas or conclusions that are refuted by the citing entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ is retracted by
+ The cited entity is formally retracted by the citing entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ is reviewed by
+ The cited entity presents statements, ideas or conclusions that are reviewed by the citing entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ is ridiculed by
+ The cited entity or aspects of its contents are ridiculed by the citing entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ is speculated on by
+ The cited entity is cited because the citing article contains speculations on its content or ideas.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ is supported by
+ The cited entity receives intellectual or factual support from the citing entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ is updated by
+ The cited entity presents statements, ideas, hypotheses or understanding that are updated by the cited entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ likes
+ A property that permits you to express appreciation of or interest in something, or to express that it is worth thinking about even if you do not agree with its content, enabling social media 'likes' statements to be encoded in RDF. Use of this property does NOT imply the existence of a formal citation of the entity that is 'liked'.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ obtains background from
+ The citing entity obtains background information from the cited entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ obtains support from
+ The citing entity obtains intellectual or factual support from the cited entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ parodies
+ The citing entity imitates the characteristic style or content of the cited entity for comic effect, usually without explicit citation.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ plagiarizes
+ The author of the citing entity plagiarizes the cited entity, by including textual or other elements from the cited entity without formal acknowledgement of their source. The citing entity thus contains no explicit citation of the cited entity, according to the norms of scholarly practice, but cites it implicitly.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ provides assertion for
+ The cited entity contains and is the original source of a statement of fact or a logical assertion (or a collection of such facts and/or assertions) that is to be found in the citing entity. This inverse object property is designed to be used to relate a cited entity to a separate abstract, summary or nanopublication based upon it.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ provides conclusions for
+ The cited entity presents conclusions that are used in work described in the citing entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ provides data for
+ The cited entity presents data that are used in work described in the citing entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ provides excerpt for
+ The cited entity contains information that is excerpted by (used as an excerpt within) the citing entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ provides method for
+ The cited entity details a method that is used in work described by the citing entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ provides quotation for
+ The cited entity contains information that is quoted by (used as a quotation within) the citing entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ qualifies
+ The citing entity qualifies or places conditions or restrictions upon statements, ideas or conclusions presented in the cited entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ refutes
+ The citing entity refutes statements, ideas or conclusions presented in the cited entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ replies to
+ The citing entity replies to statements, ideas or criticisms presented in the cited entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ retracts
+ The citing entity constitutes a formal retraction of the cited entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ reviews
+ The citing entity reviews statements, ideas or conclusions presented in the cited entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ ridicules
+ The citing entity ridicules the cited entity or aspects of its contents.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ shares authors with
+ The citing entity has at least one author in common with the cited entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ speculates on
+ The citing entity speculates on something within the cited entity, without firm evidence.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ supports
+ The citing entity provides intellectual or factual support for statements, ideas or conclusions presented in the cited entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ updates
+ The citing entity updates statements, ideas, hypotheses or understanding presented in the cited entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ uses conclusions from
+ The citing entity describes work that uses conclusions presented in the cited entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ uses data from
+ The citing entity describes work that uses data presented in the cited entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ uses method in
+ The citing entity describes work that uses a method detailed in the cited entity.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ has setting
+ A relation between entities and situations, e.g. 'this morning I've prepared my coffee with a new fantastic Arabica' (i.e.: (an amount of) a new fantastic Arabica hasSetting the preparation of my coffee this morning).
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ is setting for
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Background
+
+
+ Liakata et al. 2008, Liakata, M., Teufel, S., Siddharthan, A., & Batchelor, C. R. (2010, May). Corpora for the Conceptualisation and Zoning of Scientific Papers. In LREC.
+ Theoterical information about the domain.
According to the annotation scheme proposed by Liakata et. al 2008, generally accepted background knowledge and previous work accepted background knowledge and previous work.
According to [DEO] ontology: Presentation of information that is essential for understanding the situation or problem that is the subject of the publication. In a journal article, the background is usually part of the Introduction, but may be present as separated section.
-
-
-
-
- #Background
- Background
-
-
-
- #Background
- Liakata et al. 2008, Liakata, M., Teufel, S., Siddharthan, A., & Batchelor, C. R. (2010, May). Corpora for the Conceptualisation and Zoning of Scientific Papers. In LREC.
-
-
-
- #Background
- [DEO] Discourse Elements Ontology, http://purl.org/spar/deo
-
-
-
- #CommonGround
- Knowloedge that is known by everyone in the domain. According to [Teufel 2010] Common Ground is defined as "no knowledge claim raised".
-
-
-
- #CommonGround
- CommonGround
-
-
-
- #CommonGround
- [Teufel 2010] The Structure of Scientific Articles: Applications to Citation Indexing and Summarization
+
+ [DEO] Discourse Elements Ontology, http://purl.org/spar/deo
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ CommonGround
+
+
+ [Teufel 2010] The Structure of Scientific Articles: Applications to Citation Indexing and Summarization
Simone Teufel (University of Cambridge)
-
-
-
-
- #Conclusion
- The most important take-home message of the study.
-
-According to [Liakata 2008], conclusions are statements inferred from observations and results, which support or reject a research hypothesis or summarise the findings of an investigation.
-
-
-
- #Conclusion
- Conclusion
-
-
-
- #Conclusion
- [Liakata 2008] Liakata, M., & Soldatova, L. (2008). Guidelines for the annotation of general scientific concepts. Aberystwyth University, JISC Project Report http://ie-repository.jisc.ac.uk/88.
-
-
-
- #Contribution
- Indicates why the work is important.
-
-The Deo ontology [DEO] defines contribution as a description of the part that this publication plays in the overall field.
-
-
-
- #Contribution
- Contribution
-
-
-
- #Contribution
- [DEO] Discourse Elements Ontology, http://purl.org/spar/deo
-
-
-
- #Discussion
- As stated in Deo [DEO], discussion is an interpretation of the results obtained and an analysis of their significance, in support of conclusions.
-
-
-
- #Discussion
- Discussion
-
-
-
- #Discussion
- [DEO] Discourse Elements Ontology, http://purl.org/spar/deo
-
-
-
- #Experiment
- How the study was structured and how it was carried out (experimental setup, metrics and details)
-
-
-
- #Experiment
- Experiment
-
-
-
- #FutureWork
- The perspective of the work. Suggestions about how to improve the work (own or general)
-
-
-
- #FutureWork
- FutureWork
-
-
-
- #Goal
- According to [Liakata 2008]: A goal of an investigation is the target state of the investigation where intended discoveries are made, approaches are tested, problems are demonstrated, tasks formulated etc.
-
-
-
- #Goal
- Goal
-
-
-
- #Goal
- [Liakata 2008] Liakata, M., & Soldatova, L. (2008). Guidelines for the annotation of general scientific concepts. Aberystwyth University, JISC Project Report http://ie-repository.jisc.ac.uk/88.
-
-
-
- #Hypothesis
- A hypothesis is an educated guess about how things work. A hypothesis should be something that you can test.
-
-
-
- #Hypothesis
- Hypothesis
-
-
-
- #Limitations
- Limitations of the author's work
-
-
-
-
- #Limitations
- Limitations
-
-
-
- #Method
- How the author performed the experiment. Technique/s used to achieve the goal/s.
-
-
-
- #Method
- Method
-
-
-
- #Motivation
- The stimulus for achieving the goal of the investigation, the reason to carry out the investigation [Liakata 2008]
-
-
-
- #Motivation
- [Liakata 2008] Liakata, M., & Soldatova, L. (2008). Guidelines for the annotation of general scientific concepts. Aberystwyth University, JISC Project Report http://ie-repository.jisc.ac.uk/88.
-
-
-
- #ProblemStatement
- States a specific research question.
+
+ Knowloedge that is known by everyone in the domain. According to [Teufel 2010] Common Ground is defined as "no knowledge claim raised".
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Conclusion
+
+ The most important take-home message of the study.
+
+According to [Liakata 2008], conclusions are statements inferred from observations and results, which support or reject a research hypothesis or summarise the findings of an investigation.
+ [Liakata 2008] Liakata, M., & Soldatova, L. (2008). Guidelines for the annotation of general scientific concepts. Aberystwyth University, JISC Project Report http://ie-repository.jisc.ac.uk/88.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Contribution
+
+ Indicates why the work is important.
+
+The Deo ontology [DEO] defines contribution as a description of the part that this publication plays in the overall field.
+ [DEO] Discourse Elements Ontology, http://purl.org/spar/deo
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Discussion
+
+ [DEO] Discourse Elements Ontology, http://purl.org/spar/deo
+ As stated in Deo [DEO], discussion is an interpretation of the results obtained and an analysis of their significance, in support of conclusions.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Experiment
+
+ How the study was structured and how it was carried out (experimental setup, metrics and details)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ FutureWork
+
+ The perspective of the work. Suggestions about how to improve the work (own or general)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Goal
+
+ According to [Liakata 2008]: A goal of an investigation is the target state of the investigation where intended discoveries are made, approaches are tested, problems are demonstrated, tasks formulated etc.
+ [Liakata 2008] Liakata, M., & Soldatova, L. (2008). Guidelines for the annotation of general scientific concepts. Aberystwyth University, JISC Project Report http://ie-repository.jisc.ac.uk/88.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Hypothesis
+
+ A hypothesis is an educated guess about how things work. A hypothesis should be something that you can test.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Limitations
+
+ Limitations of the author's work
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Method
+
+ How the author performed the experiment. Technique/s used to achieve the goal/s.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Model
+
+ A statement about a theoretical model or framework
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ [Liakata 2008] Liakata, M., & Soldatova, L. (2008). Guidelines for the annotation of general scientific concepts. Aberystwyth University, JISC Project Report http://ie-repository.jisc.ac.uk/88.
+ The stimulus for achieving the goal of the investigation, the reason to carry out the investigation [Liakata 2008]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Observation
+
+ The data/phenomena recorded within an investigation
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ ProblemStatement
+
+ States a specific research question.
Deo ontology [DEO] defines this class as a concise description of the issues that needed to be addressed by a work described in the document.
-
-
-
-
- #ProblemStatement
- ProblemStatement
-
-
-
- #ProblemStatement
- [DEO] Discourse Elements Ontology, http://purl.org/spar/deo
-
-
-
- #RelatedWork
- Work done by others in the same domain, this includes also the related work of the author's own work.
-
-
-
- #RelatedWork
- RelatedWork
-
-
-
- #Result
- Data collected during experimentation.
-
-According to Deo ontology definition[DEO] : The report of the specific findings of an investigation, given without discussion or conclusion being drawn.
-
-
-
- #Result
- Result
-
-
-
- #Result
- [DEO] Discourse Elements Ontology, http://purl.org/spar/deo
-
-
-
- #ScientificDiscourse
- Classes related to the scientific discourse elements
-
-
-
- http://purl.org/spar/deo/DiscourseElement
- An element of a document that carries out a rhetorical function.
-
-
-
- http://purl.org/spar/deo/DiscourseElement
- discourse element
-
-
-
- http://purl.org/spar/deo/FutureWork
- A proposal for new investigation to be undertaken in order to continue and advance the work described in the publication.
-
-
-
- http://purl.org/spar/deo/FutureWork
- future work
-
-
-
- http://purl.org/spar/deo/Methods
- A description in a research paper documenting the specialized methods used in the work described. This description is often combined with a description of the materials used, in a section entitled 'Methods and Materials', 'Experimental' or a related term.
-
-
-
- http://purl.org/spar/deo/Methods
- methods
-
-
-
- http://purl.org/spar/deo/Model
- A description of a model used or produced by the work described in the publication.
-
-
-
- http://purl.org/spar/deo/Model
- model
-
-
-
- http://purl.org/spar/deo/ProblemStatement
- A concise description of the issues that needed to be addressed by a work described in the document.
-
-
-
- http://purl.org/spar/deo/ProblemStatement
- problem statement
-
-
-
- http://purl.org/spar/deo/RelatedWork
- The authors' critical review of current knowledge by specific reference to others' work, both in terms of substantive findings and theoretical and methodological contributions to a particular topic. This description is often included within the introduction section.
-
-
-
- http://purl.org/spar/deo/RelatedWork
- related work
-
-
-
- http://purl.org/spar/deo/Results
- The report of the specific findings of an investigation, given without discussion or conclusion being drawn.
-
-
-
- http://purl.org/spar/deo/Results
- results
-
-
-
- http://salt.semanticauthoring.org/ontologies/sro#Background
- Presentation of information that is essential for understanding the situation or problem that is the subject of the publication. In a journal article, the background is usually part of the Introduction, but may be present as separated section.
-
-
-
- http://salt.semanticauthoring.org/ontologies/sro#Background
- background
-
-
-
- http://salt.semanticauthoring.org/ontologies/sro#Conclusion
- A reflection on the preceding text, summarizing the evidence, arguments or premises presented in the document and their logical outcomes. Conclusions are a fundamental feature in academic research publications, and may be included in the Discussion section.
-
-
-
- http://salt.semanticauthoring.org/ontologies/sro#Conclusion
- conclusion
-
-
-
- http://salt.semanticauthoring.org/ontologies/sro#Contribution
- A description of the part that this publication plays in the overall field.
-
-
-
- http://salt.semanticauthoring.org/ontologies/sro#Contribution
- contribution
-
-
-
- http://salt.semanticauthoring.org/ontologies/sro#Discussion
- An interpretation and discussion of the results obtained and an analysis of their significance, in support of conclusions. These conclusions may be part of this discussion or may be included in a separate section of the document.
-
-
-
- http://salt.semanticauthoring.org/ontologies/sro#Discussion
- discussion
-
-
-
- http://salt.semanticauthoring.org/ontologies/sro#Motivation
- A description of the justification for undertaking the work described in the publication.
-
-
-
- http://salt.semanticauthoring.org/ontologies/sro#Motivation
- motivation
-
-
+
+ [DEO] Discourse Elements Ontology, http://purl.org/spar/deo
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ RelatedWork
+
+ Work done by others in the same domain, this includes also the related work of the author's own work.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Result
+
+ Data collected during experimentation.
+
+According to Deo ontology definition[DEO] : The report of the specific findings of an investigation, given without discussion or conclusion being drawn.
+ [DEO] Discourse Elements Ontology, http://purl.org/spar/deo
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Classes related to the scientific discourse elements
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ citation act
+ A citation act is a particular situation in which an entity cites another entity for some reasons.
+
+This class is particularly useful to reify a citation statement built through any CiTO property. For instance, the following statement
+
+:paper1 cito:extends :paper2
+
+can be alternatively described as
+
+[] a cito:CitationAct ;
+cito:hasCitingEntity :paper1 ;
+cito:hasCitationEvent cito:extends ;
+cito:hasCitedEntity :paper2 .
+
+These reification can be very useful to combine CiTO properties with other vocabularies or to handle scenario in which none of the citations described in CiTO can be applied.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Situation
+
+
+
+ 1
+
+
+ A view on a set of entities. It can be seen as a 'relational context', reifying a relation.
+For example, a PlanExecution is a context including some actions executed by agents according to certain parameters and expected tasks to be achieved from a Plan; a DiagnosedSituation is a context of observed entities that is interpreted on the basis of a Diagnosis, etc.
+Situation is also able to represent reified n-ary relations, where isSettingFor is the top-level relation for all binary projections of the n-ary relation. If used in a transformation pattern for n-ary relations, the designer should take care of:
+- creating only one situation for each instance of an n-ary relation, otherwise the 'identification constraint' (Calvanese et al., IJCAI 2001) could be violated
+- adding an 'exact cardinality' restriction corresponding to the arity of the n-ary relation, otherwise the designer would actually represent a polymorphic relation.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+