Ross, I think that got mangled in the sending -- either that, or it's
some strange format that I've never seen before.  That said, I am
tremendously impressed by all the information you obtained there.
What software did you use, how much of this did you have to feed it by
hand, and how much did it intuit from existing structured datasets?


On 4 May 2010 14:57, Ross Singer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 8:24 AM, Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> On 4 May 2010 13:19, Ross Singer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 7:55 AM, Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>> Having read the rest of this thread, I find that nothing that's been
>>>> said changes my initial gut reaction on reading this question: DO NOT
>>>> USE DCTERMS.  It's vocabulary is Just Plain Inadequate, and not only
>>>> for esoteric cases like the Alternative Chronological Designation of
>>>> First Issue or Part of Sequence field that Karen mentioned.  Despite
>>>> having 70 (seventy!) elements, it's lacking fundamental fields for
>>>> describing articles in journals -- there are no journalTitle, volume,
>>>> issue, startPage or endPage fields.  That, for me, is a deal-breaker.
>>>
>>> If you're using Dublin Core as XML, I agree with this.  If you're
>>> using Dublin Core as RDF (which is, honestly, the only thing it's
>>> really good for), this is a non-issue.
>>
>> Oh, what is the solution when using it in RDF?
>>
> In RDF, you can pull in predicates from other namespaces, where the
> attributes you're looking for may be defined. What's nice about this
> is that works sort of like how namespaces are *supposed* to work in
> XML:  that is, an agent that comes along and grabs your triples will
> parse the assertions from vocabularies it understands and ignore those
> it doesn't.
>
>  So in your particular case, it would look like:
>
> @prefix rdf:     <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#>.
> @prefix dcterms:  <http://purl.org/dc/terms/>.
> @prefix bibo: <http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/>.
> @prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#integer>.
> @prefix foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/>.
>
> <_:article1>
>    rdf:type bibo:AcademicArticle;
>    dcterms:title "AN UNUSUAL NEW NEOSAUROPOD DINOSAUR FROM THE LOWER
> CRETACEOUS HASTINGS BEDS GROUP OF EAST SUSSEX, ENGLAND"@en;
>    dcterms:creator <_:author1>, <_:author2>;
>    dcterms:abstract """Xenoposeidon proneneukos gen. et sp. nov. is a
> neosauropod represented by BMNH R2095, a well-preserved partial
> mid-to-posterior dorsal vertebra from the Berriasian-Valanginian
> Hastings Beds Group of Ecclesbourne Glen, East Sussex, England. It was
> briefly described by Lydekker in 1893, but it has subsequently been
> overlooked. This specimen's concave cotyle, large lateral pneumatic
> fossae, complex system of bony laminae and camerate internal structure
> show that it represents a neosauropod dinosaur. However, it differs
> from all other sauropods in the form of its neural arch, which is
> taller than the centrum, covers the entire dorsal surface of the
> centrum, has its posterior margin continuous with that of the cotyle,
> and slopes forward at 35 degrees relative to the vertical. Also unique
> is a broad, flat area of featureless bone on the lateral face of the
> arch; the accessory infraparapophyseal and postzygapophyseal laminae
> which meet in a V; and the asymmetric neural canal, small and round
> posteriorly but large and teardrop-shaped anteriorly, bounded by
> arched supporting laminae. The specimen cannot be referred to any
> known sauropod genus, and clearly represents a new genus and possibly
> a new `family'. Other sauropod remains from the Hastings Beds Group
> represent basal Titanosauriformes, Titanosauria and Diplodocidae; X.
> proneneukos may bring to four the number of sauropod `families'
> represented in this unit. Sauropods may in general have been much less
> morphologically conservative than is usually assumed. Since
> neurocentral fusion is complete in R2095, it is probably from a mature
> or nearly mature animal. Nevertheless, size comparisons of R2095 with
> corresponding vertebrae in the Brachiosaurus brancai holotype HMN SII
> and Diplodocus carnegii holotype CM 84 suggest a rather small
> sauropod: perhaps 15 m long and 7600 kg in mass if built like a
> brachiosaurid, or 20 m and 2800 kg if built like a diplodocid."""@en;
>    dcterms:subject
> <http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh85038094#concept>,
> <http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh85117730#concept>,
> <http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh85097127#concept>;
>    dcterms:isPartOf <_:journal1>;
>    bibo:volume "50"^^xsd:integer;
>    bibo:issue "6"^^xsd:integer;
>    bibo:numPages "18"^^xsd:integer;
>    bibo:pages "1547-1564";
>    bibo:pageStart "1547"^^xsd:integer;
>    bibo:pageEnd "1564"^^xsd:integer;
>    dcterms:issued "2007-11"^^xsd:date;
>    dcterms:language <http://purl.org/NET/marccodes/languages/eng#lang>;
>    bibo:authorList ( <_:author1> <_:author2> );
>    bibo:doi "10.1111/j.1475-4983.2007.00728.x".
>
> <_:journal1>
>    rdf:type bibo:Journal;
>    dcterms:title "Palaeontology";
>    bibo:issn "0031-0239";
>    foaf:homepage
> <http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118531917/home?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0>;
>    dcterms:publisher <_:publisher1>.
>
> <_:publisher1>
>    rdf:type foaf:Organization;
>    foaf:name "Blackwell Publishing";
>    foaf:homepage <http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/>;
>    dcterms:isPartOf <_:publisher2>.
> <_:publisher2>
>    rdf:type foaf:Organization;
>    foaf:name "Wiley-Blackwell";
>    foaf:homepage <http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Brand/id-35.html>;
>    dcterms:isPartOf <_:publisher3>.
> <_:publisher3>
>    rdf:type foaf:Organization;
>    foaf:name "John Wiley & Sons, Inc.";
>    foaf:name "Wiley";
>    foaf:homepage <http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/>.
>
> <_:author1>
>    rdf:type foaf:Person;
>    foaf:name "Michael Taylor";
>    foaf:givenName "Michael";
>    foaf:familyName "Taylor";
>    foaf:homepage <http://miketaylor.org.uk/>;
>    foaf:depiction
> <http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/xeno/images/photos/DINO_4.jpeg>;
>    foaf:topic_interest <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Paleontology>,
> <http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh85066163#concept>;
>    foaf:made <_:article1>.
>
> <_:author2>
>    rdf:type foaf:Person;
>    foaf:name "Darren Naish";
>    foaf:givenName "Darren";
>    foaf:familyName "Naish";
>    foaf:homepage <http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/>;
>    foaf:depiction
> <http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/Naish_profile_70_px.jpg>;
>    foaf:topic_interest <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Tetrapod>,
> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Paleontology>;
>    foaf:made <_:article1>.
>
> So an agent that comes along that doesn't know anything about
> Bibliontology still can get the gist of what your article is about and
> make some decisions on its value.  An agent that actually cares about
> real citation information would probably know how to speak BIBO, so it
> would be able to glean more information from the graph.
>
> -Ross.
>
>