4.6 Article

Too many tags spoil the metadata: investigating the knowledge management of scientific research with semantic web technologies

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHEMINFORMATICS
卷 11, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13321-019-0345-8

关键词

Semantic tagging; Ontologies; Scientific documents; Document management

资金

  1. Web Science Centre for Doctoral Training at the University of Southampton - UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) [EP/G036926/1]
  2. EPSRC [GR/R67729/01, EP/C008863/1, EP/G026238/1, EP/K003569/1]
  3. EPSRC [EP/K003569/1, EP/S000356/1, EP/G026238/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Scientific research is increasingly characterised by the volume of documents and data that it produces, from experimental plans and raw data to reports and papers. Researchers frequently struggle to manage and curate these materials, both individually and collectively. Previous studies of Electronic Lab Notebooks (ELNs) in academia and industry have identified semantic web technologies as a means for organising scientific documents to improve current workflows and knowledge management practices. In this paper, we present a qualitative, user-centred study of researcher requirements and practices, based on a series of discipline-specific focus groups. We developed a prototype semantic ELN to serve as a discussion aid for these focus groups, and to help us explore the technical readiness of a range of semantic web technologies. While these technologies showed potential, existing tools for semantic annotation were not well-received by our focus groups, and need to be refined before they can be used to enhance current researcher practices. In addition, the seemingly simple notion of tagging and searching documents appears anything but; the researchers in our focus groups had extremely personal requirements for how they organise their work, so the successful incorporation of semantic web technologies into their practices must permit a significant degree of customisation and personalisation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据