3.8 Article

The data set knowledge graph: Creating a linked open data source for data sets

期刊

QUANTITATIVE SCIENCE STUDIES
卷 2, 期 4, 页码 1324-1355

出版社

MIT PRESS
DOI: 10.1162/qss_a_00161

关键词

data sets; linked open data; scholarly knowledge graph

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents an approach for constructing a knowledge graph of data sets, which includes metadata of data sets and links to associated publications. The constructed knowledge graph can be used for advanced data set search systems and measuring the provisioning of data sets.
Several scholarly knowledge graphs have been proposed to model and analyze the academic landscape. However, although the number of data sets has increased remarkably in recent years, these knowledge graphs do not primarily focus on data sets but rather on associated entities such as publications. Moreover, publicly available data set knowledge graphs do not systematically contain links to the publications in which the data sets are mentioned. In this paper, we present an approach for constructing an RDF knowledge graph that fulfills these mentioned criteria. Our data set knowledge graph, DSKG, is publicly available at http://dskg.org and contains metadata of data sets for all scientific disciplines. To ensure high data quality of the DSKG, we first identify suitable raw data set collections for creating the DSKG. We then establish links between the data sets and publications modeled in the Microsoft Academic Knowledge Graph that mention these data sets. As the author names of data sets can be ambiguous, we develop and evaluate a method for author name disambiguation and enrich the knowledge graph with links to ORCID. Overall, our knowledge graph contains more than 2,000 data sets with associated properties, as well as 814,000 links to 635,000 scientific publications. It can be used for a variety of scenarios, facilitating advanced data set search systems and new ways of measuring and awarding the provisioning of data sets.

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

3.8
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