FAIR + FIT: Guiding Principles and Functional Metrics for Linked Open Data (LOD) KOS Products

doi:10.2478/jdis-2020-0008

Abstract

Abstract:

Purpose: To develop a set of metrics and identify criteria for assessing the functionality of LOD KOS products while providing common guiding principles that can be used by LOD KOS producers and users to maximize the functions and usages of LOD KOS products.

Design/methodology/approach: Data collection and analysis were conducted at three time periods in 2015-16, 2017 and 2019. The sample data used in the comprehensive data analysis comprises all datasets tagged as types of KOS in the Datahub and extracted through their respective SPARQL endpoints. A comparative study of the LOD KOS collected from terminology services Linked Open Vocabularies (LOV) and BioPortal was also performed.

Findings: The study proposes a set of Functional, Impactful and Transformable (FIT) metrics for LOD KOS as value vocabularies. The FAIR principles, with additional recommendations, are presented for LOD KOS as open data.

Research limitations: The metrics need to be further tested and aligned with the best practices and international standards of both open data and various types of KOS.

Practical implications: Assessment performed with FAIR and FIT metrics support the creation and delivery of user-friendly, discoverable and interoperable LOD KOS datasets which can be used for innovative applications, act as a knowledge base, become a foundation of semantic analysis and entity extractions and enhance research in science and the humanities.

Originality/value: Our research provides best practice guidelines for LOD KOS as value vocabularies.

Key words: Knowledge Organization Systems, Linked Open Data, FAIR, FIT, Semantic web

Zeng, Marcia Lei, and Julaine Clunis. "FAIR + FIT: Guiding Principles and Functional Metrics for Linked Open Data (LOD) KOS Products." Journal of Data and Information Science, vol.5, no.1, 2020, pp.93-118. DOI: 10.2478/jdis-2020-0008

Figures/Tables 11

Figure 2.

Table 2

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 1.

Table 1

Table 3

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Table 4

References 14

1	Baker T., Caracciolo C., Doroszenko A., & Suominen O. (2016). GACS Core: Creation of a global agricultural concept scheme. In E. Garoufallou, Coll. I. Subirats, A. Stellato, & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Metadata and Semantics Research (pp. 311-316). Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 672.
2	European Commission Expert Group on FAIR Data. (2018). Turning FAIR into reality: Final report and action plan from the European Commission expert group on FAIR data. Publications Office of the European Union.
3	FORCE11. (2014). Guiding principles for findable, accessible, interoperable and re-usable data publishing version b1.0. FORCE11.
4	Kejriwal M., Sequeda J., & Lopez, V. [in press]. Knowledge graphs: Construction, management and querying. Semantic Web Journal, 10(6).
5	Golub K., Tudhope D., Zeng M.L., & Žumer M. (2014). Terminology registries for knowledge organization systems: Functionality, use, and attributes. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(9), 1901-1916.
6	ISO 25964-2:2013. Information and documentation—Thesauri and interoperability with other vocabularies—Part 2. Interoperability with other vocabularies International Organization for Standardization.
7	Taylor J., Gao Y., Narayanan A., Patterson A., & Jain A. (2018. Panel: Enterprise-scale knowledge graphs. International Semantic Web Conference 2018, Monterey, CA, United States. 2018). Panel: Enterprise-scale knowledge graphs. International Semantic Web Conference 2018, Monterey, CA, United States.
8	Tiemensma L. (2010). Quality metrics in academic libraries: Striving for excellence. In Qualitative And Quantitative Methods In Libraries: Theory and Applications (pp. 219-232).
9	Uniprot Consortium (2002-2020). UniProt. https://sparql.uniprot.org/Wilkinson, M., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I.., & Mons, B. (2016). The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific data 3, 160018 (2016). doi:10.1038/sdata.2016.18
10	Wilkinson M., Sansone S., Schultes E., Doorn P., & Dumontier, M. (2018). A design framework and exemplar metrics for FAIRness. Scientific data 5, 180118 (2018) doi:10.1038/sdata.2018.118
11	W3C. (2009). SKOS simple knowledge organization system reference. W3C Recommendation. W3C Recommendation 18 August 2009.
12	Zeng M.L. &Mayr P., (2018). Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS) in the Semantic Web. International Journal on Digital Libraries. 20(3), 209-230.
13	Zeng M.L.(2019).Interoperability. Knowledge Organization, 46(2), 122-146. DOI: 10.5771/0943-7444-2019-2-122. Also available in B. Hjorland & C. Gnoli (Eds.), ISKO Encyclopedia of Knowledge Organization (IEKO)
14	Zeng M.L. (2019). Semantic enrichment for enhancing LAM data and supporting digital humanities. El profesional de la información , 28(1), Article e280103.

Format	2016	2017	2019
JSON	54	42	74
HTML	47	37	71
XML	55	42	69
TSV	44	30	63
RDF+XML	40	30	61
DEFAULT/AUTO	37	27	51
TURTLE	30	26	39
CSV	34	20	39
N-TRIPLES	26	18	36
JAVASCRIPT	23	11	31
SPREADSHEET	22	3	30
PLAIN/TEXT	20	21	28
QUERY STRUCTURE	15	15	23
SERIALIZED PHP	15	15	22
JSON-LD		3	1

2016			2017			2019
Search Type of KOS/DATASET	# found	# with SPARQL endpoints	Search Type of KOS/DATASET	# found	# with SPARQL endpoints	Search Type of KOS/DATASET	# found	# with SPARQL endpoints
Thesaurus	67	39	Thesaurus	79	40	Thesaurus	80	41
Classification	458	29	Classification	476	31	Classification	478	31
Taxonomy	26	8	Taxonomy	35	8	Taxonomy	37	10
Terminology	35	7	Terminology	39	8	Terminology	39	8
List	665	52	List	821	58	List	825	59
Total	1,251	135	Total	1,450	145	Total	1,459	149

Year	# of datasets	Endpoint provided	Endpoint no longer available	# providing default query	# providing example queries	# providing more than 3 example queries
2019	1,459	149	74	66	26	9
2017	1,450	145	63	33	21	10
2016	1,251	135	29	-	16	6