From W3C Wiki
Note: This page has not been updated since 2007, the information listed here might not be valid. PLEASE EDIT AND UPDATE THIS WIKI PAGE TO MAKE IT MORE COMPLETE.
Finding a common standard for the representation of bibliographic information
Many of the Semantic Web ontologies in the domain of HCLS contain constructs for the representation of bibliographic information and references to database entries. Unfortunately, it seems that most of them came up with their own solutions, which naturally leads to a lot of confusion, redundancy and missing interoperability.
Ontologies and metadata standards that could (should?) be re-used
- OWL Model of Ambra / Topaz, the publishing platform for the PLoS journals
- Bibliographic Data Ontology created by Tom Gruber, represented in KIF, based on Frames
- Dublin Core Element Set (Schema information / download) -- the most important standard, pretty basic, only properties. Needs to be slightly modified before it can be integrated into valid OWL DL ontologies.
- FOAF (Schema information / download) -- by far the most widespread Semantic Web ontology to date. Includes classes like "Document" or "Image". Needs a lot of pruning before integration into a pure life science ontology (many silly entities, unnecessary mapping to Wordnet need to be removed). Needs to be modified before it can be integrated into valid OWL DL ontologies.
- Citation Oriented Bibliographic Vocabulary.
- Marcont (based on MARC)
- bibTex in OWL (Schema information / download)
- SwetoDblp Integrates FOAF and Dublin Core, there is already a large amount of data available (export of the DBLP database).
- DBLP (direct link to schema)
- Bibliography Management using RSS Technology (BuRST)
- Annotea (Schema information / download) -- seems like it has not been updated in a long time. Could not locate a schema. Seems to make use of FOAF and Dublin Core.
- (add something here)
Standard URIs for bibliographic entities
Besides the issues with differing ontologies, there are also widel differing URI schemes used for bibliographic entities, e.g.:
- info URI scheme
- LSIDs (e.g. for Pubmed entries)
- ISBN URI scheme
- (add something here)
Please be aware that the discussion about URI schemes is independent from the discussion about standard ontologies, and probably of a lower priority at the moment.