Great progress to digitize the world’s available Biodiversity and Biogeography data have been made recently, but managing data from many different providers and research domains still remains a challenge. A review of the current landscape of metadata standards and ontologies in Biodiversity sciences suggests that existing standards, such as the Darwin Core terminology, are inadequate for describing Biodiversity data in a semantically meaningful and computationally useful way. As a contribution to fill this gap, we present an ontology-based system, called BiGe-Onto, designed to manage data together from Biodiversity and Biogeography. As data sources, we use two internationally recognized repositories: the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) and the Ocean Biogeographic Information System (OBIS). BiGe-Onto system is composed of (i) BiGe-Onto Architecture (ii) a conceptual model called BiGe-Onto specified in OntoUML, (iii) an operational version of BiGe-Onto encoded in OWL 2, and (iv) an integrated dataset for its exploitation through a SPARQL endpoint. We will show use cases that allow researchers to answer questions that manage information from both domains.
Addlesee (2018). Creating linked data. Retrieved on September 2, 2019 from https://medium.com/wallscope/creating-linked-data-31c7dd479a9e.
2.
Barcelos, P.P.F., dos Santos, V.A., Silva, F.B., Monteiro, M.E. & Garcia, A.S. (2013). An automated transformation from OntoUML to OWL and SWRL. In ONTOBRAS. CEUR Workshop Proceedings. CEUR-WS.org.
3.
Barcelos, P.P.F., dos Santos, V.A., Silva, F.B., Monteiro, M.E. & Garcia, A.S. (2017). An automated transformation from OntoUML to OWL and SWRL. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Semantics for Biodiversity Co-Located with 16th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2017).
4.
Baskauf, S.J. & Webb, C.O. (2015). Darwin-SW: Darwin Core-based terms for expressing biodiversity data as RDF.
5.
Baskauf, S.J., Wieczorek, J., Deck, J. & Webb, C.O. (2016). Lessons learned from adapting the Darwin Core vocabulary standard for use in RDF.
6.
Benevides, A.B. & Guizzardi, G. (2009). A model-based tool for conceptual modeling and domain ontology engineering in OntoUML. In Enterprise Information Systems (pp. 528–538).
7.
Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., Lassila, O., et al. (2001). The semantic web. Scientific American, 284(5), 28–37. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0501-34.
8.
Bezerra, C., Freitas, F. & Santana, F. (2013). Evaluating ontologies with competency questions. In Web Intelligence (WI) and Intelligent Agent Technologies (IAT), 2013 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Joint Conferences on (Vol. 3, pp. 284–285). IEEE.
9.
Bizer, C., Cyganiak, R., Heath, T., et al. (2007). How to publish linked data on the web.
10.
Brank, J., Grobelnik, M. & Mladenić, D. (2005). A survey of ontology evaluation techniques.
11.
Braun, G., Estevez, E. & Fillottrani, P. (2018). A reference architecture for ontology engineering web environments. Journal of Computer Science & Technology.
12.
Braun, G., Gimenez, C., Fillottrani, P. & Cecchi, L. (2017). Towards conceptual modelling interoperability in a web tool for ontology engineering. In 3rd SAOA@JAIIO.
Buttigieg, P.L., Pafilis, E., Lewis, S.E., Schildhauer, M.P., Walls, R.L. & Mungall, C.J. (2016). The environment ontology in 2016: Bridging domains with increased scope, semantic density, and interoperation. Journal of Biomedical Semantics.
15.
Chapman, A.D. (2005). Principles of Data Quality. GBIF.
16.
d’Aquin, M. & Gangemi, A. (2011). Is there beauty in ontologies?Applied Ontology, 6(3), 165–175.
17.
De Pooter, D., Appeltans, W., Bailly, N., Bristol, S., Deneudt, K., Eliezer, M., Fujioka, E., Giorgetti, A., Goldstein, P., Lewis, M., et al. (2017). Toward a new data standard for combined marine biological and environmental datasets-expanding OBIS beyond species occurrences. Biodiversity Data Journal, 5.
18.
Eckerson, W.W. (1995). Three tier client/server architecture: Achieving scalability, performance, and efficiency in client server applications. Open Information Systems.
19.
FOAF (2014). FOAF vocabulary specification 0.99. Retrieved on March 20, 2019 from http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/.
20.
GBIF (2011). Darwin Core archive how-to guide. Retrieved on January 8, 2019 from https://github.com/gbif/ipt/wiki/DwCAHowToGuide.
21.
GBIF (2017). Approved strategic plan 2017–2021. Retrieved on January 29, 2019 from https://www.gbif.org/sites/default/files/documents/Approved_Strategic_Plan_2017-2021.pdf.
22.
Gimenez, C., Braun, G., Cecchi, L. & Fillottrani, P. (2016). crowd: A tool for conceptual modelling assisted by automated reasoning – preliminary report. In The 2nd Simposio Argentino de Ontologías y Sus Aplicaciones SAOA ’16 JAIIO ’16.
23.
Good, B.M. & Wilkinson, M.D. (2006). The life sciences semantic web is full of creeps!Briefings in bioinformatics, 7(3), 275–286. doi:10.1093/bib/bbl025.
24.
Grüninger, M. & Fox, M.S. (1995). The role of competency questions in enterprise engineering. In Benchmarking – Theory and Practice (pp. 22–31). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-34847-6_3.
25.
Guizzardi, G. (2005). Ontological Foundations for Structural Conceptual Models. CTIT, Centre for Telematics and Information Technology.
26.
Guizzardi, G. & Wagner, G. (2010). Using the Unified Foundational Ontology (UFO) as a Foundation for General Conceptual Modeling Languages. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-8847-5_8.
27.
Hardisty, A. & Roberts, D. (2013). A decadal view of biodiversity informatics: Challenges and priorities. BMC ecology, 13(1), 16. doi:10.1186/1472-6785-13-16.
28.
Hill, A.W., Otegui, J., Ariño, A.H. & Guralnick, R.P. (2010). GBIF position paper on future directions and recommendations for enhancing fitness-for-use across the GBIF network, version 1.0. Copenhagen: Global Biodiversity Information Facility, 25, 14.
29.
Hobbs, J.R. & Pan, F. (2006). Time ontology in OWL. W3C working draft, 27, 133.
30.
Janowicz, K., Hitzler, P., Adams, B., Kolas, D. & Vardeman, C. (2014). Five stars of Linked Data vocabulary use. Semantic Web, 5(3), 173–176. doi:10.3233/SW-140135.
31.
Jenkins, M. (2003). Prospects for biodiversity. Science, 302(5648), 1175–1177. doi:10.1126/science.1088666.
32.
Leadbetter, A., Lowry, R. & Clements, D.O. (2012). The NERC vocabulary server: Version 2.0. In Geophysical Research Abstracts (Vol. 14).
Maclaurin, J. & Sterelny, K. (2008). What Is Biodiversity?University of Chicago Press. doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226500829.001.0001.
35.
Moreira, J.L.R., Sales, T.P., Guerson, J., Braga, B.F.B., Brasileiro, F. & Sobral, V. (2016). Menthor editor: An ontology-driven conceptual modeling platform. In Proceedings of the Joint Ontology Workshops 2016 Episode 2: The French Summer of Ontology Co-Located with the 9th International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS 2016), Annecy, France, July 6–9, 2016.
36.
Motik, B., Grau, B.C., Horrocks, I., Wu, Z., Fokoue, A., Lutz, C., et al. (2009). OWL 2 web ontology language profiles. W3C recommendation, 27, 61.
37.
Muller-Karger, F.E., Miloslavich, P., Bax, N.J., Simmons, S., Costello, M.J., Sousa Pinto, I., Canonico, G., Turner, W., Gill, M., Montes, E., et al. (2018). Advancing marine biological observations and data requirements of the complementary essential ocean variables (EOVs) and essential biodiversity variables (EBVs) frameworks. Frontiers in Marine Science, 5, 211. doi:10.3389/fmars.2018.00211.
38.
Pearson, R.G. & Dawson, T.P. (2003). Predicting the impacts of climate change on the distribution of species: Are bioclimate envelope models useful?Global ecology and biogeography, 12(5), 361–371. doi:10.1046/j.1466-822X.2003.00042.x.
39.
Perry, M. & Herring, J. (2012). OGC GeoSPARQL-A geographic query language for RDF data. OGC implementation standard.
40.
Reichman, O.J., Jones, M.B. & Schildhauer, M.P. (2011). Challenges and opportunities of open data in ecology. Science, 331(6018), 703–705. doi:10.1126/science.1197962.
41.
Robertson, T., Döring, M., Guralnick, R., Bloom, D., Wieczorek, J., Braak, K., Otegui, J., Russell, L. & Desmet, P. (2014). The GBIF integrated publishing toolkit: Facilitating the efficient publishing of biodiversity data on the Internet. PLoS ONE. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0102623.
42.
Schuldt, H. (2009). Multi-tier architecture. In Encyclopedia of Database Systems (pp. 1862–1865). Springer.
43.
Senderov, V., Simov, K., Franz, N., Stoev, P., Catapano, T., Agosti, D., Sautter, G., Morris, R.A. & Penev, L. (2018). OpenBiodiv-O: Ontology of the OpenBiodiv knowledge management system. Journal of biomedical semantics, 9(1), 5. doi:10.1186/s13326-017-0174-5.
44.
Stucky, B.J., Deck, J., Conlin, T., Ziemba, L., Cellinese, N. & Guralnick, R. (2014). The BiSciCol triplifier: Bringing biodiversity data to the Semantic Web. BMC bioinformatics, 15(1), 257. doi:10.1186/1471-2105-15-257.
45.
Thessen, A.E. & Patterson, D.J. (2011). Data issues in the life sciences. doi:10.3897/zookeys.150.1766.
46.
Verborgh, R. & De Wilde, M. (2013). Using OpenRefine. Packt Publishing Ltd.
47.
Vrandečić, D. & Gangemi, A. (2006). Unit tests for ontologies. In OTM Confederated International Conferences “On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems” (pp. 1012–1020). Springer.
48.
W3C (2011). Describing linked datasets with the void vocabulary. Retrieved on January 20, 2019 from https://www.w3.org/TR/void/.
49.
Walls, R.L., Deck, J., Guralnick, R., Baskauf, S., Beaman, R., Blum, S., Bowers, S., Buttigieg, P.L., Davies, N., Endresen, D., et al. (2014). Semantics in support of biodiversity knowledge discovery: An introduction to the biological collections ontology and related ontologies. PLoS One, 9(3), e89606.
50.
Wieczorek, J., Bloom, D., Guralnick, R., Blum, S., Döring, M., Giovanni, R., Robertson, T. & Vieglais, D. (2012). Darwin Core: An evolving community-developed biodiversity data standard. PLoS ONE. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0029715.
51.
Yesson, C., Brewer, P.W., Sutton, T., Caithness, N., Pahwa, J.S., Burgess, M., Gray, W.A., White, R.J., Jones, A.C., Bisby, F.A., et al. (2007). How global is the global biodiversity information facility?PLoS One, 2(11), e1124.
52.
Zárate, M., Buccella, A. & Fillottrani, P. (2017). BioOnto: Towards an integration of biological and biogeographic data.
