Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
  • Like
Cshals2012dewaardsmall
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Now you can save presentations on your phone or tablet

Available for both IPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Cshals2012dewaardsmall

  • 757 views
Published

 

Published in Health & Medicine , Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
757
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
21
Comments
0
Likes
4

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Executing Semantics:Towards Networked Science Anita de Waard Disruptive Technologies Director Elsevier Labs, Jericho, VT
  • 2. Three problems, some solutions, and ideas for the future 2
  • 3. Three problems, some solutions, and ideas for the future• Three examples where scientific discourse falls short: why we need more context 2
  • 4. Three problems, some solutions, and ideas for the future• Three examples where scientific discourse falls short: why we need more context• Some projects that are modeling context now 2
  • 5. Three problems, some solutions, and ideas for the future• Three examples where scientific discourse falls short: why we need more context• Some projects that are modeling context now• What we really need: networked knowledge 2
  • 6. 1. Lexapro for adolescents 3
  • 7. 1. Lexapro for adolescents 3
  • 8. 1. Lexapro for adolescents 3
  • 9. 1. Lexapro for adolescents 3
  • 10. 4
  • 11. 4
  • 12. 5
  • 13. 5
  • 14. 5
  • 15. 5
  • 16. 6
  • 17. 6
  • 18. 6
  • 19. 6
  • 20. Problem #1: Knowledge is not connected or tracable 7
  • 21. Problem #1: Knowledge is not connected or tracable• How can we scale up the 1-to-1 interactions on efficacy and side effects happening today? 7
  • 22. Problem #1: Knowledge is not connected or tracable• How can we scale up the 1-to-1 interactions on efficacy and side effects happening today?• How do we know who is speaking in a patient forum? 7
  • 23. Problem #1: Knowledge is not connected or tracable• How can we scale up the 1-to-1 interactions on efficacy and side effects happening today?• How do we know who is speaking in a patient forum?• How to we get scientific knowledge in on this? 7
  • 24. Problem #1: Knowledge is not connected or tracable• How can we scale up the 1-to-1 interactions on efficacy and side effects happening today?• How do we know who is speaking in a patient forum?• How to we get scientific knowledge in on this?• How do we know who paid for knowledge? 7
  • 25. Problem #1: Knowledge is not connected or tracable• How can we scale up the 1-to-1 interactions on efficacy and side effects happening today?• How do we know who is speaking in a patient forum?• How to we get scientific knowledge in on this?• How do we know who paid for knowledge?• If a study is sponsored, how do you refer back to sources that link out to it? 7
  • 26. 2. Drug-drug interactions 8
  • 27. 2. Drug-drug interactions• Drug Interaction Knowledge Base 8
  • 28. 2. Drug-drug interactions• Drug Interaction Knowledge Base• Problem: how to integrate knowledge from various repositories and data stores into a single source 8
  • 29. 2. Drug-drug interactions• Drug Interaction Knowledge Base• Problem: how to integrate knowledge from various repositories and data stores into a single source• One of the main stumbling blocks: the way we record experiments in prose: 8
  • 30. E.g. Moltke et al, 1999: 9
  • 31. E.g. Moltke et al, 1999: After normalization for hepatic abundance, relative contributions to net intrinsic clearance were 37% for CYP2C19, 28% for CYP2D6, and 35% for CYP3A4. All samples were of the CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 normal metabolizer phenotype based on prior in vitro phenotyping studies. Average relative in vivo abundances, equivalent to the relative activity factors, were estimated using methods described in detail previously (Crespi, 1995; Venkatakrishnan et al., 1998 a,c, 1999, 2000, 2001; von Moltke et al., 1999 a,b; Störmer et al., 2000). R-CT and its metabolites, studied using the same procedures, had properties very similar to those of the corresponding S-enantiomers.Based on established index reactions, S-CT and S-DCT were negligibleinhibitors (IC50> 100 µM) of CYP1A2, -2C9, -2C19, -2E1, and -3A, andweakly inhibited CYP2D6 (IC50 = 70–80 µM) S-CT was transformed to S-DCT by CYP2C19 (Km = 69 µM), CYP2D6 (Km = 29 µM), and CYP3A4 (Km = 588 µM).The potential inhibitory effect of the stereoisomers of CT, DCT, and DDCT on the activity ofsix human cytochromes was evaluated using index reactions and methods as follows (Table1): CYP1A2, phenacetin (100 µM) to acetaminophen (von Moltke et al.,1996a;Venkatakrishnan et al., 1998b); CYP2C9, tolbutamide (100 µM) to hydroxytolbutamide 9(Venkatakrishnan et al., 1998c); CYP2C19, S-mephenytoin (25 µM) to 4′-OH-mephenytoin
  • 32. Problem #2:Knowledge is not actionable 10
  • 33. Problem #2: Knowledge is not actionable• Self-reference: 10
  • 34. Problem #2: Knowledge is not actionable• Self-reference: 10
  • 35. Problem #2: Knowledge is not actionable• Self-reference: R-CT and its metabolites, studied using the same procedures, had properties very similar to those of the corresponding S-enantiomers. 10
  • 36. Problem #2: Knowledge is not actionable• Self-reference: R-CT and its metabolites, studied using the same procedures, had properties very similar to those of the corresponding S-enantiomers.• Reference to external data sources: 10
  • 37. Problem #2: Knowledge is not actionable• Self-reference: R-CT and its metabolites, studied using the same procedures, had properties very similar to those of the corresponding S-enantiomers.• Reference to external data sources: 10
  • 38. Problem #2: Knowledge is not actionable• Self-reference: R-CT and its metabolites, studied using the same procedures, had properties very similar to those of the corresponding S-enantiomers.• Reference to external data sources: Average relative in vivo abundances equivalent to the relative activity factors, were estimated using methods described in detail previously (Crespi, 1995; Venkatakrishnan et al., 1998 a,c, 1999, 2000, 2001; von Moltke et al., 1999 a,b; Störmer et al., 2000). 10
  • 39. Problem #2: Knowledge is not actionable• Self-reference: R-CT and its metabolites, studied using the same procedures, had properties very similar to those of the corresponding S-enantiomers.• Reference to external data sources: Average relative in vivo abundances equivalent to the relative activity factors, were estimated using methods described in detail previously (Crespi, 1995; Venkatakrishnan et al., 1998 a,c, 1999, 2000, 2001; von Moltke et al., 1999 a,b; Störmer et al., 2000). 10
  • 40. Problem #2: Knowledge is not actionable• Self-reference: R-CT and its metabolites, studied using the same procedures, had properties very similar to those of the corresponding S-enantiomers.• Reference to external data sources: Average relative in vivo abundances equivalent to the relative activity factors, were estimated using methods described in detail previously (Crespi, 1995; Venkatakrishnan et al., 1998 a,c, 1999, 2000, 2001; von Moltke et al., 1999 a,b; Störmer et al., 2000).• Ways of describing meant for human eyes 10
  • 41. Problem #2: Knowledge is not actionable• Self-reference: R-CT and its metabolites, studied using the same procedures, had properties very similar to those of the corresponding S-enantiomers.• Reference to external data sources: Average relative in vivo abundances equivalent to the relative activity factors, were estimated using methods described in detail previously (Crespi, 1995; Venkatakrishnan et al., 1998 a,c, 1999, 2000, 2001; von Moltke et al., 1999 a,b; Störmer et al., 2000).• Ways of describing meant for human eyes Based on established index reactions, S-CT and S-DCT were negligible inhibitors (IC50> 100 µM) of CYP1A2, -2C9, -2C19, -2E1, and -3A, and weakly inhibited CYP2D6 (IC50 = 70–80 µM) 10
  • 42. Problem #2: Knowledge is not actionable• Self-reference: R-CT and its metabolites, studied using the same procedures, had properties very similar to those of the corresponding S-enantiomers.• Reference to external data sources: Average relative in vivo abundances equivalent to the relative activity factors, were estimated using methods described in detail previously (Crespi, 1995; Venkatakrishnan et al., 1998 a,c, 1999, 2000, 2001; von Moltke et al., 1999 a,b; Störmer et al., 2000).• Ways of describing meant for human eyes Based on established index reactions, S-CT and S-DCT were negligible inhibitors (IC50> 100 µM) of CYP1A2, -2C9, -2C19, -2E1, and -3A, and weakly inhibited CYP2D6 (IC50 = 70–80 µM) 10
  • 43. Problem #2: Knowledge is not actionable• Self-reference: R-CT and its metabolites, studied using the same procedures, had properties very similar to those of the corresponding S-enantiomers.• Reference to external data sources: Average relative in vivo abundances equivalent to the relative activity factors, were estimated using methods described in detail previously (Crespi, 1995; Venkatakrishnan et al., 1998 a,c, 1999, 2000, 2001; von Moltke et al., 1999 a,b; Störmer et al., 2000).• Ways of describing meant for human eyes Based on established index reactions, S-CT and S-DCT were negligible inhibitors (IC50> 100 µM) of CYP1A2, -2C9, -2C19, -2E1, and -3A, and weakly inhibited CYP2D6 (IC50 = 70–80 µM) 10
  • 44. Problem #2: Knowledge is not actionable• Self-reference: R-CT and its metabolites, studied using the same procedures, had properties very similar to those of the corresponding S-enantiomers.• Reference to external data sources: Average relative in vivo abundances equivalent to the relative activity factors, were estimated using methods described in detail previously (Crespi, 1995; Venkatakrishnan et al., 1998 a,c, 1999, 2000, 2001; von Moltke et al., 1999 a,b; Störmer et al., 2000).• Ways of describing meant for human eyes Based on established index reactions, S-CT and S-DCT were negligible inhibitors (IC50> 100 µM) of CYP1A2, -2C9, -2C19, -2E1, and -3A, and weakly inhibited CYP2D6 (IC50 = 70–80 µM)• Many statements wrapped into one: S-CT was transformed to S-DCT by CYP2C19 (Km = 69 µM), CYP2D6 (Km = 29 µM), and CYP3A4 (Km = 588 µM). 10
  • 45. 3. NIF Antibody Study Maryann Martone, Jan 2012: 2012 ACM SIGHIT International Health Informatics Symposium (IHI 2012)
  • 46. 3. NIF Antibody Study• Pilot project to use text mining to identify antibodies used in studies Maryann Martone, Jan 2012: 2012 ACM SIGHIT International Health Informatics Symposium (IHI 2012)
  • 47. 3. NIF Antibody Study• Pilot project to use text mining to identify antibodies used in studies• Antibodies are a major source of experimental variability: –Same antibody can give very different results –Different antibodies to the same protein can give very different results Maryann Martone, Jan 2012: 2012 ACM SIGHIT International Health Informatics Symposium (IHI 2012)
  • 48. 3. NIF Antibody Study• Pilot project to use text mining to identify antibodies used in studies• Antibodies are a major source of experimental variability: –Same antibody can give very different results –Different antibodies to the same protein can give very different results• Neuroscientists spend a lot of time tracking down antibodies and troubleshooting experiments that use antibodies, e.g.: Maryann Martone, Jan 2012: 2012 ACM SIGHIT International Health Informatics Symposium (IHI 2012)
  • 49. 3. NIF Antibody Study• Pilot project to use text mining to identify antibodies used in studies• Antibodies are a major source of experimental variability: –Same antibody can give very different results –Different antibodies to the same protein can give very different results• Neuroscientists spend a lot of time tracking down antibodies and troubleshooting experiments that use antibodies, e.g.:Tissue sections were blocked with 5% serum and incubatedovernight at 4 °C with the following primary antibodies: anti-ChAT(1:100; Millipore, Billerica, MA), anti-Bax (1:50; Santa Cruz), anti-Bcl-xl (1:50; Cell Signaling), anti- neurofilament 200 kDa (1:200;Millipore) ... Maryann Martone, Jan 2012: 2012 ACM SIGHIT International Health Informatics Symposium (IHI 2012)
  • 50. What studies used my monoclonal mouse antibody against actin in humans?• Midfrontal cortex tissue samples from neurologically unimpaired subjects (n9) and from subjects with AD (n11) were obtained from the Rapid Autopsy Program• Immunoblot analysis and antibodies• The following antibodies were used for immunoblotting: -actin mAb (1:10,000 dilution, Sigma-Aldrich); -tubulin mAb (1:10,000, Abcam); T46 mAb (specific to tau 404–441, 1:1000, Invitrogen); Tau-5 mAb (human tau 218–225, 1:1000, BD Biosciences) (Porzig et al., 2007); AT8 mAb (phospho-tau Ser199, Ser202, and Thr205, 1:500, Innogenetics); PHF-1 mAb (phospho-tau Ser396 and Ser404, 1:250, gift from P. Davies); 12E8 mAb (phospho-tau Ser262 and Ser356, 1:1000, gift from P. Seubert); NMDA receptors 2A, 2B and 2D goat pAbs (C terminus, 1:1000, Santa Cruz Biotechnology)… Maryann Martone, Jan 2012: 2012 ACM SIGHIT International Health Informatics Symposium (IHI 2012)
  • 51. What studies used my monoclonal mouse antibody against actin in humans? Subject is Human• Midfrontal cortex tissue samples from neurologically unimpaired subjects (n9) and from subjects with AD (n11) were obtained from the Rapid Autopsy Program• Immunoblot analysis and antibodies• The following antibodies were used for immunoblotting: -actin mAb (1:10,000 dilution, Sigma-Aldrich); -tubulin mAb (1:10,000, Abcam); T46 mAb (specific to tau 404–441, 1:1000, Invitrogen); Tau-5 mAb (human tau 218–225, 1:1000, BD Biosciences) (Porzig et al., 2007); AT8 mAb (phospho-tau Ser199, Ser202, and Thr205, 1:500, Innogenetics); PHF-1 mAb (phospho-tau Ser396 and Ser404, 1:250, gift from P. Davies); 12E8 mAb (phospho-tau Ser262 and Ser356, 1:1000, gift from P. Seubert); NMDA receptors 2A, 2B and 2D goat pAbs (C terminus, 1:1000, Santa Cruz Biotechnology)… Maryann Martone, Jan 2012: 2012 ACM SIGHIT International Health Informatics Symposium (IHI 2012)
  • 52. What studies used my monoclonal mouse antibody against actin in humans? Subject is Human• Midfrontal cortex tissue samples from neurologically unimpaired subjects (n9) and from subjects with AD (n11) were obtained from the Rapid Autopsy Program• Immunoblot analysis and antibodies antibody mAb=monoclonal• The following antibodies were used for immunoblotting: -actin mAb (1:10,000 dilution, Sigma-Aldrich); -tubulin mAb (1:10,000, Abcam); T46 mAb (specific to tau 404–441, 1:1000, Invitrogen); Tau-5 mAb (human tau 218–225, 1:1000, BD Biosciences) (Porzig et al., 2007); AT8 mAb (phospho-tau Ser199, Ser202, and Thr205, 1:500, Innogenetics); PHF-1 mAb (phospho-tau Ser396 and Ser404, 1:250, gift from P. Davies); 12E8 mAb (phospho-tau Ser262 and Ser356, 1:1000, gift from P. Seubert); NMDA receptors 2A, 2B and 2D goat pAbs (C terminus, 1:1000, Santa Cruz Biotechnology)… Maryann Martone, Jan 2012: 2012 ACM SIGHIT International Health Informatics Symposium (IHI 2012)
  • 53. What studies used my monoclonal mouse antibody against actin in humans? Subject is Human• Midfrontal cortex tissue samples from neurologically unimpaired subjects (n9) and from subjects with AD (n11) were obtained from the Rapid Autopsy Program• Immunoblot analysis and antibodies antibody mAb=monoclonal• The following antibodies were used for immunoblotting: -actin mAb (1:10,000 dilution, Sigma-Aldrich); -tubulin mAb (1:10,000, Abcam); T46 mAb (specific to tau 404–441, 1:1000, Invitrogen); Tau-5 mAb (human tau 218–225, 1:1000, BD Biosciences) (Porzig et al., 2007); AT8 mAb (phospho-tau Ser199, Ser202, and Thr205, 1:500, Innogenetics); PHF-1 mAb (phospho-tau Ser396 and Ser404, 1:250, gift from P. Davies); 12E8 mAb (phospho-tau Ser262 and Ser356, 1:1000, gift from P. Seubert); NMDA receptors 2A, 2B and 2D goat pAbs (C terminus, 1:1000, Santa Cruz Biotechnology)… Maryann Martone, Jan 2012: 2012 ACM SIGHIT International Health Informatics Symposium (IHI 2012)
  • 54. What studies used my monoclonal mouse antibody against actin in humans? Subject is Human• Midfrontal cortex tissue samples from neurologically unimpaired subjects (n9) and from subjects with AD (n11) were obtained from the Rapid Autopsy Program• Immunoblot analysis and antibodies antibody mAb=monoclonal• The following antibodies were used for immunoblotting: -actin mAb (1:10,000 dilution, Sigma-Aldrich); -tubulin mAb (1:10,000, Abcam); T46 mAb (specific to tau 404–441, 1:1000, Invitrogen); Tau-5 mAb (human tau 218–225, 1:1000, BD Biosciences) (Porzig et al., 2007); AT8 mAb (phospho-tau Ser199, Ser202, and Thr205, 1:500, Innogenetics); PHF-1 mAb (phospho-tau Ser396 and Ser404, 1:250, gift from P. Davies); 12E8 mAb (phospho-tau Ser262 and Ser356, 1:1000, gift from P. Seubert); NMDA receptors 2A, 2B and 2D goat pAbs (C terminus, 1:1000, Santa Cruz Biotechnology)… •95 antibodies were identified in 8 articles •52 did not contain enough information to determine the antibody used Maryann Martone, Jan 2012: 2012 ACM SIGHIT International Health Informatics Symposium (IHI 2012)
  • 55. Problem #3: Knowledge is not connected to the real world 13
  • 56. Problem #3: Knowledge is not connected to the real world• No way to ensure connections between experiments/real-world manipulations and record 13
  • 57. Problem #3: Knowledge is not connected to the real world• No way to ensure connections between experiments/real-world manipulations and record• Specific characteristics of real-world objects matter, a great deal (e.g. patients, genes, etc) 13
  • 58. Problem #3: Knowledge is not connected to the real world• No way to ensure connections between experiments/real-world manipulations and record• Specific characteristics of real-world objects matter, a great deal (e.g. patients, genes, etc)• Sometimes essential details are lost in statistical manipulation, pulling out certain features, etc. 13
  • 59. So what is missing? 14
  • 60. So what is missing?1.Lexapro example: we need to be able to trace claims throughout the evidence base 14
  • 61. So what is missing?1.Lexapro example: we need to be able to trace claims throughout the evidence base2.Drug-drug interaction example: we need to access actionable content from papers 14
  • 62. So what is missing?1.Lexapro example: we need to be able to trace claims throughout the evidence base2.Drug-drug interaction example: we need to access actionable content from papers3.Antibodies example: we need to know which real-world objects the experiment was done on 14
  • 63. So what is missing?1.Lexapro example: we need to be able to trace claims throughout the evidence base Knowledge context2.Drug-drug interaction example: we need to access actionable content from papers3.Antibodies example: we need to know which real-world objects the experiment was done on 14
  • 64. So what is missing?1.Lexapro example: we need to be able to trace claims throughout the evidence base Knowledge context2.Drug-drug interaction example: we need to access actionable content from papers Research context3.Antibodies example: we need to know which real-world objects the experiment was done on 14
  • 65. So what is missing?1.Lexapro example: we need to be able to trace claims throughout the evidence base Knowledge context2.Drug-drug interaction example: we need to access actionable content from papers Research context3.Antibodies example: we need to know which real-world objects the experiment was done on Real-World context 14
  • 66. Some projects addressing this: 15
  • 67. Some projects addressing this:• Knowledge context: manually trace and link evidence: –Data2Semantics: trace evidence for clinical guidelines –DIKB: trace heritage of Product Insert information 15
  • 68. Some projects addressing this:• Knowledge context: manually trace and link evidence: –Data2Semantics: trace evidence for clinical guidelines –DIKB: trace heritage of Product Insert information• Experimental context: share workflow representations: –Workflow4Ever: share workflows –Yolanda Gil’s workflow design: share abstract workflows 15
  • 69. Some projects addressing this:• Knowledge context: manually trace and link evidence: –Data2Semantics: trace evidence for clinical guidelines –DIKB: trace heritage of Product Insert information• Experimental context: share workflow representations: –Workflow4Ever: share workflows –Yolanda Gil’s workflow design: share abstract workflows• Real-world context: manually look up the entities –NIF Antibodies registry –Pharmapendium 15
  • 70. BUT: 16
  • 71. BUT:• This is all manual: doesn’t scale• It is all done after the data is already buried• Papers act as if they are independent entities: we are not using the social, semantic web!• Problem: the myth of the standalone article. 16
  • 72. What do we need?[[1] Bleecker, J. ‘A Manifesto for Networked Objects — Cohabiting with Pigeons, Arphids and Aibos in the Internet of Thingshttp://nearfuturelaboratory.com/2006/02/26/a-manifesto-for-networked-objects/2] Bechhofer, S., De Roure, D., Gamble, M., Goble, C. and Buchan, I. (2010) Research Objects: Towards Exchange andReuse of Digital Knowledge. In: The Future of the Web for Collaborative Science (FWCS 2010), April 2010, Raleigh, NC, USA.http://precedings.nature.com/documents/4626/version/1[3] Neylon, C. ‘Network Enabled Research: Maximise scale and connectivity, minimise friction’, http://cameronneylon.net/blog/ 17network-enabled-research/
  • 73. What do we need?[[1] Bleecker, J. ‘A Manifesto for Networked Objects — Cohabiting with Pigeons, Arphids and Aibos in the Internet of Thingshttp://nearfuturelaboratory.com/2006/02/26/a-manifesto-for-networked-objects/2] Bechhofer, S., De Roure, D., Gamble, M., Goble, C. and Buchan, I. (2010) Research Objects: Towards Exchange andReuse of Digital Knowledge. In: The Future of the Web for Collaborative Science (FWCS 2010), April 2010, Raleigh, NC, USA.http://precedings.nature.com/documents/4626/version/1[3] Neylon, C. ‘Network Enabled Research: Maximise scale and connectivity, minimise friction’, http://cameronneylon.net/blog/ 17network-enabled-research/
  • 74. What do we need? Internet of things: (Bleecker, [1]) Interact with ‘objects that blog’ or ‘Blogjects’, that: track where they are and where they’ve been; have histories of their encounters and experiences have agency - an assertive voice on the social web [2][[1] Bleecker, J. ‘A Manifesto for Networked Objects — Cohabiting with Pigeons, Arphids and Aibos in the Internet of Thingshttp://nearfuturelaboratory.com/2006/02/26/a-manifesto-for-networked-objects/2] Bechhofer, S., De Roure, D., Gamble, M., Goble, C. and Buchan, I. (2010) Research Objects: Towards Exchange andReuse of Digital Knowledge. In: The Future of the Web for Collaborative Science (FWCS 2010), April 2010, Raleigh, NC, USA.http://precedings.nature.com/documents/4626/version/1[3] Neylon, C. ‘Network Enabled Research: Maximise scale and connectivity, minimise friction’, http://cameronneylon.net/blog/ 17network-enabled-research/
  • 75. What do we need? Internet of things: (Bleecker, [1]) Interact with ‘objects that blog’ or ‘Blogjects’, that: track where they are and where they’ve been; have histories of their encounters and experiences have agency - an assertive voice on the social web [2][[1] Bleecker, J. ‘A Manifesto for Networked Objects — Cohabiting with Pigeons, Arphids and Aibos in the Internet of Thingshttp://nearfuturelaboratory.com/2006/02/26/a-manifesto-for-networked-objects/2] Bechhofer, S., De Roure, D., Gamble, M., Goble, C. and Buchan, I. (2010) Research Objects: Towards Exchange andReuse of Digital Knowledge. In: The Future of the Web for Collaborative Science (FWCS 2010), April 2010, Raleigh, NC, USA.http://precedings.nature.com/documents/4626/version/1[3] Neylon, C. ‘Network Enabled Research: Maximise scale and connectivity, minimise friction’, http://cameronneylon.net/blog/ 17network-enabled-research/
  • 76. What do we need? Internet of things: (Bleecker, [1]) Interact with ‘objects that blog’ or ‘Blogjects’, that: track where they are and where they’ve been; have histories of their encounters and experiences have agency - an assertive voice on the social web [2] Research Objects: (Bechofer et al, [2]) Create semantically rich aggregations of resources, that can possess some scientific intent or support some research objective[[1] Bleecker, J. ‘A Manifesto for Networked Objects — Cohabiting with Pigeons, Arphids and Aibos in the Internet of Thingshttp://nearfuturelaboratory.com/2006/02/26/a-manifesto-for-networked-objects/2] Bechhofer, S., De Roure, D., Gamble, M., Goble, C. and Buchan, I. (2010) Research Objects: Towards Exchange andReuse of Digital Knowledge. In: The Future of the Web for Collaborative Science (FWCS 2010), April 2010, Raleigh, NC, USA.http://precedings.nature.com/documents/4626/version/1[3] Neylon, C. ‘Network Enabled Research: Maximise scale and connectivity, minimise friction’, http://cameronneylon.net/blog/ 17network-enabled-research/
  • 77. What do we need? Internet of things: (Bleecker, [1]) Interact with ‘objects that blog’ or ‘Blogjects’, that: track where they are and where they’ve been; have histories of their encounters and experiences have agency - an assertive voice on the social web [2] Research Objects: (Bechofer et al, [2]) Create semantically rich aggregations of resources, that can possess some scientific intent or support some research objective[[1] Bleecker, J. ‘A Manifesto for Networked Objects — Cohabiting with Pigeons, Arphids and Aibos in the Internet of Thingshttp://nearfuturelaboratory.com/2006/02/26/a-manifesto-for-networked-objects/2] Bechhofer, S., De Roure, D., Gamble, M., Goble, C. and Buchan, I. (2010) Research Objects: Towards Exchange andReuse of Digital Knowledge. In: The Future of the Web for Collaborative Science (FWCS 2010), April 2010, Raleigh, NC, USA.http://precedings.nature.com/documents/4626/version/1[3] Neylon, C. ‘Network Enabled Research: Maximise scale and connectivity, minimise friction’, http://cameronneylon.net/blog/ 17network-enabled-research/
  • 78. What do we need? Internet of things: (Bleecker, [1]) Interact with ‘objects that blog’ or ‘Blogjects’, that: track where they are and where they’ve been; have histories of their encounters and experiences have agency - an assertive voice on the social web [2] Research Objects: (Bechofer et al, [2]) Create semantically rich aggregations of resources, that can possess some scientific intent or support some research objective Networked Knowledge: (Neylon, [3]) If we care about taking advantage of the web and internet for research then we must tackle the building of scholarly communication networks. These networks will have two critical characteristics: scale and a lack of friction. [3][[1] Bleecker, J. ‘A Manifesto for Networked Objects — Cohabiting with Pigeons, Arphids and Aibos in the Internet of Thingshttp://nearfuturelaboratory.com/2006/02/26/a-manifesto-for-networked-objects/2] Bechhofer, S., De Roure, D., Gamble, M., Goble, C. and Buchan, I. (2010) Research Objects: Towards Exchange andReuse of Digital Knowledge. In: The Future of the Web for Collaborative Science (FWCS 2010), April 2010, Raleigh, NC, USA.http://precedings.nature.com/documents/4626/version/1[3] Neylon, C. ‘Network Enabled Research: Maximise scale and connectivity, minimise friction’, http://cameronneylon.net/blog/ 17network-enabled-research/
  • 79. Towards networked knowledge: 18
  • 80. Towards networked knowledge:Real-World context: 18
  • 81. Towards networked knowledge:Real-World context:• Networked Objects in the lab that store our interactions with them and their experiences 18
  • 82. Towards networked knowledge:Real-World context:• Networked Objects in the lab that store our interactions with them and their experiences• Easy ways to author our experiences with these tools 18
  • 83. Towards networked knowledge:Real-World context:• Networked Objects in the lab that store our interactions with them and their experiences• Easy ways to author our experiences with these toolsResearch context: 18
  • 84. Towards networked knowledge:Real-World context:• Networked Objects in the lab that store our interactions with them and their experiences• Easy ways to author our experiences with these toolsResearch context: 18
  • 85. Towards networked knowledge:Real-World context:• Networked Objects in the lab that store our interactions with them and their experiences• Easy ways to author our experiences with these toolsResearch context:• Tools to create Research Objects and allow us to describe our actions and observations 18
  • 86. Towards networked knowledge:Real-World context:• Networked Objects in the lab that store our interactions with them and their experiences• Easy ways to author our experiences with these toolsResearch context:• Tools to create Research Objects and allow us to describe our actions and observations• Repositories for Research Objects with unique IDs, provenance, persistance 18
  • 87. Towards networked knowledge:Real-World context:• Networked Objects in the lab that store our interactions with them and their experiences• Easy ways to author our experiences with these toolsResearch context:• Tools to create Research Objects and allow us to describe our actions and observations• Repositories for Research Objects with unique IDs, provenance, persistance• Infrastructure to connect all of this, traverse it 18
  • 88. Towards networked knowledge:Real-World context:• Networked Objects in the lab that store our interactions with them and their experiences• Easy ways to author our experiences with these toolsResearch context:• Tools to create Research Objects and allow us to describe our actions and observations• Repositories for Research Objects with unique IDs, provenance, persistance• Infrastructure to connect all of this, traverse it• Meta-analyses and visualisations to make sense of it. 18
  • 89. 19
  • 90. Knowledge context? 19
  • 91. Knowledge context?• We need: – A way to represent ‘Research Thoughts’: Observational and Interpretational assertions – To link them together in a meaningfully, approaching the richness of natural language – Tools to comment on other people’s (networked) thoughts, vet them, judge them, contradict/confirm – Interfaces to link knowledge back and forth through time/ argument and oversee arguments 19
  • 92. Knowledge context?• We need: – A way to represent ‘Research Thoughts’: Observational and Interpretational assertions – To link them together in a meaningfully, approaching the richness of natural language – Tools to comment on other people’s (networked) thoughts, vet them, judge them, contradict/confirm – Interfaces to link knowledge back and forth through time/ argument and oversee arguments• We have: – Some interfaces – Some tools to pull out assertions 19
  • 93. Knowledge context?• We need: – A way to represent ‘Research Thoughts’: Observational and Interpretational assertions – To link them together in a meaningfully, approaching the richness of natural language – Tools to comment on other people’s (networked) thoughts, vet them, judge them, contradict/confirm – Interfaces to link knowledge back and forth through time/ argument and oversee arguments• We have: – Some interfaces – Some tools to pull out assertions• 19
  • 94. DOMEO: Annotating claims 20
  • 95. DOMEO: Annotating claims 20
  • 96. DOMEO: Annotating claims 20
  • 97. DOMEO: Annotating claims 20
  • 98. DOMEO: Annotating claims 20
  • 99. Finding ‘Claimed Knowledge Updates’ 21
  • 100. Knowledge context - we need representation of text!• Some tools exist, but...• We need a) models and b) tools that create ROs and graft a structured narrative on top of that• Containing the richness of models, thoughts, serendipity, associations...• Mostly: we need reasons for people to do this and rewards for them to do so• Some examples of enforced structure: grant proposals, data plans 22
  • 101. Summary: 23
  • 102. Summary:• Current way of publishing does not suffice! 23
  • 103. Summary:• Current way of publishing does not suffice!• We need networked knowledge to provide: –Real-world context –Experimental context –Knowledge context 23
  • 104. Summary:• Current way of publishing does not suffice!• We need networked knowledge to provide: –Real-world context –Experimental context –Knowledge context• What do we have: –Real-World/Experimental: technologies, but no practice –Knowledge: some tools to encode this manually and help pull out semi-automatically 23
  • 105. Summary:• Current way of publishing does not suffice!• We need networked knowledge to provide: –Real-world context –Experimental context –Knowledge context• What do we have: –Real-World/Experimental: technologies, but no practice –Knowledge: some tools to encode this manually and help pull out semi-automatically• What do we need: –A framework to tie this all together –Understanding of the authors’ drivers and rewards, to change their writing habits 23
  • 106. Some ideas for next steps: 24
  • 107. Some ideas for next steps:• Gathering of minds: Force11.org, BeyondThePDF, ScienceOnline, ... 24
  • 108. Some ideas for next steps:• Gathering of minds: Force11.org, BeyondThePDF, ScienceOnline, ...• People and ideas are converging but there is no real driver to collaborate 24
  • 109. Some ideas for next steps:• Gathering of minds: Force11.org, BeyondThePDF, ScienceOnline, ...• People and ideas are converging but there is no real driver to collaborate• Need to develop use cases, for instance: drug- drug interaction experiments? 24
  • 110. Some ideas for next steps:• Gathering of minds: Force11.org, BeyondThePDF, ScienceOnline, ...• People and ideas are converging but there is no real driver to collaborate• Need to develop use cases, for instance: drug- drug interaction experiments?• Very interested to work on this: happy to discuss! 24
  • 111. Some ideas for next steps:• Gathering of minds: Force11.org, BeyondThePDF, ScienceOnline, ...• People and ideas are converging but there is no real driver to collaborate• Need to develop use cases, for instance: drug- drug interaction experiments?• Very interested to work on this: happy to discuss! a.dewaard@elsevier.com 24
  • 112. Acknowledgements:• Collaborations: –DOMEO: Paolo Ciccarese, Tim Clark, Harvard –Data2Semantics: Rinke Hoekstra, Paul Groth, VU –DIKB: Rich Boycer, Jodi Schneider, Maria Liakata –Provenance and experimental modeling: Gully Burns, Eduard Hovy, Yolanda Gil, ISI –Linked Data Integration: Joanne Luciano, Deborah McGuiness, John Erickson, RPI –Claimed Knowledge Updates: Agnes Sandor, Xerox• Discussions: –Phil Bourne, Cameron Neylon, Dave De Roure, Carole Goble, Brad Allen, Maryann Martone, Sophia Ananiadou 25