Comparison of BIBO and FaBiO

BIBO v1.3, the Bibliographic Ontology developed by Bruce D’Arcus and Frédérick Giasson [1], was the first OWL ontology dedicated to describing bibliographic entities, and has attracted a wide group of users. It provided the much-needed ability to describe the nature of cited works in RDF to a high degree of granularity, in terms of Title, Abstract, Journal, Volume, Pages, ISSN, DOI, dataCopyrighted, editor, etc.

FaBiO, the FRBR-aligned Bibliographic Ontology, which was created more recently and was introduced in a previous blog post [2], bears many similarities with BIBO, including its overall scope and intention, and the inclusion of PRISM and DC Terms data properties. A clear comparison of these two ontologies, and the provision of a mapping between them, is long overdue.

The primary differences between FaBiO and BIBO are as follows:

  1. While BIBO is a ‘flat’ ontology, FaBiO is structured according to the FRBR conceptual model, in which publication entities are described from four different and correlated points of view, those of Work, Expression, Manifestation and Item, each of which is a FRBR Endeavour, as defined in a previous blog post. This structure has been introduced to provide greater expressivity. For example, using FaBiO one can describe a fabio:ResearchPaper that can be published as a fabio:JournalArticle, or alternatively as a fabio:ConferencePaper or a fabio:BookChapter. BIBO has the class bibo:AcademicArticle, which conflated the two concepts ResearchPaper (a conceptual Work) and JournalArticle (an Expression of that Work).
  2. Great care has been taken to make the textual definitions of FaBiO classes accurate and expressive. Thus, while BIBO’s definition of bibo:Standard is “A document describing a standard”, FaBiO describes fabio:TechnicalStandard, which is a subclass of fabio:Specification, as “An official or public specification of, or requirement for, a technical method, practice, process or protocol that is involved in, for example, manufacturing, computation, electronic communication, or digital media.”
  3. FaBiO is larger than BIBO (211 rather than 69 classes, 69 rather than 52 object properties, 45 rather than 54 data properties, and 16 rather than 15 individuals), permitting greater expressivity.
  4. BIBO has a slight subject specialism in the area of legal documents (including bibo:Bill, bibo:Brief, bibo:CourtReporter, bibo:LegalCaseDocument, bibo:Statue). In addition to covering conventional scholarly works, BIBO also covers a few things outside the immediate realm of bibliographic entities, including social events (e.g. bibo:Hearing, bibo:Interview, bibo:Performance) and personal roles (e.g. bibo:interviewer, bibo:performer, bibo:producer). In contrast, FaBiO was developed to describe anything a research scientist might need to reference. Thus it lacks legal classes but includes classes that betray a preoccupation with academia and publications (e.g. fabio:ExaminationPaper, fabio:Preprint, fabio:SupplementaryInformationFile), funding and IPR (e.g. fabio:GrantApplication, fabio:PatentApplication), biomedical research (e.g. fabio:ClinicalTrialDesign, fabio:SystematicReview), research data (e.g. fabio:Dataset, fabio:Metadata, fabio:DataBase, fabio:DataRepository), computing (e.g. fabio:Algorithm, fabio:ComputerProgram), web communication (e.g. fabio:BlogPost, fabio:WikiEntry) and ontologies (e.g. fabio:ControlledVocabulary, fabio:Ontology, fabio:Thesaurus, fabio:Taxonomy), none of which are present in BIBO.
  5. FaBiO is not a stand-alone ontology, but is one of the SPAR (Semantic Publishing and Referencing) Ontologies, a suite of complementary and orthogonal ontologies outlined in two previous blog posts [2, 3], that cover all aspects of publishing, referencing and bibliographic endeavour.
  6. FaBiO and the other SPAR ontologies are written in OWL 2 DL, enabling them to be used in the Semantic Web with appropriate reasoners. In contrast, BIBO is in OWL Full, since it includes the RDF resources rdf:List, rdf:Seq and rdfs:Resource and the property rdf:value that cannot be included in proper OWL2 DL ontologies.
  7. BIBO contains a few elements that are not present within FaBiO, but that have equivalent elements within some of the other SPAR ontologies:
    1. the object properties bibo:cites and bibo:isCitedBy have equivalent properties in CiTO, the Citation Typing Ontology, where they have 32 sub-properties lacking in BIBO;
    2. classes to describe component parts of documents (e.g. bibo:DocumentPart) that are covered in DoCO, the Document Components Ontology;
    3. classes and properties to describe the status of documents (e.g. bibo:DocumentStatus, bibo:status), that are covered in PSO, the Publication Status Ontology.
  8. FaBiO and CiTO have been harmonized [4] with the SWAN (Semantic Web Applications in Neuromedicine) ontology ecosystem developed by Tim Clark and Paolo Ciccarese of Harvard University, which covers the domain of scientific discourse in general, with particular application to neuromedicine, and which is used particularly useful for characterizing rhetorical structures between documents. Since SWAN had been previously harmonized with the SIOC (Semantically-Interlinked Online Communities) ontology for describing blogs, wikis and discussion groups, this provides the basis of a powerful new web framework for scientific communications.
  9. For categorising bibliographic resources, FaBiO has been integrated with and extends SKOS, the Simple Knowledge Organization System [5] that supports the use of thesauri, classification schemes, subject heading lists, taxonomies and other knowledge organization systems within the framework of the Semantic Web, as described in a previous blog post.

The choice of whether to use BIBO or FaBiO depends upon whether BIBO possesses sufficient expressiveness for the task in hand, whether the user is prepared to put in the small degree of extra effort required to engage with the layered FRBR structure of FaBiO rather than the flat structure of BIBO, whether one requires the semantic reasoning support of an OWL 2 DL ontology, and whether the user requires integration with other ontologies such as CiTO and SWAN, that FaBiO provides.

To assist existing users of BIBO and the SPAR Ontologies to map between these two systems, we have used SKOS to prepare an RDF mapping document, BIBO2SPAR, that we describe in the following blog post.

[1] Bruce D’Arcus and Frédérick Giasson (2009). Bibliographic Ontology Specification. Specification Document, 4 November 2009. http://bibliontology.com/specification.

[2] David Shotton (2010) Introducing the Semantic Publishing and Referencing (SPAR) Ontologies. JISC Open Citations Blog, 14 October 2010. https://opencitations.hypotheses.org/16.

[3] David Shotton (2011) New web site for the SPAR ontologies. JISC Open Citations Blog, 25 February 2011. https://opencitations.hypotheses.org/55.

[4] Ciccarese P, Shotton D, Peroni S and Clark T (2011) CiTO + SWAN: The Web Semantics of Bibliographic Records, Citations, Evidence and Discourse Relationships. (Submitted for publication).

[5] Miles, A., Bechhofer, S. (2009). SKOS Simple Knowledge Organization System Reference. W3C Recommendation, 18 August 2009. World Wide Web Consortium. http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-skos-reference-20090818/.

Categorising bibliographic resources with FaBiO and SKOS

One of the most important need for a publisher is to categorising each bibliographic entity it produces by adding free-text keywords and/or specific terms structured according to recognised classification systems and/or thesauri specific for certain academic disciplines. Academics have the same need when annotating bibliographic references.

SKOS, the Simple Knowledge Organization System [1], is an RDFS model to support the use of knowledge organization systems (KOS) such as thesauri, classification schemes, subject heading lists and taxonomies within the framework of the Semantic Web. The reception of this language has been particularly positive: a large number of well-known thesauri and classification systems, including the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), have started to convert their respective specifications into SKOS documents. This makes SKOS the de facto standard for encoding controlled vocabularies for the Semantic Web, and it is in this role that we have employed it within FaBiO.

While, through FaBiO, the FRBR-aligned Bibliographic Ontology, the definition of keywords is possible using the PRISM property prism:keyword, terms from thesauri, structured vocabularies and classification systems are best described using SKOS. To facilitate this, FaBiO extends some classes and properties of SKOS as shown in the following Graffoo diagram.

The extensions to the common SKOS classes and relations implemented in FaBiO

As shown, any FRBR endeavour can be associated with one or more descriptive terms (fabio:hasSubjectTerm fabio:SubjectTerm, a sub-class of skos:Concept) found in a specific dictionary (fabio:TermDictionary, a sub-class of skos:ConceptScheme) that is relevant to one or more particular disciplines (fabio:hasDiscipline fabio:SubjectDiscipline, also a sub-class of skos:Concept) describing a field of knowledge or human activity such as Computer Science, Biology, Economics, Cookery or Swimming. These discipline names (fabio:SubjectDiscipline) are recorded within a discipline dictionary (fabio:DisciplineDictionary, also a sub-class of skos:ConceptScheme).

For example, “cell”, “mitochondrion” and “Cell Biology” are members (fabio:SubjectTerms) of the Cell Biology Term Dictionary, a particular fabio:TermDictionary. This Cell Biology Term Dictionary has a scientific subject discipline (fabio:hasSubjectDiscipline), revealed by its name, of “Cell Biology”. This subject discipline is a member of the class fabio:SubjectDiscipline, and is contained within a fabio:DisciplineDictionary entitled “Science Subject Dictionary”.

Of course, the granularity of application of such an information model is up to the user, since from the point of view of the cell biology specialist, “cell biology” is his subject discipline, whereas from the point of view of a librarian cataloguing books, “cell biology” might be a subject term.

The following RDF example (in Turtle) shows how these concepts can be used to enrich a bibliographic record:

@prefix skos: <http://www.w3.oeg/2004/02/skos/core#>
@prefix acm: <http://www.acm.org/class/1998/> .
@prefix dbpedia: <http://dbpedia.org/resource/> .
@prefix wiley: <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/> .

:intertextual-semantics a fabio:ResearchPaper
; dcterms:title “Intertextual semantics: A semantics for information design”
; fabio:hasPortrayal wiley:10.1002/asi.21134/full
; prism:keywords “semantics of markup” , “semiotic application” , “xml”
; fabio:hasSubjectTerm acm:markup-languages , acm:semantics .

acm:markup-languages a fabio:SubjectTerm
; skos:prefLabel “Markup languages”
; skos:inScheme <http://www.acm.org/class/1998>
; skos:broader acm:document-preparation .


acm:semantics a fabio:SubjectTerm
; skos:prefLabel “Semantics”
; skos:inScheme <http://www.acm.org/class/1998>
; skos:broader acm:formal-definitions-and-theory .


<http://www.acm.org/class/1998> a fabio:TermDictionary
; skos:prefLabel “The 1998 ACM Computing Classification System”
; fabio:hasDiscipline dbpedia:Computer_science .

[1] Miles, A., Bechhofer, S. (2009). SKOS Simple Knowledge Organization System Reference. W3C Recommendation, 18 August 2009. World Wide Web Consortium. http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-skos-reference-20090818/.

Extending FRBR within FaBiO

FRBR, the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records [1] is a general model, proposed by the International Federation of Library Association (IFLA), for describing bibliographic documents. It works for both physical and digital resources and has proved to be very flexible and powerful. One of the most important aspect of FRBR is the fact that it is not associated with a particular metadata schema or implementation. Its defining characteristic is that FRBR describes all documents from four different and correlated points of view, those of Work, Expression, Manifestation and Item, each of which is a FRBR Endeavour.

A Work is a distinct intellectual or artistic creation, an abstract concept recognised through its various expressions. An example of a Work is your latest research paper.

An Expression is the specific form that a Work takes each time it is ‘realized’ in physical or electronic form. For your latest research paper, Draft 5, the preprint, and the published version to which the publisher assigned a unique DOI (Digital Object Identifier), are all Expressions of the same work.

A Manifestation of an expression of a scholarly work defines its particular physical or electronic embodiment. If your latest research paper appeared as an article in a print journal, in the on-line version of that journal as an HTML page, and also as a downloadable PDF file, these are three separate manifestations of the same ‘version of record’ Expression of your work, all bearing the same DOI.

In FRBR, an Item is one single exemplar copy of a Manifestation, i.e. a physical or electronic object that can be owned by a person, for example a particular HTML file on a web server, a printed copy of a journal article on your desk, or a PDF file of that article that you purchased from a publisher and that now resides in digital form on your computer hard drive.

There now exists two different implementations of the core concepts of FRBR using standards that permit the encoding of proper semantics: the first, authored in 2005 by Richard Newman and Ian Davis, is FRBR Core in RDFS, while the second, developed from the first in 2010 by Paolo Ciccarese and Silvio Peroni, is FRBR Core in OWL 2 DL.

FaBiO, the FRBR-aligned Bibliographic Ontology, previously described in this blog post, is an ontology for recording and publishing on the Semantic Web bibliographic records of scholarly endeavours that is structured according to the FRBR model of Works, Expressions, Manifestations and Items.

One of the explicit requests from publishers and end-users of FaBiO was to create shortcuts between particular combinations of FRBR endeavours C:\Documents and Settings\David Shotton\My Documents\Papers and books\Peroni paper CiTO and FaBiO\citofabio_01.odt\iml: – IFLAStudyGroupFRBR(between Work and Manifestation, between Work and Item, and between Expression and Item), since these were not part of the original FRBR model.

Let us introduce a bibliographic reference to illustrate this need:

Yves Marcoux, Élias Rizkallah (2009). Intertextual semantics: A semantics for information design. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.21134/full.

In this reference, we have a FRBR work – the paper by Marcoux and Rizkallah – and the URL for a specific FRBR item that portrays that work, an HTML file containing the paper on the publisher’s web site. If we wished to link these concepts simply using the FRBR OWL ontology terms, we would be obliged to specify each intermediate FRBR endeavour, namely the expression and manifestation of that paper, even if we were not interested in doing that:

 @prefix wiley: <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/> .

:intertextual-semantics a frbr:Work
; frbr:creator :marcoux , :rizkallah
; dcterms:title “Intertextual semantics: A semantics for information design”
; frbr:realization [ a frbr:Expression
; frbr:embodiment [ a frbr:Manifestation
; frbr:exemplar wiley:10.1002/asi.21134/full ] ] .

 In order to avoid this kind of verbosity, we have supplemented the existing FRBR object properties with three new FaBiO properties shown in the following figure: fabio:hasManifestation that links a Work directly to its Manifestations, fabio:hasPortrayal that links a Work directly to its Items), and fabio:hasRepresentation that links an Expression directly to its Items.


A Graffoo diagram showing the FRBR Core data model, supplemented with three new FaBiO properties.

Note: In Manchester Syntax, the “o” in each sub-property chain is the syntax mechanism for chaining properties.

These added properties allow us to treat the previous example in a less verbose way:

@prefix wiley: <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/> .

:intertextual-semantics a frbr:Work
; frbr:creator :marcoux , :rizkallah
; dcterms:title “Intertextual semantics: A semantics for information design”
; fabio:hasPortrayal wiley:10.1002/asi.21134/full .

[1] IFLA Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (2009). Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records Final Report. International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions. http://www.ifla.org/en/publications/functional-requirements-for-bibliographic-records.

Functional clustering of CiTO properties

CiTO v2.0 contains just two main object properties, cito:cites and its inverse cito:isCitedBy, each of which as thirty-two sub-properties. Intentionally, these properties are not constrained as to domain or range, thereby maximising their applicability in a wide range of citation contexts. Additionally, CiTO contains one additional generic object property, cito:shareAuthorsWith, that may be used even outside a citation context.

Some have criticised CiTO for having too many properties, making it confusing for potential users, and Martin Fenner chose to use only the ten ‘most popular’ properties in his CiTO plug-in for WordPress, previously mentioned in this blog post. In response, I would point out that each property has a distinct and clearly defined meaning, and that together they provide an appropriate level of expressivity for effective use. Nevertheless, it is clearly difficult to conceptualize all the CiTO properties at one time, if they are being viewed using an ontology editor such as Protégé. I have thus created the following figure that groups CiTO properties by similarity, in the hope that this will facilitate choice of the most appropriate one.

Clustering of CiTO relationships by similarity

As shown in the figure, the CiTO properties and sub-properties (and, consequently, their inverses) may be classified as rhetorical (upper oval) and/or factual (lower oval, dark blue text), with the rhetorical properties being grouped in three sets depending on their connotation: positive (green), neutral or informative (blue) and negative (red). Five properties (in purple, within the overlap of the ovals) have both factual and rhetorical characteristics. The inverse properties are not shown.

Advantages of Ontological Standards in Scholarly Publishing

Scholarly authoring and publishing is in the throes of a revolution, as the full potential of on-line publishing is explored. Semantic publishing is one aspect of this, namely
the use of web and semantic web technologies to enhance a published document such as a journal article so as to enrich its meaning, facilitate its automatic discovery, enable its linking to semantically related articles, provide access to data within the article in actionable form, and allow integration of data between papers [1].

As confirmed by a number of recent initiatives – including the Elsevier Grand Challenge and its Executable Paper Challenge, the Beyond The PDF Workshop, the Beyond Impact Workshop, the First International Workshop about Semantic Publication (SePublica 2011), the upcoming Schloss Dagstuhl Perspectives Workshop entitled The Future of Research Communication, and the Special Issue of the Semantic Web Journal on New Models of Semantic Publishing in Science, which is open for submissions until 15 September 2011 – semantic publishing and scholarly citation using web standards are presently two of the most interesting topics within the scientific publishing domain.

Yet, to date, publishers have not adopted web standards for their day-to-day work, but rather employ a variety of proprietary XML-based informational models and document type definitions (DTDs). While such independence was reasonable in the pre-web world of paper publishing, it now appears anachronistic, since publications and their metadata are incompatible, requiring hand-crafted mappings to convert from one to another. For a large community such as publishers, this lack of standard definitions that could be adopted and reused across the entire industry represents losses in terms of money, time and effort.

In contrast, modern web information management techniques employ standards such as RDF and OWL2 to encode information in ways that permit computers to query metadata and integrate web-based information from multiple resources in an automated manner. Since the processes of scholarly communication are central to the practice of science, it is essential that publishers now adopt such standards to permit inference over the entire corpus of scholarly communication represented in journals, books and conference proceedings.

The SPAR (Semantic Publishing and Referencing) Ontologies (http://purl.org/spar/), introduced in previous blog posts [2, 3], are specially tailored to the requirements of authors, publishers and their readers, and form key components of this semantic publishing revolution, as do the tools LODE [4] and Graffoo [5] that permit these (and other) ontologies to be documented and visualized in complementary ways. We commend their use to the scholarly publishing community.

[1] David Shotton, Katie Portwin, Graham Klyne, Alistair Miles David Shotton (2009) Adventures in Semantic Publishing: Exemplar Semantic Enhancements of a Research Article. PLoS Computational Biology 5(4): e1000361. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000361.

[2] David Shotton (2010) Introducing the Semantic Publishing and Referencing (SPAR) Ontologies. JISC Open Citations Blog, 14 October 2010. http://opencitations.wordpress.com/2010/10/14/introducing-the-semantic-publishing-and-referencing-spar-ontologies/.

[3] David Shotton (2011) New web site for the SPAR ontologies. JISC Open Citations Blog, 25 February 2011. http://opencitations.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/new-web-site-for-the-spar-ontologies/.

[4] David Shotton (2011) Using LODE for ontology visualization. JISC Open Citations Blog, 25 February 2011. http://opencitations.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/using-lode-for-ontology-visualization/

[5] David Shotton (2011) Graffoo, a Graphical Framework for OWL Ontologies. JISC Open Citations Blog, 29 June 2011. http://opencitations.wordpress.com/2011/06/29/graffoo-a-graphical-framework-for-owl-ontologies/.

Graffoo, a Graphical Framework for OWL Ontologies

Graffoo, a Graphical Framework for OWL Ontologies [1], is a wonderful new open source tool developed by Silvio Peroni that can be used to present the classes, properties and restrictions within OWL ontologies, or sub-sections of them, as clear and easy-to-understand diagrams. Several Graffoo diagrams have been developed to explain SPAR ontologies, or portions of them, and are to be found in the appropriate ontology directories at https://sempublishing.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/sempublishing/.

For example, in Figure 1 the diagram, BiRO.png, illustrates the structure of BiRO, the Bibliographic Reference Ontology:


Graffoo diagram of BiRO, the Bibliographic Reference Ontology

The upper part of this diagram shows how a bibliographic record, which in FRBR terminology is a Work, (a) is a set of components (author names, publication year, title, volume number, ISSN, publisher, dates of submission, acceptance and publication, etc.), (b) references a published entity (a FRBR Endeavor), and (c) can form part of a bibliographic collection such as a library catalogue, which is also a set of components, in this case of bibliographic records.

The lower part of the diagram shows how such a bibliographic record can be realized (i.e. expressed in a specific form, forming what in FRBR terminology is an Expression) as a bibliographic reference, such as you might find in an article’s reference list. The bibliographic reference, while referencing the same published entity, differs from a bibliographic record in two important ways.

  • First, a bibliographic reference typically does not include all the components of the full bibliographic record. References typically exclude the ISSN, the name of the publisher, and the submission and acceptance dates; may exclude the publication date and some of the authors’ names if there are many authors; and in certain journal (e.g. Nature) also exclude the title.
  • Second, the components of a bibliographic reference form an ordered list rather than a set, although the precise order of components can vary from journal to journal (e.g. whether or not the publication year immediately follows the authors’ names).

The diagram also shows that, just as bibliographic records may be grouped into bibliographic collections, so bibliographic references may be grouped into bibliographic lists such as reference lists (which, of course, are themselves ordered lists), nicely exposing the symmetry within the BiRO ontology in a manner that would be hard to grasp simply by looking at the class structure within an ontology editor such as Protégé.

The advantages of using such a Grafoo diagram are thus that it displays the logical relationships between elements of an ontology, or a sub-section of an ontology, in a manner that is relatively straightforward to understand, once one has grasped the meaning of the different elements of a Graffoo diagram. These elements are shown and defined in the Graffoo key (Figure 2).

Figure 2: The legend for all possible Graffoo objects

From our preliminary empirical studies, it appears that Graffoo allows us to create representations of OWL ontologies that can be comprehended in detail without the person viewing them having to understand the details of OWL 2 or of any of its linearizations (Turtle, RDF/XML, Manchester Syntax, or OWL/XML).

Graffoo has been developed using the standard library of the yEd diagram editor, a free diagram editor running on Windows, Mac and Linux. The graphml format version of those Graffoo objects is also available here. We commend the use of Graffoo to other ontologists.

[1] Graffoo, the Graphic framework for OWL ontologies. http://www.essepuntato.it/graffoo.

Using LODE for ontology visualization

Silvio Peroni has recently created LODE (Live OWL Documentation Environment; http://lode.sourceforge.net/), a new ontology visualization service that automatically extracts classes, object properties, data properties, named individuals, annotation properties, general axioms and namespace declarations from an OWL or OWL2 ontology, and renders them as ordered lists, together with their textual definitions, in a human-readable HTML page designed for browsing and navigation by means of embedded links.  The Cascading Style Sheets used for this page are based on the W3C CSSs for Recommendation documents.

This LODE service is an open source development, and can be freely used, as described at http://lode.sourceforge.net/. It may be used in conjunction with content negotiation to display the human-readable LODE version of an OWL ontology when the user accesses the ontology using a web browser, or alternatively to deliver the OWL ontology itself when the user accesses the ontology using an ontology editing tool such as Protégé and NeOn Toolkit.  It is in this way that LODE is being employed to visualize the SPAR (Semantic Publishing and Referencing) Ontologies (http://purl.org/spar/).

New web site for the SPAR ontologies

The last four SPAR ontologies – the Document Components Ontology DoCO, the Publishing Roles Ontology PRO, the Publishing Status  Ontology PSO and the Publishing Workflow Ontology PWO – were recently completed.  All eight SPAR ontologies have now been thoroughly revised and checked, and are stable and ready for use.   Descriptions of the ontologies are now provided at the new SPAR web site – http://purl.org/spar/ – which contains links to the ontologies themselves.

Using CiTO in WordPress

In his recent blog post entitled How to use Citation Typing Ontology (CiTO) in your blog posts, Martin Fenner describes a plug-in for WordPress he has created that makes it easy to add citation typing into your blog post, using a sub-set of the CiTO (Citation Typing Ontology) relationships presented in a convenient drop-down menu.  Full details at http://blogs.plos.org/mfenner/2011/02/14/how-to-use-citation-typing-ontology-cito-in-your-blog-posts/.   Many thanks, Martin!

How to employ CiTO in CiteULike

Jodi Schneider of DERI has posted on her blog at http://jodischneider.com/blog/2010/10/18/cito-in-the-wild/ a most helpful description of how to employ CiTO properties characterizing bibliographic citations as tags for references in CiteULike.

Thanks, Jodi!

Enhanced by Zemanta
Search OpenEdition Search

You will be redirected to OpenEdition Search