Harnessing the power of unified metadata in an ontology repository: The case of AgroPortal

As any resources, ontologies, thesaurus, vocabularies and terminologies need to be described with relevant metadata to facilitate their identification, selection and reuse. For ontologies to be FAIR, there is a need for metadata authoring guidelines and for harmonization of existing metadata vocabularies—taken independently none of them can completely describe an ontology. Ontology libraries and repositories also have to play an important role. Indeed, some metadata properties are intrinsic to the ontology (name, license, description); other information, such as community feedbacks or relations to other ontologies are typically information that an ontology library shall capture, populate and consolidate to facilitate the processes of identifying and selecting the right ontology(ies) to use. We have studied ontology metadata practices by: (1) analyzing metadata annotations of 805 ontologies; (2) reviewing the most standard and relevant vocabularies (23 totals) currently available to describe metadata for ontologies (such as Dublin Core, Ontology Metadata Vocabulary, VoID, etc.); (3) comparing different metadata implementation in multiple ontology libraries or repositories. We have then built a new metadata model for our AgroPortal vocabulary and ontology repository, a platform dedicated to agronomy based on the NCBO BioPortal technology. AgroPortal now recognizes 346 properties from existing metadata vocabularies that could be used to describe different aspects of ontologies: intrinsic descriptions, people, date, relations, content, metrics, community, administration, and access. We use them to populate an internal model of 127 properties implemented in the portal and harmonized for all the ontologies. We—and AgroPortal's users—have spent a significant amount of time to edit and curate the metadata of the ontologies to offer a better synthetized and harmonized information and enable new ontology identification features. Our goal was also to facilitate the comprehension of the agronomical ontology landscape by displaying diagrams and charts about all the ontologies on the portal. We have evaluated our work with a user appreciation survey which confirms the new features are indeed relevant and helpful to ease the processes of identification and selection of ontologies. This paper presents how to harness the potential of a complete and unified metadata model with dedicated features in an ontology repository; however, the new AgroPortal's model is not a new vocabulary as it relies on preexisting ones. A generalization of this work is studied in a community-driven standardization effort in the context of the RDA Vocabulary and Semantic Services Interest Group

Two years later: the landscape of vocabularies and ontologies in the AgroPortal

International audienceMid 2014, we started the AgroPortal project (http://agroportal.lirmm.fr) with the vision of offering a vocabulary & ontology repository for agronomy and related domains such as biodiversity, plant sciences and nutrition. The prototype found a good adoption, and growing interest appeared when presenting it to several interlocutors in the agronomy community (e.g., CGIAR (Bioversity International), INRA, IRD, CIRAD, IRSTEA, FAO, RDA, Planteome, EBI). We have now an advanced prototype platform which latest version (v1.3) was released in March 2017, that currently hosts 64 public ontologies including 38 not present in any such ontology repository (e.g., NCBO BioPortal) and 8 privates. This paper presents a short review of our current use cases and of the ontologies & vocabularies hosted in AgroPortal in Mai 2017. Thanks to a new ontology metadata model, we can now aggregate ontology descriptions to display information about the " landscape of agronomical ontologies " as presented

Le projet ISSA : l’intelligence artificielle au service de la recherche bibliographique

National audienc

Ecriture et lecture du romanesque à la fin du Moyen Age (Le Petit Artus de Bretagne, Méliador, Ysaïe le Triste)

Trois romans arthuriens écrits au XIVème siècle, Le Petit Artus de Bretagne, Meliador, Ysaïe le Triste, constituent le miroir d'une prise de conscience du fait littéraire dans sa dimension écrite, réflexive et figurative, à la fin du Moyen Age. La première partie s'attache à l'étude des scènes de réception : la réévaluation de l'écrit, du sacré à l'artisanat humain, s'accompagne d'une modification des pratiques de lecture, qui évoluent insensiblement d'une réception collective, oralisée, à une réception individuelle, silencieuse et méditative. La deuxième partie explore ces romans arthuriens comme réception des traditions, du point de vue de la topique, comme du point de vue des références voilées à l'actualité, et définit le romanesque comme un jeu virtuose d'allusions intertextuelles et contextuelles. La dernière partie s'intéresse à la mise en page et en image des manuscrits et imprimés, et expose un contrat de lecture mouvant : au XIVème siècle, les manuscrits révèlent une connivence entre l'écrivain virtuose et son public attentif au jeu sur les traditions ; aux XVème et XVIème siècles, les manuscrits et imprimés deviennent le support d'une réflexion instructive.Three Arthurian novels written in the 14th century, Le Petit Artus de Bretagne, Meliador, and Ysaïe le Triste, demonstrate clearly the growing awareness of literary creation and its written, reflective and figurative aspects which occurred at the end of the Middle Ages. The first part examines how written and illustrated works were received in the novels. A re-evaluation of writing, whether sacred or profane, was accompanied by changes in reading practices, which moved gradually from a collective oral tradition to an individual, silent and meditative practice. The second part explores the three Arthurian novels as a receptacle for traditions, and defines the novel as a skilled symphony of contextual and inter-textual references. The third and final part focuses on the layout and illustration of manuscripts and printed works, and shows how the relationship between the reader and writer changes : in the 14th century, the manuscripts reveal a complicity between a skilled writer and his audience, who are very aware of his playful manipulation of traditions ; in the 15th and 16th centuries, the manuscripts and printed works can be seen as a tool for instructive and reflective reading.PARIS4-BU Serpente (751052129) / SudocSudocFranceF