8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      Publish your biodiversity research with us!

      Submit your article here.

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Even Simple Habitat Ontologies are Hard to Use

      , , ,
      Biodiversity Information Science and Standards
      Pensoft Publishers

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          An essential component in describing, delimiting, and understanding the evolutionary context of a taxon is characterizing the habitats in which the taxon is found. We report on a simple habitat ontology that we have developed, and on our ongoing experience using volunteers to annotate legacy habitat descriptions with terms from the ontology. Our botanical informatics group is building the Canadian Flora Commons, a knowledge platform to aggregate, integrate and facilitate collaboration on information about Canadian plants. Species pages in the Commons are seeded with structured data extracted from authoritative sources such as the Flora of North America (FNA), Flora of British Columbia, etc. In previous TDWG talks (e.g., Sachs et al. 2019), we described our workflow for extracting and structuring morphological data. To understand why habitat descriptions are different and pose a unique set of challenges, consider the following (from Plectocephalus rothrockii in FNA): “Damp soil near streams, roadsides, open pine-oak woodlands and forests”. Here, the single field “habitat” is used to capture environmental conditions, canopy coverage, and taxonomic associations. We also find it often used for geology, climate, etc. Information in the habitat field is often detailed, but it is presented in free text with little editorial guidance, and comparison between treatments within a given flora and among floras is challenging.Environment ontologies that could aid in the standardization of habitat descriptors exist, notably ENVO (ENVironment Ontology; Buttigieg et al. 2016). However, ENVO’s goals have been primarily focused on describing the biomes, environmental features and environmental materials of molecular datasets, resulting in an ontology that thus far does not serve our needs. To our knowledge, no habitat ontology exists that supports species-level use cases (but see the habitat classification scheme developed by the IUCN). To address this, we developed a small and simple habitat ontology by examining over 3000 habitat descriptions across multiple families, and asked “what is the author trying to tell us?”. In our taxonomic treatment authoring tool, being developed as part of another project, we will use this ontology to replace or supplement the single “habitat” field with multiple habitat dimensions (“soil type”, “canopy coverage”, etc.), some with controlled vocabularies (e.g. {open, closed, partial} for canopy coverage).  We are also “translating” legacy habitat descriptions into instance data for the ontology. This is a time-consuming process and has the potential to be dependent on interpretations made by the translator. The crowdsourcing experiment described below is aimed at addressing the first issue and quantifying the second. With our centre's support, we recruited a team of volunteers (6–8 at any given time), and taught them how to annotate habitat descriptions with WebProtegé (Horridge et al. 2014). We divided volunteers into two groups, with each group working with the same dataset, so that we could compare results.While a purpose-built habitat ontology offers advantages over existing environment ontologies and a consensus was reached on habitat class definitions (e.g., moisture, elevation, canopy coverage), we discovered that it is difficult to achieve consensus on the application of habitat classes. Between the two groups, shared annotations represented 57% of the total annotations added to terms and phrases and unique annotations represented 43%. This aligns with previous efforts to build a controlled vocabulary for FNA treatments, where differences between term categorizations represented 49% of the effort (Endara et al. (2017)). Amongst classes in our ontology, unique annotations varied between 11% and 76% (see Fig. 1).Our talk will describe our findings, discuss the subjectivity of habitat classes and other difficulties we’ve encountered while building our ontology, and demonstrate the power of a habitat-driven search interface. This interface will live alongside parsed morphological descriptions (see dev.floranorthamerica.org). We invite collaboration towards increasing the robustness and applicability of the ontology.

          Related collections

          Most cited references4

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The environment ontology in 2016: bridging domains with increased scope, semantic density, and interoperation

          Background The Environment Ontology (ENVO; http://www.environmentontology.org/), first described in 2013, is a resource and research target for the semantically controlled description of environmental entities. The ontology's initial aim was the representation of the biomes, environmental features, and environmental materials pertinent to genomic and microbiome-related investigations. However, the need for environmental semantics is common to a multitude of fields, and ENVO's use has steadily grown since its initial description. We have thus expanded, enhanced, and generalised the ontology to support its increasingly diverse applications. Methods We have updated our development suite to promote expressivity, consistency, and speed: we now develop ENVO in the Web Ontology Language (OWL) and employ templating methods to accelerate class creation. We have also taken steps to better align ENVO with the Open Biological and Biomedical Ontologies (OBO) Foundry principles and interoperate with existing OBO ontologies. Further, we applied text-mining approaches to extract habitat information from the Encyclopedia of Life and automatically create experimental habitat classes within ENVO. Results Relative to its state in 2013, ENVO's content, scope, and implementation have been enhanced and much of its existing content revised for improved semantic representation. ENVO now offers representations of habitats, environmental processes, anthropogenic environments, and entities relevant to environmental health initiatives and the global Sustainable Development Agenda for 2030. Several branches of ENVO have been used to incubate and seed new ontologies in previously unrepresented domains such as food and agronomy. The current release version of the ontology, in OWL format, is available at http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/envo.owl. Conclusions ENVO has been shaped into an ontology which bridges multiple domains including biomedicine, natural and anthropogenic ecology, ‘omics, and socioeconomic development. Through continued interactions with our users and partners, particularly those performing data archiving and sythesis, we anticipate that ENVO’s growth will accelerate in 2017. As always, we invite further contributions and collaboration to advance the semantic representation of the environment, ranging from geographic features and environmental materials, across habitats and ecosystems, to everyday objects in household settings.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            WebProtégé: a collaborative Web-based platform for editing biomedical ontologies.

            WebProtégé is an open-source Web application for editing OWL 2 ontologies. It contains several features to aid collaboration, including support for the discussion of issues, change notification and revision-based change tracking. WebProtégé also features a simple user interface, which is geared towards editing the kinds of class descriptions and annotations that are prevalent throughout biomedical ontologies. Moreover, it is possible to configure the user interface using views that are optimized for editing Open Biomedical Ontology (OBO) class descriptions and metadata. Some of these views are shown in the Supplementary Material and can be seen in WebProtégé itself by configuring the project as an OBO project.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Building the "Plant Glossary"—A controlled botanical vocabulary using terms extracted from the Floras of North America and China

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Biodiversity Information Science and Standards
                BISS
                Pensoft Publishers
                2535-0897
                October 09 2020
                October 09 2020
                : 4
                Article
                10.3897/biss.4.59190
                92e17742-ac80-4293-8b04-ebbafa016e35
                © 2020

                https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article