FAIR data representation in times of eScience: a comparison of instance-based and class-based semantic representations of empirical data using phenotype descriptions as example

Background The size, velocity, and heterogeneity of Big Data outclasses conventional data management tools and requires data and metadata to be fully machine-actionable (i.e., eScience-compliant) and thus findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR). This can be achieved by using ontologies and through representing them as semantic graphs. Here, we discuss two different semantic graph approaches of representing empirical data and metadata in a knowledge graph, with phenotype descriptions as an example. Almost all phenotype descriptions are still being published as unstructured natural language texts, with far-reaching consequences for their FAIRness, substantially impeding their overall usability within the life sciences. However, with an increasing amount of anatomy ontologies becoming available and semantic applications emerging, a solution to this problem becomes available. Researchers are starting to document and communicate phenotype descriptions through the Web in the form of highly formalized and structured semantic graphs that use ontology terms and Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) to circumvent the problems connected with unstructured texts. Results Using phenotype descriptions as an example, we compare and evaluate two basic representations of empirical data and their accompanying metadata in the form of semantic graphs: the class-based TBox semantic graph approach called Semantic Phenotype and the instance-based ABox semantic graph approach called Phenotype Knowledge Graph. Their main difference is that only the ABox approach allows for identifying every individual part and property mentioned in the description in a knowledge graph. This technical difference results in substantial practical consequences that significantly affect the overall usability of empirical data. The consequences affect findability, accessibility, and explorability of empirical data as well as their comparability, expandability, universal usability and reusability, and overall machine-actionability. Moreover, TBox semantic graphs often require querying under entailment regimes, which is computationally more complex. Conclusions We conclude that, from a conceptual point of view, the advantages of the instance-based ABox semantic graph approach outweigh its shortcomings and outweigh the advantages of the class-based TBox semantic graph approach. Therefore, we recommend the instance-based ABox approach as a FAIR approach for documenting and communicating empirical data and metadata in a knowledge graph.

Judges and International Competitions

This chapter continues to emphasize embodied critiques against liberal multiculturalism and post-raciality by turning to large-scale commercial competitions and their increasing role in rejuvenating street dance globally. The chapter focuses on the World Hip-Hop Dance Championships (HHI), which enlists judges to watch more than 3,500 dancers from over fifty countries. With an analysis of judges and their practices from 2012 to 2014, the chapter shows that their standardization euphemizes racial, gender, ethnic, and technical difference. At the same time, the chapter reveals dance criticism that undermines the stereotype of Filipinos as naturally gifted dancers in the cultural imaginary. Discourse around dance judging enables discussions of how multiple ethnic traditions are codified similarly amidst a vexed desire for hip-hop universalism.

First-Class Objects

9 Journal of Telecommunications and High Technology Law 421 (2011)What is the difference between "James Grimmelmann" and "@grimmelm" and why should we care? Some computer systems, like Facebook and credit reporting agencies, are inherently "about" people. Others are not. This essay argues that the key technical difference is whether they use unique identifiers to refer to people in their databases. From this single distinction, a host of social and humanistic consequences follow. The essay taxonomizes them and teases out some of their implications for privacy law.

Uncertainty: Blessing or Curse?

The concepts of free will and uncertainty are inseparably intertwined. This interdisciplinary essay, instead of expounding upon the technical difference between risk and uncertainty (as classically delineated by Frank Knight), assumes that both words bring to mind the same general idea to a layperson, namely, something that’s not certain to occur but may occur, whether or not the precise degree of likelihood can be calculated. With this simplification as a given, the article proceeds to analyze, first, the cultural perspective that’s a prerequisite to the existence of a belief in free will; second, the role of the limits of human knowledge in constraining the efficacy of the quest to battle uncertainty by building models of predictability and control in the physical sciences versus the social sciences; and third (and finally), the negative implications for capital-market health of attempting to satisfy, through the adoption of public policies of redress and entitlement based on a Rawlsian system of fairness, the alleged yearning by individuals to obviate distributional uncertainty.

Void Assessments to Income Tax in Nigeria

Many Nigerian decisions in tax cases have firmly established the possibility of raising the defence of lack of jurisdiction in the assessment in an action for recovery of tax. This development has resulted from decisions of the courts and has led to a significant shift from the practice in the U.K. There— aside from the possibility of applying in rather exceptional cases for judicial review—the consideration of any issues, whether of fact or of law, as to the merits of an assessment is confined to appeals before the Commissioners with further appeal to the High Court on points of law. This apparently technical difference has had great practical importance. Recourse to the courts for the purpose of tax recovery has become more difficult for the Revenue and this has encouraged the development of extra-judicial methods of tax collection.A study of those Nigerian decisions that have established, extended and applied this doctrine, and of its consequences, should be of interest in other anglophone African countries. The income tax statutes of many such countries are basically similar due to their common descent from a “Model Ordinance” prepared in the U.K. in 1922. Decisions of the Nigerian Courts on the construction of provisions of the Nigerian tax statutes are of persuasive authority in other Commonwealth countries with similar provisions in their own tax enactments.This paper first provides a broad outline of the Nigerian legislation on tax assessments, appeals and collection in order to facilitate the understanding of the points discussed later.