View Item 

Show simple item record

Developing community phenotype ontologies: Understanding users’ preferences
dc.contributor.authorZhang, Limin
dc.contributor.authorCota, Zuleima
dc.contributor.authorCui, Hong
dc.contributor.authorChen, Hsin‐liang
dc.contributor.authorFord, Bruce
dc.contributor.authorSach, Joel
dc.contributor.authorPender, Jocelyn
dc.contributor.authorMacklin, James
dc.contributor.authorReznicek, Anton
dc.contributor.authorStarr, Julian
dc.date.accessioned2019-11-12T16:21:10Z
dc.date.available2020-03-03T21:29:36Zen
dc.date.issued2019
dc.identifier.citationZhang, Limin; Cota, Zuleima; Cui, Hong; Chen, Hsin‐liang ; Ford, Bruce; Sach, Joel; Pender, Jocelyn; Macklin, James; Reznicek, Anton; Starr, Julian (2019). "Developing community phenotype ontologies: Understanding users’ preferences." Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology 56(1): 838-840.
dc.identifier.issn2373-9231
dc.identifier.issn2373-9231
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/151969
dc.description.abstractThis poster reports preliminary user-testing results on four different methods to add terms to a phenotype ontology. A total of 31 graduate students from UA iSchool and three senior botanists participated in two different experiments. Results suggest the Quick Form and WebProtege are preferred by biologists and WikiData and Wizard are not preferred for different reasons.
dc.publisherJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc.
dc.subject.otheruser studies
dc.subject.otherOntology construction
dc.subject.otherphenotype data management
dc.subject.otherbiodiversity informatics
dc.titleDeveloping community phenotype ontologies: Understanding users’ preferences
dc.typeArticle
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollow
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelInformation Science
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelSocial Sciences
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Reviewed
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/151969/1/pra2199_am.pdf
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/151969/2/pra2199.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/pra2.199
dc.identifier.sourceProceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAlatrish, E. S. ( 2013 ). Comparison some of ontology. Journal of Management Information Systems, 8 ( 2 ), 018 - 024.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKhondoker, M. R. et al. ( 2010 ). Comparing ontology development tools based on an online survey. In WCE 2010, London, England.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNorta, A., et al. ( 2010 ). Utility evaluation of tools for collaborative development and maintenance of ontologies. In 14th IEEE IEDOCConference Workshops (pp. 207 - 214 ). https://doi.org/10.1109/EDOCW.2010.30
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Name:
pra2199_am.pdf
Size:
102.2KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open
Name:
pra2199.pdf
Size:
120.7KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.