A Logical M odel for Taxonomic Concepts for Expanding
Knowledge using Linked Open Data
Rathachai Chawuthai1, Hideaki Takeda2, Vilas Wuwongse3, and Utsugi Jinbo4
1

Asian Institute of Technology, Prathumtani, Thailandrathachai.c@gmail.com  2
National Institute of Informatics, Tokyo, Japan
takeda@nii.ac.jp  3
Thammasat University, Prathumtani, Thailand
wvilas@engr.tu.ac.th  4National Museum of Nature and Science, Tokyo, Japanujinbo@kahaku.go.jp  Abstract. The variety of classification systems and the new discovery oftaxonomists lead to the diversity of biological information, especially taxon
concepts. The association among taxon concepts across research institutes isvery difficult to establish, because there is no single interpretation of the nameof a taxon concept. Owing to this difficulty, further integration of morebiological knowledge is very complicated when they deal with many sources ofdata or depending on different taxon concepts. This research aimes to develop aframework for linking some multiple related taxon concepts across researchrepositories, and preserving background knowledge of their changes. Therefore,
we propose a logical model for taxon concepts in Resource Description
Framework (RDF). Herewith, we implement a prototype to demonstrate thefeasibility of our approach. It has been found that our model can publish taxon
information as linked data and, hence, with additional benefits from Linked
Open Data (LOD) cloud.
Keywords. Biological data, Biodiversity informatics, Logical model, Linked
data, Ontology, Semantic web, Taxon concept

1

I ntroductionMore than 1.4 million species throughout the world have been truly described andclassified with appropriate naming depended upon their characteristics; such as, morphological characters, living behaviors, DNA sequences, etc. [1-2]. Many taxonomists
have dedicated themselves to study living organisms, research, and publish theirknowledge for over hundred years. However, their researches have not been completely shared across all researchers around the world. In addition, there is no consensus on classification systems among taxonomists. In other words, taxonomists might
have different perspectives to classify and name living organisms. As a consequence,a same species often be classified and named differently [2]. For example, Papilioxuthus Linnaeus, 1767, Chinese Yellow Swallowtail Butterfly, has also been given
several names by several taxonomists, such as xuthulus Bremer, 1861, chinensis Neuburger, 1900, koxinga Fruhstorfer, 1908, and neoxuthus Fruhstorfer, 1908.
The progress of taxonomic studies frequently causes redefinition of taxon concept,
a circumscription of the taxon [2]. For instance, two genera of owls, Nyctea and Bubo,
were merged into the latter genus Bubo. Following the change of genera, the scientificname of a snowy owl Nyctea scandiaca has been subsequently changed to Bubo
scandiacus in order to satisfy the convention of scientific name [3]. Thus, a scientificname and a taxonomic concept become lacking of a single interpretation in biological[5-6]. Due to such change of taxon names, one sometimes misses information of thisspecies under the name of the old scientific name when he or she searches information by the new scientific name.
Moreover, some details make researchers be confused when a taxon changes its
concept without the change of its taxon name. For example, recently Picoides tridactylus (Three-toad Woodpecker) was split into two species, P. tridactylus (EurasianThree-toad Woodpecker) and P. dorsalis (American Three-toad Woodpecker) [12].
Although these two species are disjointed, a part of information of P. tridactylus,
especially recorded before the year 2003, might include details of P. dorsalis. One
could obtain imprecise information when he or she simply searches information by
the name Picoides tridactylus. Therefore, a mechanism that enables to link amongtaxon concepts in the precise context is necessary.
Recently, there was a research about managing the change in scientific conception.
The work applied semantic web to develop a meta-ontology of a biological name
(TaxMeOn). It provides metadata for representing and managing the temporal changeof scientific name from a unit of taxon concept to another unit, and emphasized how
the biological names publish [7]. However, the management of name change is notenough for researchers. The correct interpretation with temporal context of concepts
and reasons of their changes becomes necessity as well.
The purpose of our research is to formulate a logical model for preserving background knowledge of the change of taxon concepts, and link some related concepts
together. We introduced ontology for collecting the change of taxon concepts, cause
and effect of the change; and linked data resulting from the change of concepts. We
considered to enhance CKA [9] approach to capture the changes of taxon concepts,
and their context. We also reused taxonomic terms from LODAC [8], employed
SKOS 1 vocabularies to manage the relationship between concepts, and publicizeddata to Linked Open Data2 (LOD) Cloud. Moreover, we performed an implementation
to prove the feasibility of our proposed model.
To begin our approach, the background, the goal, and the related work have been
already reviewed in this section. Next, Section 2, we will illustrate some technologies
to develop our approach, and introduce the logical model in RDF. Section 3 will present prototype and discuss about its outcome. Lastly, Section 4 will draw conclusions
and suggest some future improvements.
1
2

Simple Knowledge Organization System: http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-­primer/
Linked Open Data: http://linkeddata.org/

2

The Proposed Logical M odel

In this section, to achieve our objectives, we introduced a logical model for taxonomic
concepts for expanding knowledge using LOD. Here, our model is expressed in ontology named Linked Taxonomic Knowledge (LTK) which was enhanced from several existing approaches.
Firstly, we studied how to classify the change of taxon concept; we found that they
are two major categories: the change of name, and the change of classification[2,7,11]. A taxon name is sometimes changed for several reasons. For example, Hoare(2008) established the genus Kendrickia (ostracods). Then Kempf (2010) found that
this genus was a primary junior homonym of Kendrickia Solem, 1985 (gastropods),
and proposed Dickhoarea as the replacement name for Kendrickia Hoare, 2008. It
results to the subsequent change of species names; for instance Kendrickia asketos
had been changed into Dickhoarea asketos since Kampf (2010) has been published[2]. Apart from such name change, classifications also may be changed according to
the progress of taxonomic researches. For example, the genus Columba (pigeons) has
been split into five genera: Patagioenas, Chloroenas, Lepidoenas, Oenoenas, andColumba in the new narrow concept, and then some species of genus Columba havebeen assigned to one of these newly separated genera [12]. For instance, Columba
speciosa changed to Patagioenas speciosa [12]. The analysis of the changes of taxon
concept is described by Fig. 1.

Fig. 1. The analysis of the changes of taxon concept

Secondly, we reviewed ideas in TaxMeOn, to describe concepts in taxonomic field
linked to identifiers [7]. In general, when a concept¶s scope is changed, the changed
concept needs to be recognized as new identifier. For instance, the genus Bubo before
merging with Nyctea must not be the same identifier as Bubo after merging [2-3].
Thus, an identifier similar to those in TaxMeOn is required to our model. On the other
hand, most attributes of the old Bubo can be copied to the new Bubo definitely, because, the old Bubo and the new Bubo may share many attributes.

Next, to publish data, we reviewed some standards that can be reused for our model.
To model the entities of taxon concepts, we considered reusing some vocabularies
from Linked Open Data for ACademia (LODAC), a project to publish a wide range ofacademic data including species information [8]. For example, a relationship between
a species and a genus can be described as RDF using LODAC terms (species andgenus are namespaces for species and genus in LODAC, respectively):
species:Nyctea_scandiaca    species:hasSuperTaxon        genus:Nyctea  .  

Another issue is to describe changes of concept and associated information on thechange. There is an approach named Contextual Knowledge for Archives (CKA)
Ontology. It offers a logical modHOGHYHORSHGXVLQJ)ORXULV¶VWKHRU\for presenting thechanges of conceptions, such as, merge, replace, and split. It also presents reasons
behind the changes, changes of relationships such as the reclassification of a concept,
and links between some relevant concepts. The CKA illustrates the change of concepts as dynamic RDF that contains fact and temporal aspect [9-10]. For instance, thefollowing RDF expresses the splitting of a genus Columba.
ex:change2003   cka:interval                          cka:assure           ex:split1     rdf:type                                cka:conceptBefore                     cka:conceptAfter                                                                                                  >WOEHJLQ$W'DWH7LPH³2003´@     ex:split1  .  
ltk:TaxonSplitter  ;;  genus:Columba  ;;  genus:Patagioenas,  genus:Chloroenas,    genus:Lepidoenas,    genus:Oenoenas,  genus:Columba_2003.  

Further, the framework provides a technique to transform this dynamic RDF to static
RDF with a given specific time point. For example, after year 2003, relationships
among genus:Columba and its allies can be found as follows:
genus:Columba  ltk:splitInto         genus:Patagioenas,  genus:Chloroenas,                                                genus:Lepidoenas,    genus:Oenoenas,                                              genus:Columba_2003.  

Technically, some operations from CKA framework can be extended to record thechange of some FRQFHSW¶VGHWDLOV, such as, color, size, organ, behavior, etc. It can bedone by defining some new operations of change, and then binding the new operations with some related attributes. In addition, this model states one change as one
unit. It offers association among related units of some changes by having some properties: cka:caused, and cka:effect to express reason and outcome of a change respectively. For example, Fig. 2 demonstrates the new name Patagioenas speciosa and its
background. Consequently, we can find out the history RI WKH QDPH ³Patagioenas
speciosa´Then, we can use its background concept, such as the old QDPH³Columba
speciosa´ to explore more information in the public LOD.

Fig. 2. Change of a taxon concept and its backgroundLastly, to link data with LOD Cloud, our research proposed some useful operations
that specify the change of taxon concepts, the changes of details of a taxon concept,
the changes of relationships between taxon concepts, and the background of thechange. All operations are defined by extending some vocabularies from the wellknown ontology: Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS), and some properties from LODAC and CKA. Thus, the data from our framework can definitely beexchanged among other repositories. Example of some properties is shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Example properties from LTK which are derived from CKA, LODAC, and SKOS

Properties
ltk:higherTaxon
ltk:replacedTo
ltk:mergedInto
ltk:majorMergedInto
ltk:synonym

rdfs:subPropertyOf
cka:higherClass, skos:broaderTransitive, andspecies:hasSuperTaxon
cka:serialLinkTo, and skos:exactMatch
cka:serialLinkTo, and skos:relatedMatch
cka:serialLinkTo, and skos:closeMatchskos:exactMatch

For example, the genus:Nyctea and genus:Bubo in old concepts have been merged
into a new concept with the name Bubo. As stated previously, the genus Bubo in the
new concept should be given a new identifier. In practice, we ended the year when it
has been changed, so the new identifier of genus:Bubo may be genus:Bubo_1999.
The property named ltk:mergedInto is defined to express a merge of two taxon concepts. The relationship between genus:Nyctea and genus:Bubo_1999 remains to be
specified by the property ltk:mergedInto. On the other hand, another special property
name ltk:majorMergedInto is introduced to demonstrate the very close relationship of
two concepts, such as genus:Bubo and genus:Bubo_1999. As Nyctea was merged to
Bubo, Nyctea scandiaca, the only member species of Nyctea, is transferred to Bubo
and change the name to Bubo scandiacus [2-3]. In summary, these facts will be presented in RDF that satisfies the logical model of the CKA approach as follows:
ex:change1999                                                                                     ex:mg1                                                     ex:rp1                                                     ex:ac1                                                     ex:mg1             ex:rp1             bibo:performer          bibo:issuer             dcterms:source          cka:interval           cka:assure              rdf:type                 cka:conceptBefore      cka:conceptAfter       rdf:type                 cka:conceptBefore     cka:conceptAfter       rdf:type                 cka:child                cka:parent              cka:cause                cka:detail              pp:Wing,  pp:Heidrich  ;;    pp:Richard  ;;  pub:5224773;;  [tl:begin$W'DWH7LPH³´@  ex:mg1,  ex:rp1,  ex:ac1  .  
ltk:TaxonMerger  ;;  genus:Bubo,  genus:Nyctea  ;;  genus:Bubo_1999  .  
ltk:TaxonReplacement  ;;  species:Nyctea_scandiaca  ;;  species:Bubo_scandiacus  .  
ltk:HigherTaxonAddition  ;;  species:Bubo_scandiacus  ;;  species:Bubo_1999  .  
ex:rp1  .  
ex:ac1  .  

After that, we apply some rules to transform dynamic RDF data to static form. For
example, a rule that infers the merging operation of taxon concepts is expressed along
these lines:
  
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

?change      rdf:type                 ltk:TaxonMerger  .  
?change        cka:conceptBefore   ?before  .  
?change      cka:conceptAfter   ?after  .                            _  ?before     ltk:mergedInto        ?after  .  

This rule and some others rules that infer each operation of change can convert thetemporal RDF to be the following result.
genus:Nyctea                  ltk:mergedInto              genus:Bubo_1999  .  
genus:Bubo                     ltk:majorMergedInto      genus:Bubo_1999  .  
species:Bubo_scandiacus     ltk:higherTaxon       genus:Bubo_1999  .  
species:Bubo_scandiacus     ltk:synonym           species:Nyctea_scandiaca  .  
genus:Nyctea                        cka:expired           ³´  genus:Bubo                           cka:expired           ³´  genus:Bubo_1999                     cka:entered           ³´  species:Nyctea_scandiaca         cka:expired           ³´  .  
species:Bubo_scandiacus           cka:entered           ³´  Therefore, clients can query these facts conveniently. For instance, if the users query
some genera, which closely match (skos:closeMatch) genus:Nyctea; they will get
genus:Bubo_1999. They sometimes query the data with species:hasSuperTaxon andget the result as same as ltk:higherTaxon. They can also find the present-day taxon
concepts by inquiring some concepts which do not have a property named
cka:expired. Moreover; the client can query more detail about a fact that includes thetime when it changed, people who involved, reference documents, and triple data. For
example, the replacement of species:Nyctea_scandiaca was caused by the merging
between genus:Nyctea and genus:Bubo. In addition, the relationships of concepts canbe presented by RDF statements, because the operation ltk:HigherTaxonAddition canestablish the associations between concepts by producing some triples with having aproperty named ltk:higherTaxon. Our work offers some operations binding with properties; such as, dwc:scientificName3, foaf:depiction4, species:hasCommonName [8],etc. Thus, the consumers can query temporal information of taxon concepts alongwith specific time point.

3

I mplementation and Discussion

After developing the LTK ontology, we verified the possibility and feasibility of it byimplementing a prototype. The prototype is a web-based system that comprises threeservice layers: web interface, web services, and RDF data store. Firstly, the web interface allows a user to create the knowledge of taxon concepts in RDF. It also demonstrates the temporal context and link of taxon concepts. Further, it presents the reasonsand details about changes of them. Secondly, the Java servlet service is made for3
4

Darwin Core Terms: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/
Friend of a Friend: http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/

managing and computing RDF data by using the performance of Jena5 reasoning engine. Other clients can access data via this layer. Lastly, we used SESAME6, a RDF
store, to record data. Users can create data which come from some publications orbooks, and then the data is published to LOD cloud by providing SPARQL endpoint.
In Fig. 3, the left-side screen presents the context of the species:Nyctea_scandiaca(the figure displays as spc:Nyctea_scandiaca) and its linked taxon concepts, and theright-side screen shows information about the reason of changing this species. The
web interface allows user to enter URI of concept and a specific time point in order todisplay the temporal context information as well.

Fig. 3. Example screen of information about the concept species:Nyctea_scandiaca

As example RDF data in section 2, one change consists of many triples. When allchanges are recorded, the triple store will manage over billion triples. Thus, it willconsume a lot of resources when the service transforms the dynamic data to flat data
for every request. However, most of all requests always ask for the present data. The
prototype has to prepare current static data every time when each dynamic data isrecorded. Then, the service can provide fast responses for the present information.
In summary, the prototype indicated that our approach is possible and feasible to
make a real system. Moreover, other services can retrieve this data from LOD cloud.

4

Conclusions and Future work

Our paper presents a logical model and ontology for linking taxon concepts which
comprises a series of changes, the diversity of taxonomic classifications, and the variety of naming. For the purpose of linking data, we have developed our model by employing ontology of contextual knowledge evolution together with some widely accepted ontology such as LODAC and SKOS. Therefore, our model can deal with bothdynamic and static information represented in RDF and hence can trace the history of5
6

Apache Jena - reasoners and rule engines: http://jena.apache.org/
SESAME ± a framework for processing RDF data: http://www.openrdf.org/

the taxon concept. In addition, we have implemented a prototype which utilizes the
proposed model in order to publish the taxonomic information to LOD cloud. As aconsequence, other applications that need linked taxon concepts can readily connect
to these data. Moreover, we have implemented a knowledge baVHXVLQJ-HQD¶VLQIHrHQFHHQJLQHDQG6(6$0(¶VVWRUDJHIRUFRPSXWLQJGDWDDQG we have provided a web
application to record and present the information. The result from our prototype
demonstrates that our approach is feasible and suitable for the need of linked taxon
concepts across different repositories and relationship backgrounds in order to discover broader knowledge of biology.
However, our approach gives priority to ontology rather than software application;
hence the system requires much human effort to import a great number of data. For
example, when a genus is split, some species under the genus have to move to new
genera. In this case, taxonomists have to analyze and enter data by themselves. Thus,
it should have some algorithms to improve the reclassification of some taxonomic
ranks by their attributes. Moreover, in the future, when the number of data is over abillion, requesting historical data would be a great challenge because it requires theinference engine to process complex activities that consume very high computing
capability. Future research might be focusing on how to improve the computing resources or methodologies for caching time-series of taxonomic data.

References
1. Darwin, C., Peckham, M.: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the
Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Penn Press, Philadelphia (1959)
2. Winston, J.E.: Describing Species: Practical Taxonomic Procedure for Biologists. Columbia University Press, New York (1999)
3. Wink, M., Heidrich, P.: Molecular evolution and systematics of the owls (Strigiformes).
In: A Guide to Owls of the World. Yale University Press, Yale (1999)
4. International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: International Code of Zoological
Nomenclature. The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London (1999)
5. Mallet, J.: Species, Concept of. In: Encyclopedia of Biodiversity. Elsevier, Oxford (2007)
6. Ytow, N., Morse, D., Roberts, D.: Nomencurator: a nomenclatural history model to handle
multiple taxonomic views. In: Biological Journal of Linnean Society, pp. 81-98 (2001).
7. Tuominen, J., Laurenne, N., Hyvönen, E.: Biological names and taxonomies on the semantic web: managing the change in scientific conception. In: ESWC 2011. LNCS, vol. 6644,
pp. 255-269. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
8. Linked Open Data for Academia, http://lod.ac/
9. Chawuthai, R., Wuwongse, V., Takeda, H.: A Formal Approach to the Modelling of Digital Archives. In: ICADL 2012. LNCS, vol. 7634, pp. 179-188. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
10. Flouris, G., Meghini, C.: Terminology and Wish List for a Formal Theory of Preservation.
In: PV 2007. Proceedings, DLR, Munich (2007)
11. Franz, N., Peet, R.: Towards a language for mapping relationships among taxonomic concepts. In: Systematics and Biodiversity, vol. 7, iss. 1, pp. 5-20 (2009)12. Banks, R.C., Cicero, C., et al.: Forty-fourth supplement to the American OrniWKRORJLVWV¶
Union check-list of North American birds. In: The Auk, vol. 120, pp. 923±931 (2003)