Towards computational evaluation of evidence for scientific assertions with nanopublications and cardinal assertions

Abstract

On the Web, it is possible for anyone to publish linked open data as RDF. Whilst this has huge potential to benefit data integration efforts, it highlights challenges of assessing data quality and trust. Nanopublication is an approach to data and knowledge publication in which assertions are individually encoded in RDF along with details about provenance, context and attribution. Collectively these details form a body of evidence for (or against) an assertion, which can be used as quality and trust criteria during data integration. In this position paper, we highlight the features of the Nanopublication specification that can be used as quality and trust criteria for life science data. We introduce the concept of cardinal assertions; assertions that are derived from the aggregation of multiple nanopublications to give an evidence value. We also identify a role for cardinal assertions in the evolution of evidence over time, supporting the re-evaluation of data and hypotheses.