https://w3id.org/kpxl/gen/terms/Event Event

2026-07-14, 16:00–17:00 (UTC+02:00)

https://meet.jit.si/nanosession nanosession

In this open Nano Session, participants are invited to give a short presentation of a use case they would like to explore. Whether you have a challenge in research, data management, scientific communication, or another domain, we encourage you to share it with the group. Your presentation does not need to involve nanopublications. The goal is to discuss how nanopublications might support your use case and spark ideas for future work. No prior knowledge of nanopublications is necessary.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1267-0234 Tobias Kuhn , https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8492-0354 Ashley Caselli , https://orcid.org/0009-0009-0118-9195 Virginia Balseiro

Spencer de Groot - Potential use cases for nanopublications in research communication (exact title/topic TB).

Roberto Pizzolotto - Generating interaction networks from nanopublications

Daniel Mietchen - Use cases for nanopublications in Diamond Open Access contexts

As just briefly mentioned, I would be interested in using nanopubs to document the use of AI, e.g. by building a plugin to some open LLMs that would allow to record my prompts and the resulting responses and then assist in generating suitable FAIA (FAIR AI Attribution) statements.

As just briefly mentioned, I would be interested in using nanopubs to document the use of AI, e.g. by building a plugin to some open LLMs that would allow to record my prompts and the resulting responses.

An example of an error in Crossref metadata.

Now Daniel Mietchen with a million of great ideas to use nanopubs along the research cycle and for research outputs :)

The main use cases I would like to bring up can be expressed in terms of two main dimensions: (1) steps and progress along the research process, (2) components of typical research outcomes. Potential other dimensions would be (3) mechanisms to integrate nanopublications with Diamond Open-Access publishing workflows, e.g. via OJS (Open Journal Systems) plugins or (4) mechanisms to keep track of chains of arguments. Ad 1: Here, I am thinking of ideas, proposals, code, software, curation events, literature reviews and other things, Ad 2: This could be things like footnotes, data/ software availability statements, ethics statements, funding statements, figure/table captions, errors and such - essentially anything that can represent manuscript components in a way similar to how tagging standards like JATS do it. Ad 3: OJS has a rich ecosystem of plugins already, to which nanopublication-related ones could be added. Ad 4: There is the Nanoarguments project, which goes in this direction.

The main use cases I would like to bring up can be expressed in terms of two main dimensions: (1) steps and progress along the research process, (2) components of typical research outcomes. Potential other dimensions would be (3) mechanisms to integrate nanopublications with Diamond Open-Access publishing workflows, e.g. via OJS (Open Journal Systems) plugins (40 mechanisms to keep track of chains of arguments. Ad 1: Here, I am thinking of ideas, proposals, code, software, curation events, literature reviews and other things, Ad 2: This could be things like footnotes, data/ software availability statements, ethics statements, funding statements, figure/table captions, errors and such - essentially anything that can represent manuscript components in a way similar to how tagging standards like JATS do it. Ad 3: OJS has a rich ecosystem of plugins already, to which nanopublication-related ones could be added. Ad 4: There is the Nanoarguments project, which goes in this direction.

Anatoly Scherbakov mentions OWL reasoning that could help mapping terms, but I think for term mapping, something like LinkSet, lenticular lenses (see link), or similar might be better suited.

Now Roberto Pizzolotto presenting his use case: AI like Gemini give for example nice diagrams based on structured info from nanopubs, but then get many things wrong, e.g. different URIs sometimes refer to the same thing. We need some sort of gold standard to resolve this.

The main use cases I would like to bring up can be expressed in terms of two main dimensions: (1) steps and progress along the research process, (2) components of typical research outcomes. Ad 1: Here, I am thinking of ideas, proposals, code, software, curation events, literature reviews and other things, Ad 2: This could be things like footnotes, data/ software availability statements, ethics statements, funding statements, figure/table captions, errors and such - essentially anything that can represent manuscript components in a way similar to how tagging standards like JATS do it.

... not just for editors, actually, but also for authors.