Diabetes was already discussed in literature back in 1838-1839 (doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(02)96038-1, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(02)96066-6, and doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(02)83966-6). These three papers show a short discussion.

This summer I am trying to finish up some smaller projects that I did not have time for to finish, with mixed successes. I am combing this with a nice Dutch staycation, and I already cycled in Overijssel and in south-west Friesland and learning about their histories. But this post is about an update on my Citation Typing Ontology use cases. And I have to say, a mention by Silvio Peroni is pretty awesome, thanks! First, the bad news.

During the Open Science Retreat I organized a short session where we looking into typing citation intentions using a new nanopublication template. First, let’s describe nanopublications (originally used in doi:10.3233/ISU-2010-0613) a bit. Scholia gives a nice overview of (macro?)publications on the topic.

Last week I attended the Open Science Retreat (#osr24nl) in a quite and relaxing region in North-Holland. The meeting was how I like all meetings to be (and I count myself lucky many of my meetings are like this): open, welcoming, constructive, diverse, and intellectually challenging. Not all scientific meetings are like this and it is easy to end up going to obligatory meetings where the discussions are of a different level.

Update : Mark wrote up a blog post on the RDF that the ChEMBL team itself. Yesterday, the paper “The ChEMBL database as linked open data” (doi:10.1186/1758-2946-5-23) by Andra Waagmeester (@andrawaag), Ola Spjuth (@ola_spjuth), Peter Ansell (@p_ansell), Antony Williams (@chemconnector), Valery Tkachenko, Janna Hastings, Bin Chen (@binchenindiana), David J Wild (@davidjohnwild), and me appeared in the OA JChemInf journal.

A ‘like’ button is a well-known feature in communication software such as social networking services, Internet forums, news websites and blogs that permits a user to indicate that he/she likes, enjoys or supports certain content.

Readers of my blog know I have been using the Citation Typing Ontology, CiTO (doi:10.1186/2041-1480-1-S1-S6). I allows me to see how the CDK is cited and used. CiteULike is currently adding more CiTO more functionality, which they started doing almost one and a half years ago.

This is the first of a series of blog posts on the Open Citations blog that address the problem of citing data entities, for example a data package in a data repository, rather than bibliographic entities such as journal articles. For these purposes, the existence of DataCite to assign DOIs to datasets, and extensions to the SPAR (Semantic Publishing and Referencing) Ontologies to handle data items, are both important.

Last month I reported a few things I missed in CiteULike. One of them was support for CiTO (see doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/2041-1480-1-S1-S6), a great Citation Typing Ontology. I promised the CiTO author, David, my use cases, but have been horribly busy in the past few weeks with my new position, wrapping up my past position, and thinking on my position after Cambridge.

AJCann posted a blog today about what he doesn’t like about Mendeley. Abhishek replied that he does not like people complain about one tool, instead of pointing out a good alternative. Mendeley has two alternatives, Zotero and CiteULike (there is also Connotea, but got behind in evolution). Agreeing with @citeulike and @abhishektiwari, as a service provider any bad news is good news too: they provide opportunities to improve.