Data Jamboree 1/Annotation Experiment

Background and Participant Preparation

An annotation experiment was conducted on day 2 of the April 2008 Data Jamboree in order to assess curation consistency among the four trained participants. Training consisted of a hands-on group annotation exercise on day 1, and individual work on each participant's own publications with assistance from project personnel on days 1 and 2. An Annotation Guide with examples of character types commonly encountered in the fish systematic literature was also given to participants. For the experiment, participants were given 2 hours to annotate 10 characters (plus one extra credit) taken from three publications.

Results and Conclusions

Completeness of annotations

Three of the four participants attempted annotations for all 11 characters, while one participant finished only 7 characters. All participants recorded the character number and textual description, and selected the appropriate voucher specimen for each annotation. Only two of the four participants recorded evidence codes for each annotation.

Variability of EQ statements

A summary of annotation consistency among participants is presented in the table below (incomplete annotations due to software issues are excluded).

Character #	# Participants with Completed Annotations*	% Consistency with Key	Variable component of annotation
1	4	100
2	3	0	post-composition of Q term for relative length
3	3	0	incorrect recording of count values
4	4	0	TAO term definition confusion (bone vs. cartilage)
5	3	33	E post-composition; choice of appropriate Q
6	4	0	E post-composition
7	4	50	E post-composition
8	3	33	choice of appropriate Q term
9	3	0	E post-composition; choice of appropriate Q term
10	2	50	choice of appropriate Q term
EC	2	25	E post-composition; choice of appropriate Q term

• • incomplete annotations due to software issues were excluded

Participants annotated only one character identically. Variation in other annotations was due to several reasons:

• Granularity of annotations. Some participants integrated very detailed information in post-compositions of entities or qualities, whereas others used single anatomy terms or broad term categories for quality. Use of spatial information in post-composition also varied among participants.

• Creation of post-composed entities. Participants had difficulty in deciding what term to use as the genus in post-composition. Also, the relation used in post-composition (for example, use of part_of/has_part) differed in annotations among participants.

• Choice of the appropriate quality term. Participants had difficulty in choosing quality terms among many similar choices. The appropriate use of monadic and relational qualities also differed in the annotations among participants.

• Confusion regarding the definition of ontology terms. For one character, confusion about the identity of a term resulted in differing annotations, and points to the need for consistent term names for bones in the TAO.

The results of the annotation experiment provide detailed areas for improvement in establishing curation standards to assist in annotation, and stream-lining of the software interface so that curators are not faced with similar and inapplicable choices for terms and relations. Based on these results, curation standards and improvement to the Annotation Guide are in development, and improvements to the Phenote interface are planned.

Instructions to Participants

In the following exercise, we would like to assess annotation consistency among data jamboree participants working independently on a common set of characters. These characters are taken directly from the literature of comparative morphology of fishes.

Download the annotation-experiment folder from the Phenoscape server.

Use the taxon list and the character matrix given in Table 1 to annotate characters 1-11 below. For the purpose of this exercise, character states noted in Table 1 were observed in all specimens listed in the materials list. The name of this publication is: Lapp and Dahdul, 2008.

Table 1. Character matrix

Taxon	1	2	3	4	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
Chanos chanos	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Diplomystes chilensis	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0
Hiodon alosoides	1	1	1	2	1	1	1	1	1	2	1

1. Presence or absence of intercalar: (0) present; (1) absent.

2. Opercle depth to width ratio: (0) less than two; (1) about two or greater than two. Essentially, this character distinguishes between those taxa with a short, relatively broad opercle and those with a tall relatively slender opercle.

3. Number of unbranched plus branched pelvic-fin rays: (0) 11; (1) nine; (2) more than 11.

4. Basihyal: (0) present and ossified; (1) present and cartilaginous; (2) absent.

5. Position of anterior margin of nasal: (0) falling short of lateral process of mesethmoid (= lateral ethmoid wing of Weitzman, 1962); (1) extending anteriorly to overlie or extend beyond lateral process of mesethmoid.

6. Number of hypurals in upper lobe of caudal fin: (0) four; (1) three.

7. Presence or absence of medially directed, spine-like process on ventral surface of post-temporal: (0) present; (1) absent.

8. Presence or absence of contact between frontal and pterotic: (0) frontal and pterotic bones in contact; (1) pterotic excluded from contact with frontal by sphenotic.

9. Orientation of infrapharyngobranchial 1: (0) proximal tip anteriorly directed; (1) proximal tip posteriorly directed.

10. Infraorbital 6: (0) triangular; (1) triradiate; (2) tubular.

Extra Credit: Form of parasphenoid: (0) relatively straight anteroposteriorly and with posterior portion of bone aligned approximately along longitudinal axis of anterior portion of vertebral column; (1) with distinct anteroposterior curvature and with posterior portion of bone located distinctly ventral to longitudinal axis through anterior portion of vertebral column. (Zanata & Vari, 2005)

References

• Hilton, EJ. 2003. Comparative osteology and phylogenetic systematics of fossil and living bony-tongue fishes (Actinopterygii, Teleostei, Osteoglossomorpha). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 137:1-100.
• Sanger, TJ and AR McCune. 2002. Comparative osteology of the Danio (Cyprinidae: Ostariophysi) axial skeleton with comments on Danio relationships based on molecules and morphology. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 135: 529-546.
• Zanata AM and Vari RP. 2005. The family Alestidae (Ostariophysi, Characiformes): a phylogenetic analysis of a trans-Atlantic clade. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 145: 1-144.