LabTablet: Semantic Metadata Collection on a Multi-domain Laboratory Notebook

  • Ricardo Carvalho Amorim
  • João Aguiar Castro
  • João Rocha da Silva
  • Cristina Ribeiro
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 478)


The value of research data is recognized, and so is the importance of the associated metadata to contextualize, describe and ultimately render them understandable in the long term. Laboratory notebooks are an excellent source of domain-specific metadata, but this paper-based approach can pose risks of data loss, while limiting the possibilities of collaborative metadata production. The paper discusses the advantages of tools to complement paper-based laboratory notebooks in capturing metadata, regardless of the research domain. We propose LabTablet, an electronic laboratory book aimed at the collection of metadata from the early stages of the research workflow. To evaluate the use of LabTablet and the proposed workflow, researchers in two domains were asked to perform a set of tasks and provided insights about their experience. By rethinking the workflow and helping researchers to actively contribute to data description, the research outputs can be described with generic and domain-dependent metadata, thus improving their chances of being deposited, reused and preserved.


Data Creator Metadata Record Onboard Sensor Metadata Model Lightweight Ontology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Talbott, T., Peterson, M., Schwidder, J., Myers, J.: Adapting the electronic laboratory notebook for the semantic era. In: Proceedings of the 2005 International Symposium on Collaborative Technologies and Systems, pp. 136–143 (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rocha da Silva, J., Ribeiro, C., Lopes, J.C.: UPData: A Data Curation Experiment at U. Porto using DSpace. In: iPres 2011 Conference Proceedings (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Foundation, N.S.: Application Guide A Guide for Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Myers, J., Mendoza, E., Hoopes, B.: A Collaborative Electronic Laboratory Notebook. IMSA (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Walsh, E., Cho, I.: Using Evernote as an electronic lab notebook in a translational science laboratory. Journal of Laboratory Automation 18(3), 229–234 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kumar, M.: Electronic Lab Notebooks-Collaborative Tool for Managing Knowledge in Pharmaceutical Research and Development. Journal of Engineering Computers & Applied Sciences 2(11), 14–19 (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rubacha, M., Rattan, A.K., Hosselet, S.C.: A review of electronic laboratory notebooks available in the market today. Journal of Laboratory Automation 16(1), 90–98 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hodson, S.: ADMIRAL: A Data Management Infrastructure for Research Activities in the Life sciences. Technical report, University of Oxford (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lyon, L.: Dealing with Data: Roles, Rights, Responsibilities and Relationships. Technical report, UKOLN, University of Bath (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Martinez-Uribe, L., Macdonald, S.: User engagement in research data curation. In: Agosti, M., Borbinha, J., Kapidakis, S., Papatheodorou, C., Tsakonas, G. (eds.) ECDL 2009. LNCS, vol. 5714, pp. 309–314. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Castro, J.A., Ribeiro, C., Rocha da Silva, J.: Designing an Application Profile Using Qualified Dublin Core: A Case Study with Fracture Mechanics Datasets. In: Dublin Core 2013 Conference Proceedings, pp. 47–52 (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shotton, D.: The JISC UMF DataFlow Project: Introduction to DataStage. Technical Report (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rocha da Silva, J., Barbosa, J.P., Gouveia, M., Lopes, J., Ribeiro, C.: UPBox and DataNotes: a collaborative data management environment for the long tail of research data. In: iPres 2013 Conference Proceedings (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Geyer, F., Reiterer, H.: Experiences from Employing Evernote as a Tool for Documenting Collaborative Design Processes. In: Proceedings of the DIS12 Workshop on Supporting Reflexion in and on Design Processes (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Borgman, C.L.: Advances in Information Science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63(6), 1059–1078 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rocha da Silva, J., Castro, J.A., Ribeiro, C., Lopes, J.C.: Dendro: collaborative research data management built on linked open data. In: Presutti, V., Blomqvist, E., Troncy, R., Sack, H., Papadakis, I., Tordai, A. (eds.) ESWC Satellite Events 2014. LNCS, vol. 8798, pp. 483–487. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Castro, J.A., da Silva, J.R., Ribeiro, C.: Creating lightweight ontologies for dataset description: Practical applications in a cross-domain research data management workflow. In: Proceedings of JCDL, the ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ricardo Carvalho Amorim
    • 1
  • João Aguiar Castro
    • 1
  • João Rocha da Silva
    • 1
  • Cristina Ribeiro
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto/INESC TECPortoPortugal
  2. 2.DEI—Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto/INESC TECPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations