Evaluation for globi
Evaluator: Automated Evaluation
Evaluated on: 2026-01-06
⚠️ Automated Evaluation: This evaluation was generated automatically using an AI-based system. It is distinct from manual evaluations curated by human experts. Please review findings carefully and report any inaccuracies.
Evaluation Criteria: This evaluation uses the KG-Registry evaluation rubric as described in Cortes et al. (2025) . The rubric assesses knowledge graphs across multiple dimensions including access, provenance, documentation, maintenance, and fitness for purpose.
Access Level and Types
| Question | Answer | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| Access to data outside of the knowledge graph | Y | GloBI Portal at globalbioticinteractions.org provides interactive search and browsing of species interaction records |
| API or online access to the knowledge graph | Y | REST-style API endpoints available for programmatic access to species interaction data in JSON/CSV formats |
| Multiple access options available | Y | Three documented access methods: web portal, REST API, and bulk dataset downloads (TSV/CSV) |
| Source code availability | N | No public source code repository identified; curation and pipeline implementation not openly available |
| Downloadable knowledge graph | Y | Bulk data exports available as TSV/CSV via Zenodo; complete integrated interaction datasets downloadable |
Section Score: 4/5
Provenance of Nodes and Edges
| Question | Answer | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| Source list provided | Y | Integrates species interactions from many primary datasets; sources available through dataset listing at globalbioticinteractions.org/datasets |
| Source versions information | N | No explicit versioning of upstream data sources documented; unclear when source datasets are synchronized |
| Import dependencies | N | Data integration pipeline not documented; unclear how datasets are harmonized and deduplicated |
| Node and edge sources | N | Individual interaction records not linked to source publications or primary datasets; provenance not explicitly tracked |
| Edges deduplication | N | No documentation of deduplication strategy for duplicate species interaction records across sources |
| Triples source details | N | Interaction records stored as normalized TSV; RDF or semantic web representation not provided |
| Edge type schema | Y | Well-defined relationship types for ecological interactions (predation, parasitism, pollination, mutualism, host-pathogen) |
Section Score: 2/7
Documented standards, schema, construction
| Question | Answer | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| Biological usable data | Y | Species interaction data directly applicable to ecology, biodiversity conservation, and food web research |
| Resolvable IDs | N | Taxonomic names normalized but not mapped to stable identifiers (NCBI Taxonomy, WoRMS); limited ID resolvability |
| Construction documentation | N | No formal documentation of data curation pipeline, quality control, or integration methodology published |
| Transformation documentation | N | Name normalization and taxonomic reconciliation procedures not documented in technical documentation |
| Schema used | N | TSV-based flat schema; no formal graph schema, ontology, or RDF representation documented |
Section Score: 1/5
Update frequency and versioning
| Question | Answer | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| Stable versions | N | Continuous data stream without formal versioning; Zenodo snapshots not tagged with release versions |
| Public tracker information | N | No public issue tracker or development roadmap visible; limited transparency into data updates and maintenance |
| Knowledge graph contact information | N | No explicit contact information or maintainer listed; support via globalbioticinteractions.org website unclear |
| Updated annually | N | Last modification date indicates recent updates but no formal release schedule or versioning cadence documented |
| Prior versions access | N | Historical snapshots not clearly versioned or archived; difficult to retrieve prior versions for reproducibility |
Section Score: 0/5
Evaluation - Metrics and Fitness for Purpose
| Question | Answer | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| Use case provided | Y | Clear use cases: ecological network analysis, species interaction discovery, biodiversity research support |
| Evaluation against other models | N | No comparison with other species interaction databases (BioTIME, Mangal, or similar); relative coverage not assessed |
| Defined scope | Y | Focused scope: species-to-species interactions with standardized relationship types across ecological domains |
| Multiple evaluation methods | N | No systematic validation framework; accuracy of interaction records and taxonomy not formally assessed |
| Accuracy metrics | N | No reported precision/recall for interaction prediction or taxonomy resolution; no false positive rate documented |
Section Score: 2/5
License Information
| Question | Answer | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| License |