When the library is located in prime real estate: a case study on the loss of space from the Duke University Medical Center Library and Archives.

The Duke University Medical Center Library and Archives is located in the heart of the Duke Medicine campus, surrounded by Duke Hospital, ambulatory clinics, and numerous research facilities. Its location is considered prime real estate, given its adjacency to patient care, research, and educational activities. In 2005, the Duke University Library Space Planning Committee had recommended creating a learning center in the library that would support a variety of educational activities. However, the health system needed to convert the library's top floor into office space to make way for expansion of the hospital and cancer center. The library had only five months to plan the storage and consolidation of its journal and book collections, while working with the facilities design office and architect on the replacement of key user spaces on the top floor. Library staff worked together to develop plans for storing, weeding, and consolidating the collections and provided input into renovation plans for users spaces on its mezzanine level. The library lost 15,238 square feet (29%) of its net assignable square footage and a total of 16,897 (30%) gross square feet. This included 50% of the total space allotted to collections and over 15% of user spaces. The top-floor space now houses offices for Duke Medicine oncology faculty and staff. By storing a large portion of its collection off-site, the library was able to remove more stacks on the remaining stack level and convert them to user spaces, a long-term goal for the library. Additional space on the mezzanine level had to be converted to replace lost study and conference room spaces. While this project did not match the recommended space plans for the library, it underscored the need for the library to think creatively about the future of its facility and to work toward a more cohesive master plan.

Muscle Logic: New Knowledge Resource for Anatomy Enables Comprehensive Searches of the Literature on the Feeding Muscles of Mammals.

BACKGROUND: In recent years large bibliographic databases have made much of the published literature of biology available for searches. However, the capabilities of the search engines integrated into these databases for text-based bibliographic searches are limited. To enable searches that deliver the results expected by comparative anatomists, an underlying logical structure known as an ontology is required. DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING OF THE ONTOLOGY: Here we present the Mammalian Feeding Muscle Ontology (MFMO), a multi-species ontology focused on anatomical structures that participate in feeding and other oral/pharyngeal behaviors. A unique feature of the MFMO is that a simple, computable, definition of each muscle, which includes its attachments and innervation, is true across mammals. This construction mirrors the logical foundation of comparative anatomy and permits searches using language familiar to biologists. Further, it provides a template for muscles that will be useful in extending any anatomy ontology. The MFMO is developed to support the Feeding Experiments End-User Database Project (FEED, https://feedexp.org/), a publicly-available, online repository for physiological data collected from in vivo studies of feeding (e.g., mastication, biting, swallowing) in mammals. Currently the MFMO is integrated into FEED and also into two literature-specific implementations of Textpresso, a text-mining system that facilitates powerful searches of a corpus of scientific publications. We evaluate the MFMO by asking questions that test the ability of the ontology to return appropriate answers (competency questions). We compare the results of queries of the MFMO to results from similar searches in PubMed and Google Scholar. RESULTS AND SIGNIFICANCE: Our tests demonstrate that the MFMO is competent to answer queries formed in the common language of comparative anatomy, but PubMed and Google Scholar are not. Overall, our results show that by incorporating anatomical ontologies into searches, an expanded and anatomically comprehensive set of results can be obtained. The broader scientific and publishing communities should consider taking up the challenge of semantically enabled search capabilities.