Table 3.
The criteria for comparison of technical and functional aspects following the criteria from Table 2
| Tools | Technical | Data | Functional | Score | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | T2 | T3 | T4 | T5 | T6 | T7 | D1 | D2 | D3 | F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | F5 | F6 | F7 | F8 | F9 | F10 | F11 | F12 | F13 | T | D | F | Total | Score | |
| BioKC | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | * | * | 7 | 3 | 10 | 20 | 0.87 | ||
| FLAT | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | * | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 7 | 3 | 8.5 | 18.5 | 0.8 | ||||
| WebAnno | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | * | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | * | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 5 | 3 | 10 | 18 | 0.78 | ||||
| brat | * | ✓ | * | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | * | ✓ | * | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | * | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | * | * | ✓ | ✓ | 5 | 2 | 9.5 | 16.5 | 0.72 | |||
| Tagtog | * | ✓ | ✓ | * | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 3 | 3 | 8 | 14 | 0.61 | ||||||||
| ezTag | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | * | ✓ | 6 | 3 | 7.5 | 16.5 | 0.72 | ||||||
| BioQRator | * | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | * | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | * | 4.5 | 3 | 6 | 13.5 | 0.59 | ||||||||
| MyMiner | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | * | * | ✓ | * | * | ✓ | * | ✓ | * | ✓ | 4 | 2 | 6 | 12 | 0.52 | ||||||||
The ‘✓’ symbol indicates total fulfilment, ‘*’partial fulfilment and empty cells mean no fulfilment. Tools are sorted by their descending score. Publication annotation tools suitable for biomedicine are BioKC, Tagtog, exTag, BioQRator and MyMiner.