LIR Heanet Seminar 2008 The Semantic Web and

LIR Heanet Seminar 2008 The Semantic Web and Libraries Mary Burke UCD SILS UCD School of Information and Scoil an Léinn Eolais agus na Library Studies Leabharlannaíochta UCD University College Dublin, An Coláiste Ollscoile, Baile Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland Átha Cliath, Belfield, Baile Átha Cliath 4, Eire

Lecture Objectives / Outline • Understand the semantic web • Recognise examples • Compare and contrast semantic web and Web 2. 0 • Assess role of semantic web in libraries • Assess how librarians can contribute to semantic web • Plan for the future: social semantic digital library 2

Lecture Objectives / Outline • Understand the semantic web • Recognise examples • Compare and contrast semantic web and Web 2. 0 • Assess role of semantic web in libraries • Assess how librarians can contribute to semantic web • Plan for the future: social semantic digital library 3

Tim Berners-Lee’s concept of the web • I have a dream for the Web [in which computers] become capable of analyzing all the data on the Web – the content, links, and transactions between people and computers. • Day-to-day processes of business, education, research and daily activities will be handled by machines talking to machines. • The Semantic Web will bring structure to the meaningful content of Web pages, creating an environment where software agents roaming from page to page can readily carry out sophisticated tasks for users 4

Web-page – readable by humans but not by computers e. g. www. ireland. com 5

What is the Semantic Web? • The web with meaning. • The semantic web converts web resources from being readable and displayable by computers to being understandable by computers. • It adds more structured metadata to web pages and shares this metadata between multiple applications and agents. • It enables computers to understand a web page in the way a human does, so that they can find, share and integrate information on the web. • It depends on two pillars: metadata and taxonomies. 6

Metadata • Metadata provides the ability to identify and exploit relationships between items. • Based on e. Xtensible Markup Language (XML) and Resource Description Framework (RDF). • XML (e. Xtensible Markup Language) facilitates exchange of data and allows users to add their own tags. • RDF (Resource Description Framework) encodes meaning in sets of triples, using XML tags. 7

Resource Description Framework (RDF) • RDF is an XML based framework for describing web resources, such as the title, author, modification date, content, and copyright information of a Web page. • RDF provides a model for data, and a syntax so that independent parties can exchange and use it. • It uses triples with a structure like the subject, verb and object of an elementary sentence, e. g. – THE BUILDING is named LIBERTY HALL – LIBERTY HALL is located in DUBLIN • RDF is a W 3 C Recommendation designed to be read and understood by computers. 8

Taxonomies / Ontologies • Taxonomies, related to ontologies, enable equivalences to be created between items in different collections which have been described using different vocabularies • Taxonomies define classes of objects and relations among them, e. g. – – – SKYSCRAPER is a type of BUILDING BUNGALOW is a ONE STORY BUILDING HIGHRISE is a BUILDING OF 12 OR MORE STORIES SKYSCRAPER is equivalent to HIGHRISE ? GOOSE is a type of EDIBLE FOWL 9

Web Ontology Language (OWL) • Web ontology is about the exact description of web information and relationships between web information. • OWL is built on top of RDF but has larger vocabulary and stronger syntax than RDF • OWL is for processing information on the web • OWL was designed to be interpreted by computers not people • OWL is written in XML • OWL is a web standard 10

OWL Example 11

Semantic Web Layers http: //upload. wikimedia. org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/47/W 3 c-semantic-web-layers. svg/600 px-W 3 c-semantic-web-layers. svg. png

Lecture Objectives / Outline • Understand the semantic web • Recognise examples • Compare and contrast semantic web and Web 2. 0 • Assess role of semantic web in libraries • Assess how librarians can contribute to semantic web • Plan for the future: social semantic digital library 13

Semantic web projects • There are many successful semantic web projects in a variety of sectors including medicine, scientific publishing, commerce, libraries, etc. • The area is a significant theme in EU Seventh Framework Digital Libraries research initiative (FP 7). • Some examples: – General – Library FOAF, MUSICBRAINZ BRICKS, Jerome. DL 14

Friend of a Friend FOAF • FOAF Friend of a Friend is a machine-readable ontology for describing people, their activities and their relations to other people and objects using RDF and OWL. • It can be integrated with library systems to incorporate bookmarks and annotations by contacts and experts identified by a user as “friends”. • http: //www. foaf-project. org/ 15

Friend of a Friend FOAF http: //www. foaf-project. org/ 16

Musicbrainz • Large database of music metadata • Over half a million albums • Active links to other types of music information • Enables users to download and exchange metadata for music collections. • Uses RDF and URIs to enables links to relevant music web pages, e. g. discographies, biographies, etc. • http: //musicbrainz. org/

Musicbrainz http: //musicbrainz. org/ 18

BRICKS • Building Resources for Integrated Cultural Knowledge Services (BRICKS) is an EU Sixth Framework (FP 6) project for sharing and integrating digital cultural heritage collections using open source software (BRICKS - Building resources for Integrated Cultural Knowledge Services). • http: //www. brickscommunity. org/ 19

BRICKS 20

Jerome. DL • Social semantic digital library system • Incorporates many features of semantic web in an operational system • Developed by the semantic web research group at the Digital Enterprise Research Institute (DERI) at NUI Galway • Features of this system include individualization of user profiles, the ability for users to annotate items, create personal bookshelves, advanced query facilities, etc. 21

Jerome. DL • Describes each resource using three types of metadata: structure, bibliographic and community • Delivers services using each of these metadata types. • Allows for resource description using a range of controlled vocabularies including: – authority files for authors, editors and publishers, – classification schemes, e. g. Dewey, – and Word. Net dictionary for keywords. • http: //www. jeromedl. org/ 22

Jerome. DL 23

Lecture Objectives / Outline • Understand the semantic web • Recognise examples • Compare and contrast semantic web and Web 2. 0 • Assess role of semantic web in libraries • Assess how librarians can contribute to semantic web • Plan for the future: social semantic digital library 24

Semantic Web vs. Web 2. 0 • Many semantic web applications also involve other emerging web technologies including Web 2. 0, Web 3. 0 and social networking. • Some writers use the terms semantic web and Web 2. 0 interchangeably but … • Web 2. 0 includes social networking sites, e. g. My. Space, Bebo, Facebook, wikis, e. g. Wikipedia, and folksonomies which evolve from collaborative tagging. 25

Semantic Web vs. Web 2. 0 • Web 2. 0 is an informal flexible way of integrating disparate web services. • Web 2. 0 requires less dependence on shared vocabularies • Web 2. 0 provides workable rather than totally perfect solutions. • Web 2. 0 focuses on the user interface rather than on technology or standards. • Web 2. 0 encourages users of information services to create, share, collaborate and interact. • Mary Burke vs. Judith Wusteman 26

Semantic Web vs. Web 2. 0 • Web 2. 0 may be seen as the direct opposite to the semantic web with the emphasis of the latter on standardization, creation of perfect metadata, using computers to link the metadata, etc. • But there is general acceptance that the two technologies are complimentary and can be integrated, with a semantic web back-end a Web 2. 0 interface. 27

Semantic Web integrated with Web 2. 0 • Web 2. 0 social networking sites contribute to the semantic web as they provide for fuller tagging of web resources by individuals and groups. • Examples: Del. icio. us for sharing bookmarks and Flickr for sharing photographs • -> This social semantic web uses social interactions on the web to create more complete knowledge, integrating components from multiple contributors. • It provides a user driven approach to semantic web development. 28

Semantic Web integrated with Web 2. 0 • Wikipedia 3. 0 proposal would enrich Wikipedia through the addition of semantic web features. • By giving semantic web tools to the Wikipedia community, including librarians, it would be possible for the user community to help develop domain specific ontologies. • Wikipedia would then provide answers to questions instead of links to web pages containing keywords. 29

Challenges of Semantic Web • Censorship and privacy issues arise through linking of records in different places. • High overhead of time and resources in metadata and taxonomy creation and maintenance. • Principle of least effort for information seeking. • Merely a type of weak artificial intelligence which enables well defined problems for narrow subject areas to be solved using well defined data? • 21 st century buzz-word? • OR • As ubiquitous as the web? 30

Lecture Objectives / Outline • Understand the semantic web • Recognise examples • Compare and contrast semantic web and Web 2. 0 • Assess role of semantic web in libraries • Assess how librarians can contribute to semantic web • Plan for the future: social semantic digital library 31

Applications of S W in libraries • Special collections of data with rich metadata structure can be automatically converted to RDF and OWL. • Collections where users have commitment to annotation, tagging and sharing, e. g. readers’ groups. • Collaborative research groups, e. g. multi-partner research teams. • Linking of electronic journal and database components, e. g. • Metadata -> Journal -> Article -> Versions accessible in user’s institution 32

Semantic Web and Libraries • Jane Greenberg (2007) identifies similarities between libraries and the semantic web and presents strong arguments for the applicability of library functions to the semantic web. • "Collection development" translates to "semantic web selection“ • “Cataloging" to "semantic web 'semantic' representation" • “Reference" to "semantic web service” • “Circulation" to "semantic web resource use” • http: //www. youtube. com/watch? v=IFqmqcv 3 s 4 w 33

Lecture Objectives / Outline • Understand the semantic web • Recognise examples • Compare and contrast semantic web and Web 2. 0 • Assess role of semantic web in libraries • Assess how librarians can contribute to semantic web • Plan for the future: social semantic digital library 34

Role of Librarians • We have considerable expertise in the key components of the semantic web: cataloguing and classification. • We understand the complexity of information resources, the importance of metadata and vocabulary control. • We have developed systems for ensuring reliability, consistency and quality control. • We have a track record in protecting privacy. • -> Careers as metadata librarians • -> We must not leave development of the semantic web to computer scientists. 35

Lecture Objectives / Outline • Understand the semantic web • Recognise examples • Compare and contrast semantic web and Web 2. 0 • Assess role of semantic web in libraries • Assess how librarians can contribute to semantic web • Plan for the future: social semantic digital library 36

Social Semantic Digital Library • Personalization of digital libraries is key for future (Baker, 2006) • Accomplished by using both Web 2. 0 and semantic web. Ferran et al. present a model for this (2005). • It requires integration of user profiles and search histories and evaluation. • Feasible on a small scale and in specialized areas but less so for the wide spectrum of public or academic library users. 37

Links to Examples and Resources (1 of 3) • Weaving the Web Fischetti, Mark (Harper Collins Publishers, 1999) ISBN 0 -06 -251586 -1(cloth) ISBN 0 -06 -251587 -X(paper) • Berners-Lee, Tim; James Hendler and Ora Lassila (May 17, 2001). "The Semantic Web". Scientific American Magazine. Retrieved on 2008 -04 -10. • http: //www. w 3 schools. com/semweb/default. asp • http: //www. foaf-project. org/ • http: //musicbrainz. org/ • http: //www. brickscommunity. org/ • http: //www. jeromedl. org/ http: //library. deri. ie/ 38

Links to Examples and Resources (2 of 3) • Greenberg, J. (2007). Advancing the Semantic Web via library functions: • www. haworthpress. com/store/pdffiles/forreps/gr eenberg-knitting. pdf • ils. unc. edu/mrc/pdf/greenberg 07 advancing. pdf • http: //www. youtube. com/watch? v=IFqmqcv 3 s 4 w • http: //www. readwriteweb. com/archives/talis_se mantic_web. php • http: //www. altova. com/semantic_web. html • http: //scholar. google. com/scholar? q=%22 seman tic+web%22+library&hl=en&lr=&btn. G=Search 39

Links to Examples and Resources (3 of 3) • Baker, D. (2006). Digital library futures: a UK HE and FE perspective. Interlending and Document Supply, 34(1), 4 -8. • Fawzi, M. (July 3 2006). Wikipedia 3. 0: The End of Google? Retrieved 10 October 2007, from http: //evolvingtrends. wordpress. com/2006/06/2 6/wikipedia-30 -the-end-of-google/ • Ferran, N. , Mor, E. , & Minguillon, J. (2005). Towards personalization in digital libraries through ontologies. Library Management, 26(4), 206 -217. 40

Thank you for your attention! Questions? Comments? 41