• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Lecture 4: A Short Introduction to the Semantic Web
 

Lecture 4: A Short Introduction to the Semantic Web

on

  • 395 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
395
Views on SlideShare
339
Embed Views
56

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

1 Embed 56

http://digitalpublichistory.wordpress.com 56

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Lecture 4: A Short Introduction to the Semantic Web Lecture 4: A Short Introduction to the Semantic Web Presentation Transcript

    • Lecture 4: Metadata, XML, and the Semantic WebDigital Public History Jason M. Kelly, IUPUI
    • The Semantic Web• syntax: how something is expressed• semantics: meaning
    • The Semantic Web: The Problem• HTML and the stricture of information
    • The Semantic Web: The Solution• Linked Data • e.g. Library of Congress Name Authority File http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names.html
    • The Semantic Web: The Solution• Linked Data • e.g. Library of Congress Name Authority File http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names.html• Resource Description Framework (RDF) • RDF Triple: Subject-Predicate-Object
    • “Through hyperlinking, documents, collections of “The RDF triple is different from the hyperlink in two important documents, and related audio and visual ways. It defines object relationships through simple facts about resources are structured across the web kinds of objects within a particular domain and each part of the (Halavais 2008, 43). In this bottom-up, triple has a unique identifier or Uniform Resource Identifier (URI). nonhierarchical fashion, features of Web 2.0 In comparison, the hyperlink connects two objects and in the facilitate co-construction of intertextual process the relationship is named in ways that are not always discourses. However, content structures relevant to the meaning of the relationship. For example, a emerging from Web 2.0 practices, such as common link naming convention, such as: „you can find the report hyperlinking, suffer from some basic linguistic here,‟ where the word here, does very little to give meaning to the limitations, such as homonyms and synonyms. link. (Vossen and Hagemann, 2007). In this way, the flexibility of Web 2.0 can also limit the precision of aggregated content.” Additionally, the objects are connected by a hyperlink, which itself does not have a unique URI as such. Instead, the HTML code that defines a hyperlink is embedded in the local content and the code construction includes the URL for the linked-to object. The three distinct parts of the object relationship are identifiable within the local HTML code, but the hyperlink is not an entity separate from the two linked objects.”From Clifford Tatum, “Web 2.0 and/or Semantic Web?,” Digital Scholarshi eHumanities Group Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (5 June 2011), http://digital- scholarship.ehumanities.nl/epubs/web-2-0-andor-semantic-web/