• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
W3C Library Linked Data Incubator Group  - 2011
 

W3C Library Linked Data Incubator Group - 2011

on

  • 3,378 views

The same presentation as http://www.slideshare.net/antoineisaac/w3c-library-linked-data-incubator-group , but after 1 year of work!

The same presentation as http://www.slideshare.net/antoineisaac/w3c-library-linked-data-incubator-group , but after 1 year of work!

Statistics

Views

Total Views
3,378
Views on SlideShare
2,745
Embed Views
633

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
17
Comments
0

2 Embeds 633

http://consulting.talis.com 435
http://talis-systems.com 198

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-ShareAlike License

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

    W3C Library Linked Data Incubator Group  - 2011 W3C Library Linked Data Incubator Group - 2011 Presentation Transcript

    • W3C Library Linked Data Group A Summary Antoine Isaac Europeana Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Talis Linked Data and Libraries day, London, July 14th 2011
    • ?
    • W3C incubator (XG) activity
      • Short-lived working groups: around 1 year
      • No delivery of W3C Recommendations, but “innovative ideas for specifications, guidelines, and applications that are not (or not yet) clear candidates as Web standards”
      http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/
    • Library Linked Data incubator
      • May 2010 – August 2011
      • 51 participants
      • 23 W3C member organizations
        • VU Amsterdam, INRIA, Library of Congress, JISC, Deutsche Nationalbibliotek, DERI Galway, OCLC, Talis, LANL, Helsinki University of Technology, University of Edinburgh, etc.
      • Invited experts from other organizations
        • BnF, National Library of Latvia, German National Library of Economics, etc.
        • Up-to-date list at http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=44833
    •  
      • To help increase global interoperability of library data on the Web, by
      • bringing together people involved in Semantic Web activities —focusing on Linked Data—in the library community and beyond,
      • building on existing initiatives , and
      • identifying collaboration tracks for the future .
      Mission
    • Linked Library Cloud 2008 [Ross Singer, Code4Lib2010] http://code4lib.org/conference/2010/singer
    • 2010 [Ross Singer, Code4Lib2010] http://code4lib.org/conference/2010/singer
    • Now
    • Technological bits and pieces
      • Vocabularies/schemas
        • Dublin Core, SKOS, BIBO, FRBR
      • Web services
      • Semantic Web search engines
      • Ontology editors
      • Etc.
    • Need for mapping the landscape
    • Investigate answers to higher-level questions
    • What’s this I hear about the Semantic Web ?
      • What is the Semantic Web?
      • What does it have to do with bibliography?
      • Does it make life better for patrons?
      • Does it strengthen libraries?
      • Is it practical?
      • Where can we get some?
      http://www.slideshare.net/stuartweibel/semantic-web-technologies-changing-bibliographic-descriptions
    • Various activities
      • Discussions
      • Presentations in various fora – libraries and beyond
      • Writing papers, blog posts
      • Gathering use cases and implementation examples
      • Identifying relevant technology pieces
      • Publishing linked data!
    • Deliverables
      • Side deliverable on use cases
      • Side deliverable on available data
      • Main report
    • Use Cases
      • Identify business cases and examples implementations
      • Over 50 cases from XG participants and community
      • Grouped into 8 topical clusters
        • Bibliographic data, vocabulary alignment, citations, digital objects, social and new uses…
      http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/UseCaseReport
    • Available Data
      • Document surveying
      • Datasets
      • Value vocabularies
      • Element sets
      • CKAN LLD group
      • http://ckan.net/group/lld
      http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Vocabulary_and_Dataset
    • Main report
      • Intended at a general library audience: decisions-makers, developers, metadata librarians, etc.
      • Tries to expand on general benefits, issues and recommendations
      • An entry point into more specific resources
        • LLD XG side deliverables, many external links
    • Benefits
      • General benefits of linked data
      • Benefits to researchers, students and patrons
      • Benefits to cultural institutions
      • Benefits to librarians, archivists and curators
      • Benefits to developers
    • Relevant technologies
      • Linked data front-ends to existing data stores
      • Web Application Frameworks
      • Web services for library linked data
      • Microformats, Microdata and RDFa
      • Tools for data designers
      • Etc.
    • Implementation challenges and barriers to adoption
      • Designed for stability, the library ecosystem resists (technological) change
      • ROI is difficult to calculate
      • Data may have rights issues that prevent (open) publication
      • Data in library-specific formats is not easily shared outside the library community
    • Recommendations
      • Assess
      • Facilitate
      • Design and prepare
      • Curate, identify and link
    • Still one week for feedback!
      • Wiki page
        • http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReportWithTransclusion
      • Comments can be sent to the public LLD list
        • [email_address]
      • Blog for fine-grained comments
        • http://blogs.ukoln.ac.uk/w3clld/
      Or wait till we have finished…
    • The future?
      • Discussions and collaboration should continue
      • Existing groups within libraries or with wider scope
        • IFLA Semantic Web special interest group
        • LOD-LAM
      • A new W3C Community group?
    • A long-term effort
      • Libraries are in a unique position for this
    • Questions?
      • Links
      • Official page @ W3C
        • http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/
      • Wiki site
        • http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/
      • LLD community mailing list
        • [email_address]
        • http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lld/
    • Questions?
      • Some slides adapted from William Waites, http://eris.okfn.org/ww/2011/06/nls/
      • Pictures:
      • http://www.flickr.com/photos/nationalarchives/3048286070/
      • http://www.europeana.eu/portal/record/03903/78FA3F8B4299B45C25C395345D3D16ED24EA7F4F.html
      • http://www.europeana.eu/portal/record/03912/E9666896A50FDDE5F7F15A17C11219A7FBCBBC50.html
      • http://europeana.eu/portal/record/09405o/651D82BEC748FF421B4252C699CC2498EF57E466.html
      • (Europeana links give access to resources on original sites, with copyright info)
    • General benefits of linked data
      • Shareable
        • Globally unique resolvable identifiers - URI
        • Libraries can make trusted metadata descriptions for common use
      • Extensible
        • "Open world" - no description is complete, anybody can add descriptive information from within their own publishing space
      • Re-usable
        • Descriptions from diverse sources talking about the same thing
        • Annotations, enrichments, etc.
      • Internationalisable
        • Full support for translations of terms to other languages
        • Natural language strings are not used as identifiers
      Back
    • Benefits to researchers, students and patrons
      • Greater discovery and use capabilities, across library and non-library resources, across disciplines
      • Information seekers can extract and re-mix the parts of the data they need, add own annotations to library global graph
      • Semantics in HTML allow resources to be better discovered from websites they use routinely
      • Library items and data can be fully integrated into research documents and bibliographies
      Back
    • Benefits to cultural institutions
      • Use of mainstream technologies rather than formats and integrated systems specific to libraries
      • Sharing data, particularly for items/works and authority data, means less duplication of effort, lower infrastructure costs
      • Clarification of metadata licensing
      • Greater visibility on the web and reuse
      Back
    • Benefits to librarians, archivists and curators
      • Use of web-based identifiers makes resources immediately available and up-to-date
      • Pull together data from outside their domain environment
        • across cultural heritage datasets
        • from the web at large
      • Concentrate on their domain of local expertise rather than re-creating existing descriptions
      Back
    • Benefits to developers
      • Use of well known standard protocols and techniques instead of domain-specific software
        • HTTP instead of Z39.50
        • RDF instead of MARC or EAD
        • REST
      • Freely mix or mash-up data from libraries with other sources
      Back
    • Challenges and barriers
      • Designed for stability, the library ecosystem resists (technological) change
      • Tendency to engage only with well-established standards and practices
      • Standardization processes are long-term, top-down
        • Bottom-up can be successful but garner little recognition
      • Tech. expertise lies mostly with a small number of software vendors or in large academic libraries
        • Libraries are Libraries are understaffed in the technology area
    • Challenges and barriers
      • Sharing of data traditionally happens amongst libraries, not with the wider world
          • There is fear that data will need to be "dumbed down" in order to interact with other communities; few see the possibility of "smarting up” data
      • Cooperative metadata creation is economical but centralised
      Back
    • Challenges and barriers
      • ROI is difficult to calculate
      • Cost of current practice is not well known
      • LD requires tech. staff with specific expertise in library data
      • Library-specific data formats require niche systems solutions
      Back
    • Challenges and barriers
      • Data may have rights issues that prevent (open) publication
      • Some data cannot be opened
      • Rights have perceived value
      • Ownership of rights can be unmanageably complex
      Back
    • Challenges and barriers
      • Data in library-specific formats is not easily shared outside the library community
      • Data is expressed primarily as text strings, not "linkable" URIs
      • Self-contained records differ from open-world graphs
      • Best practices or standardisation for using RDF with library data are needed
      • The library and LD communities lack shared terminology for metadata concepts
        • statement, heading, authority control
      Back
    • Recommendations
      • Assess
      • Identify candidate datasets for early exposure as linked data
      • For each dataset, determine ROI of current practices, and costs and ROI of exposing as LD
      • Evaluate migration strategies
      • Foster a discussion about open data and rights
      Back
    • Recommendations
      • Facilitate
      • Cultivate an ethos of innovation
        • Small scale R&D within individual library organisations
      • Identify Linked Data literacy needed for different staff roles in the library
      • Include metadata design in library and information science education
      • Increase participation in linked-data standardisation efforts
      Back
    • Recommendations
      • Design and prepare
      • Translate library data and standards into linked data
      • Develop best practices and design patterns for data
      • Directly use or map to commonly understood LD vocabularies
      • Design user stories and exemplar UIs
      • Identify tools supporting the creation and use of LLD
      Back
    • Recommendations
      • Curate, identify and link
      • Apply library experience in curation and long-term preservation to linked data (and other) datasets
      • Ensure preservation of relevant linked data vocabularies
      • Assign unique identifiers (URIs) for all significant things in library data
      • Create explicit links between library datasets and to other well-used datasets
      Back