W3C Library Linked Data Incubator Group  - 2011
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Like this? Share it with your network


W3C Library Linked Data Incubator Group - 2011



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!



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



2 Embeds 633

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



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.

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

W3C Library Linked Data Incubator Group - 2011 Presentation Transcript

  • 1. W3C Library Linked Data Group A Summary Antoine Isaac Europeana Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Talis Linked Data and Libraries day, London, July 14th 2011
  • 2. ?
  • 3. 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”
  • 4. 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.
  • 5.
      • Up-to-date list at http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=44833
  • 6.  
  • 7.
    • 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 .
  • 8. Linked Library Cloud 2008 [Ross Singer, Code4Lib2010] http://code4lib.org/conference/2010/singer
  • 9. 2010 [Ross Singer, Code4Lib2010] http://code4lib.org/conference/2010/singer
  • 10. Now
  • 11. Technological bits and pieces
    • Vocabularies/schemas
      • Dublin Core, SKOS, BIBO, FRBR
    • Web services
    • Semantic Web search engines
    • Ontology editors
    • Etc.
  • 12. Need for mapping the landscape
  • 13. Investigate answers to higher-level questions
  • 14. 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?
  • 15. 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!
  • 16. Deliverables
    • Side deliverable on use cases
    • Side deliverable on available data
    • Main report
  • 17. 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…
  • 18. Available Data
    • Document surveying
    • Datasets
    • Value vocabularies
    • Element sets
    • CKAN LLD group
    • http://ckan.net/group/lld
  • 19. 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
  • 20. 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
  • 21. 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.
  • 22. 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
  • 23. Recommendations
    • Assess
    • Facilitate
    • Design and prepare
    • Curate, identify and link
  • 24. 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…
  • 25. 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?
  • 26. A long-term effort
  • 27.
    • Libraries are in a unique position for this
  • 28. 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/
  • 29. 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)
  • 30. 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
  • 31. 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
  • 32. 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
  • 33. 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
  • 34. 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
  • 35. 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
  • 36. 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
  • 37. 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
  • 38. 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
  • 39. 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
  • 40. 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
  • 41. 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
  • 42. 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
  • 43. 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