• Save
Semantic Web, NON-technically speaking
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Semantic Web, NON-technically speaking

on

  • 2,821 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,821
Views on SlideShare
2,707
Embed Views
114

Actions

Likes
8
Downloads
0
Comments
1

2 Embeds 114

http://www.secondintegral.com 113
http://www.slideshare.net 1

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…
  • can I download this for my reaserch at UNyversity?
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Semantic Web, NON-technically speaking Presentation Transcript

  • 1. Semantic Web in Context Segment at TLT Center “Web2.0 Day” Eric Hoffer Second Integral at Seton Hall July 16, 2008
  • 2. Agenda
    • About me
    • Your focus on Web2.0
    • Versions of the Web, relatively speaking
    • The Semantic Web or Web3.0
    • What does it have to do with you
  • 3. So, about me marketing, strategy, people, processes, puzzles, tools, usability, products, productivity… research, analytics, financial markets, work, the world, people… living and doing their jobs discovery – information – connecting - its about helping real people living and doing their work unlock “SME-tise” and enable the many
  • 4. me (one more thing)… I’m interested in lots of different things... Visual Usability Running Value Networks Finance me
  • 5. me (one more thing)… I’m interested in lots of different things... particularly where they interact…
  • 6. me (one more thing)… I’m interested in lots of different things... particularly where they interact… and in their outer reaches…
  • 7. me (one more thing)… I’m interested in lots of different things... particularly where they interact… and in their outer reaches… in the interstices - where they overlap. Biology and Anthropology System Dynamics and Economics Usability and Value Networks As you might experience with:
  • 8. Interstices Why am I telling you this? To me, this is what semantic technologies and the Semantic Web are about. Enabling the crossing of lines, bridging gaps, unlocking expertise, getting things done… for people.
  • 9. Technical aspects…
    • There’s all sorts of technical details, but let’s just get some context
  • 10. Web Progression
    • Web (original) – Pages and Links
    • Web2.0
    • Web3.0
    (apologies in advance for using a version-type naming scheme – which doesn’t really exist).
  • 11. Web (original, Web1.0) - about
    • About companies showing their stuff
    • And about people finding the stuff
  • 12. Web1.0 (links) (Image borrowed from Josh Bancroft’s tinyscreenfuls.com)
    • This is the view as far as the machine is concerned
  • 13. Web Progression
    • Web1.0 – Pages and Links
    • Web2.0
    • Web3.0
  • 14. Web Progression
    • Web1.0 – Pages and Links (static, proprietary, no user contribution, and technical)
    • Web2.0
    • Web3.0
  • 15. Web Progression
    • Web1.0 – Pages and Links (static, proprietary, no user contribution, and technical)
    • Web2.0 – Participatory
    • Web3.0
  • 16. Web2.0 - about
    • About people taking part in the web,
    • sharing ideas, opinions, creations…
    • and others taking advantage and enjoying
    • using the web as a platform to deliver or piece together capabilities
  • 17. Web2.0 – elements
    • rating/reviewing
    • sharing
    • collaborating
    • socializing
    • blogging
    • pull
    • tagging
    • mashing
  • 18. Web1.0  2.0 (how?)
    • Under the hood, XML brought “structure” to web pages,
    • by separating people-bound information from computer-bound formatting instructions,
    • companies and services could now provide wrappers - into which, people just fill in their own content.
    Image source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fleur-design
  • 19. Web2.0 – examples
    • rating/reviewing – amazon, ebay…
    • sharing – flickr, youtube…
    • collaborating – wikis, google docs…
    • socializing – myspace, facebook, linkedin…
    • blogging – typepad, blogger, wordpress…
    • pull – RSS, ATOM
    • tagging – delicious, zigtag…
    • mashing – google maps…
  • 20. Web2.0 (reviews, rating, tagging)
  • 21. Web Progression
    • Web1.0 – Pages and Links (static, proprietary, no user contribution, and technical)
    • Web2.0 – Participatory
    • Web3.0
  • 22. Web Progression
    • Web1.0 – Pages and Links (static, proprietary, no user contribution, and technical)
    • Web2.0 – Participatory (dynamic, contributive, connecting, interactive, and easy)
    • Web3.0
  • 23. Great stuff, Web2.0. So what’s missing?
    • XML separated complexity of presentation layer from content, BUT didn’t structure the content (text and data).
    • So, computers can’t tell one word from another, nor differentiate between different meanings of a word. (e.g. “orange”…).
    • Therefore, computers still couldn’t help us to get better answers, (just nicer looking ones that might be close to what we ask about).
  • 24.
    • Enter, the S emantic W eb,
    or semantic web, Web3.0…
  • 25.
    • "Semantic Web is an extension of the current Web in which information is given well-defined meaning, better enabling computers and people to work in cooperation."
    • (Tim Berners-Lee, James Hendler, Ora Lassila, The Semantic Web , Scientific American, May 2001)
  • 26. Web3.0/Semantic Web – about
    • If Web2.0 is for “people” (being part of it and connecting between each other and things),
    • Web3.0 is for “machines” (and connections between data - for the benefit of people).
  • 27. Web3.0/Semantic Web – about
    • Adding granularity to what is on the page,
    • to enable identification and classification of items (people, places, things, events) on page –
    • so the computer can help find the right pages, to grab the right data, mix things together in like terms...
  • 28. Web Progression
    • Web1.0 – Pages and Links (static, non-interactive, non-dynamic, and technical)
    • Web2.0 – Participatory (dynamic, contributive, connecting, interactive, and easy)
    • Web3.0 –Semantic. Interlinking. Relative.
  • 29. Web Progression
    • Web1.0 – Pages and Links (static, non-interactive, non-dynamic, and technical)
    • Web2.0 – Participatory (dynamic, contributive, connecting, interactive, and easy)
    • Web3.0 –Semantic. Interlinking. Relative. (compatibility for data interoperability – to intelligently get to answers)
  • 30. BUT HOW, and to what end?
    • Remember all those Web 2.0 things? Well 3.0 is the same stuff, but enhanced with contextual information.
    • Relatively easy in closed environment – mapping to likely choices – but out in the wild is another story.
    • Consider simple tagging – In context can reveal more.
    • And mashing - Think APIs – but on a really broad scale.
  • 31. Mashing
  • 32. Sharing + Tagging + Mapping See live example
  • 33. Isn’t all that just Web2.0? What’s the Semantic Web part?
    • contextualization and meaning
    • draw logical conclusions (inferencing)
    • digest natural language (NLP)
    • comply with W3C Standards (more later)
  • 34. Web3.0
    • From the outside, it is – or rather, should be, just enhanced experience for the user
      • Fewer and better search results
      • Actual answers to questions
      • Information from different resources being dynamically pulled together and provided to you in common terms.
  • 35.  
  • 36. Web2.0  3.0 – how?
    • Under the hood of the transition this time…
    Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/suzanneandsimon Adding granularity to the people-bound portion of what is on the page – so the computer can use it to help us do those things.
  • 37. Web2.0  3.0 – how?
    • Somewhat technically speaking, this means:
    • Interpreting text/data
    • Classifying it
    • Using discovered classification to steer through relationships between terms
    • Traversing relationships to iteratively form subsequent inquiry
    • “ Semagically” getting just what you want
  • 38. What about the Semantic Web jargon?
    • URIs – (uniform resource identifiers) each and every “thing” has a standard name and a permanent place to be referenced
    • RDF and OWL – language and syntax to describe relationships between things – (incl: ontologies)
    • Reasoners – systems like Pellet use formal logic to infer or draw conclusions based relationships (father’s brother is uncle…)
    • GRDDL – gleans and extracts rdf data from web pages
    • SPARQL – language for asking questions (querying) and receiving answers of semantically compliant data.
  • 39. Remember this slide?
    • <rdf:Description rdf:about=&quot;http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar&quot;>
    • <ex:editor>
    • <rdf:Description>
    • <ex:homePage>
    • <rdf:Description rdf:about=&quot;http://purl.org/net/dajobe/&quot;>
    • </rdf:Description>
    • </ex:homePage>
    • </rdf:Description>
    • </ex:editor>
    • </rdf:Description>
    • <rdf:Description rdf:about=&quot;http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar&quot;>
    • <ex:editor>
    • <rdf:Description>
    • <ex:fullName>Dave Beckett</ex:fullName>
    • </rdf:Description>
    • </ex:editor>
    • </rdf:Description>
    • <rdf:Description rdf:about=&quot;http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar&quot;>
    • <dc:title>RDF/XML Syntax Specification (Revised)</dc:title>
    • </rdf:Description>
  • 40. Remember this slide?
    • <rdf:Description rdf:about=&quot;http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar&quot;>
    • <ex:editor>
    • <rdf:Description>
    • <ex:homePage>
    • <rdf:Description rdf:about=&quot;http://purl.org/net/dajobe/&quot;>
    • </rdf:Description>
    • </ex:homePage>
    • </rdf:Description>
    • </ex:editor>
    • </rdf:Description>
    • <rdf:Description rdf:about=&quot;http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar&quot;>
    • <ex:editor>
    • <rdf:Description>
    • <ex:fullName>Dave Beckett</ex:fullName>
    • </rdf:Description>
    • </ex:editor>
    • </rdf:Description>
    • <rdf:Description rdf:about=&quot;http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar&quot;>
    • <dc:title>RDF/XML Syntax Specification (Revised)</dc:title>
    • </rdf:Description>
    This is the granular form. But SW folks now get that regular people brought in via web2.0 won’t write this. So don’t worry about it.
  • 41. For those who live in spreadsheets
    • One way to think of this granularity is with a spreadsheet -
    • Row of items implies relationship between items, (columns are characteristics)
    • OK to repeat data in multiple rows, but better to reference one “real” item (repeats would be references too)
    • Item changes. Everything pointing to it reflects change
    • … like collapsing redundant data into a single named entity, and explicitly defining the relationships between the columns.
    See animation
  • 42. Web2>3 Let’s go back to tagging (tag clouds) See Del.icio.us
    • Combine
    • Visualize
    • Weight
    • Emphasize
    • Focus
    • Emerge
    • Expose
    • Discover
  • 43. Web2>3 (clustering) See ZigTag site
  • 44. NLP and Entity Extraction (using Calais) Try this live by going to http://sws.clearforest.com/calaisviewer/ In this example we discussed Calais using natural language processing to “read” text submissions, re-displaying with items marked and classified. We then considered how this can enable asking the web questions on a grand scale, and tabulation of results of NLP from millions of pages.
  • 45. … applied to blogging (e.g. Zemanta or Tagaroo) See live example In this example we looked at how the Zemanta plug-in “reads” a blog post while you are writing it, and provides images and links for you to include in the post – based on its “sense” that these are related to what you are writing.
  • 46. … embedding semantics (e.g. using SIOC)
  • 47. If you want to get into the weeds a bit
    • Behind the scenes at the “semantic web” companies you’ve probably heard of – like:
    • Metaweb’s Freebase
    • Radar Networks’ Twine
    • Soon-to-be Microsoft’s Powerset…
    • it is all about named entities, classes and type data - and these services, while not making it so apparent, are trying to build this (whereas Google is, at least outwardly, more about statistical ranking – likelihood of meaning).
    See Trueknowledge at http://beta.trueknowledge.com/ and try finding an entity (person, place, event, thing…) and try out “Add Knowledge” to see the process of unambiguous entry.
  • 48. Linking Data (global scale – possibilities emerge) Source: DERI http://richard.cyganiak.de/2007/10/lod/
  • 49. Progression from 50,000 feet
  • 50. Technical overview
  • 51. Web Science Source: WSRI - http:// webscience.org /
  • 52. Web Science Source: WSRI - http:// webscience.org /
  • 53. Web Science Source: WSRI - http:// webscience.org /
  • 54. Other links and examples http://webscience.org/ and http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/ http:// sws.clearforest.com/calaisviewer / http://wiki.dbpedia.org and http://deri.org/ and http://sioc-project.org/ http://www.talis.com/platform/podcasts http:// danbri.org / http:// mashmaker.intel.com /web/ - learning masher http:// beta.trueknowledge.com http://www.readwriteweb.com/ (e.g archives/trueknowledge_demo.php) http:// healthmap.org /en and http:// tagmaps.research.yahoo.com /
  • 55.
    • Contact Info:
    • Eric Hoffer
    • Second Integral, LLC
    • http://www.secondintegral.com
    • email: ehoffer@secondintegral.com