Publishing data on the Semantic Web

Publishing Data on the Semantic Web Peter Mika Researcher, Data Architect Yahoo! Research

Intro to the Semantic Web

Vague, but exciting… Berners-Lee and the dawn of the Web

Semantic Web
Publish information in a way that is easier to process for machines
Web of Data instead of Web of Documents
Two main architectural challenges
A common format for sharing data
Sharing the meaning of data
Through social means (shared schemas)
By using powerful schema languages
Semantic Web standards from W3C
Languages (RDF, OWL, RIF)
Serializations (RDF/XML, RDFa)
Protocols (SPARQL, HTTP)
Semantic Web research into knowledge representation and reasoning, data integration, data quality and many other topics
Community efforts to publish data and develop schemas

RDF (Resource Description Framework)
The basic data model of the Semantic Web
A universal model to capture all sorts of data: networks, relational, object-oriented…
Basic unit of information is a triple
A tuple of (subject, predicate, object)
Example: (Joe, loves, Mary)
Each triple gives the value of a property for a given resource or relates two objects to one another
Object is either a resource or a literal
An RDF model is a set of triples
Ordering of statements in an RDF document is irrelevant (unlike XML)

Resources vs. literals
Resources are identified by a URI or otherwise the are called a blank node
URIs are a generalization of URLs
Notation: <http://www.example.org/Person> or ex:Person
Literals have an optional language and datatype (string, integer etc.)
Literals can not be subjects of statements
Datatypes are identified by URIs, e.g. XML Schema datatypes
Two literals are the same if their components are the same
Notation: “Joe B.” or Joe@en^^http://…#string

Advanced topic: Resources vs Literals
Resources are objects, Literals are strings
Resources are instances of classes, Literals have datatypes
Whether something is a resource or literal sometimes depends on the detail of modeling
<meta property=“myvocab:knows”>Paris Hilton</meta>
<item rel=“foaf:knows”>
<meta property=“foaf:name”>Paris Hilton</meta>
</item>
You cannot make statements about literals (literals are always the object in a triple)
Resources can carry a globally unique identifier, literals have no identity
Web resources such as documents and images are resources
<item rel=“rdfs:seeAlso” resource=“http://www.some.related.page.com/”/>
<item rel=“foaf:img” resource=“http://photosite.example.org/photo.jpg”/>
When in doubt: it’s a resource

Graphical and textual notation
A number of ways to serialize an RDF model into an RDF document
RDF/XML, Turtle, N3, N-Triples
Example: http://www.cs.vu.nl/~pmika/foaf.rdf
my:Joe “ Joe A.” name foaf:Person type

Informational versus non-informational resources
Informational resource: an HTML document, image, any other file on the Web
Retrievable in its entirety from the Web
Retrieving it can return a 200 OK
Conceptual (non-informational) resource: a person, an event, a place, etc.
A description of it may be retrievable from the Web
When identified by a URL, retrieving it should return a 303 Redirect
Never confuse a webpage with what it describes!
You are not your Facebook profile: one is a document, the other is a person. A document has properties such as byte-size, media-type etc, a person has name, age, etc.
Make sure you don’t use the URL of an existing webpage as the URI of a resource

Vocabularies (ontologies)
Ontologies are collections of classes and properties used to describe objects in a particular domain
OWL (the Web Ontology Language) is the standard ontology language
OWL has an RDF serialization: ontologies are part of the Semantic Web
Classes can be described by sub- and superclasses, required properties
Class membership in RDF is expressed using the rdf:type property
An instance can have multiple classes (types)
A class can have multiple superclasses
Properties can be described by their domain, range, cardinalities, etc.

RDF is designed for distributed systems
URIs provide web-wide global identification across documents
A resource may be described by multiple documents
We know it’s the same resource because the same URI is used or through reasoning (advanced topic…)
URIs are intented to be reused
Unique, but not single identifiers: two URIs may denote the same thing
URIs are dereferencable (can be retrieved)
A well-behaved URI returns a description of the resource
Provides authority: the definition of foaf:Person lives at that URI
Ontologies can be looked up as well
Typically at the root of the URIs, also known as the namespace
Example: http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Person redirects to the specification

URIs implicitly link data together (#joe, #name, “Joe A.”) (#joe, #email, mailto:joe@joe.com) (#mary, name, “Mary B.”) (#mary, gender, “female”) (#joe, #loves, #mary) Joe’s homepage A dating site Mary’s homepage (#name, #type, #Property) (#name, #domain, #Person) Schema doc

Put together, triples form a single ‘global’ graph “ Joe A.” #joe #name “ joe@joe.com” #email #mary #loves “ Mary B.” “ female” #name #gender

Publishing for the Semantic Web

Motivation
Why publish data on the (Semantic) Web?
In a business context
Increase the potential for linking, reuse and aggregation
Drive traffic back from other sites on the Web
Pre-competitive data integration (e.g. drug discovery)
Make your data more easily findable
Drive traffic from search engines
In a non-profit context
Increase industry or government transparency, accountability
Support research and education by making data accessible

Publishing and consuming data on the Semantic Web
Publishing data involves
Deciding in which format to publish your data
Deciding which schema (ontology, vocabulary) to use
OR you can create a new schema and publish it as well
Multiple ways of publishing RDF data:
Linked Data
Metadata in HTML
SPARQL endpoints
Feeds
GRDDL
Automated tools
Note: you may implement more than one

Option 1: Linked Data
A web of RDF documents in parallel to the current Web
Most often implemented as wrappers around databases or APIs
The four rules of Linked Data:
Use URIs to identify things.
Use HTTP URIs so that these things can be referred to and looked up (" dereference ") by people and user agents .
Provide useful information about the thing when its URI is dereferenced, using standard formats such as RDF-XML.
Include links to other, related URIs in the exposed data to improve discovery of other related information on the Web.
. . . #PeterM #Bud born “ Peter Mika” label “ Budapest” label #Hun capital-of “ 2,000,000” population #PeterM #Bud born “ Peter Mika” label “ Budapest” label #Hun capital-of “ 2,000,000” population #PeterM #Bud born “ Peter Mika” label “ Budapest” label #Hun capital-of “ 2,000,000” population

Option 1: Linked Data
Advantages:
No change to the publishing of the HTML documents
Data can be published by third party (e.g. Dbpedia)
Disadvantages:
Web servers need to be configured to properly handle URIs that identify concepts instead of documents
Not favored by search engines
Lack of use cases
Crawling needs to be changed
Authority is difficult to determine
Tools
Triple stores (Virtuoso, Oracle etc.) and front-ends ( Pubby )
RDB-to-RDF mappers (e.g. D2RQ , Triplify )
Validators ( Vapour )
Linked Data browsers ( many )

Linked Data as a movement
Rapidly growing community effort to (re)publish open datasets as Linked Data
In particular, scientific and government datasets
see linkeddata.org

Option 2: Metadata in HTML
Using microformats, RDFa, Microdata (more later)
Advantages:
Data and document are always in sync
Browser plug-in friendly
Search engine friendly
Copy-paste friendly
Tools:
XML editors (e.g. Oxygen)
Triplr
RDFa Distiller
RDFa bookmarklet
Ubiquity RDFa plugin
Optimus microformat parser
Examples: many, including SlideShare, YouTube, LinkedIn, Digg, Myspace, Facebook…
Peter Mika was born in Budapest. Peter Mika was born in Budapest. #PeterM #Bud born “ Peter Mika” label “ Budapest” label #Hun capital-of “ 2,000,000” population #PeterM #Bud born “ Peter Mika” label “ Budapest” label #Hun capital-of “ 2,000,000” population

Option 3: SPARQL endpoints
An API for accessing RDF databases on the Web
A query language and an HTTP protocol
Advantages:
Flexible access: make any query you want
Also possible to expose a traditional RDBMs via a wrapper
Disadvantages:
For the publisher: cost of supporting arbitrary queries
For the search engine: discovery of SPARQL servers is unsolved
Tools:
Triple stores (Oracle, Virtuoso, Sesame, Jena, OWLIM etc.)
RDB-to-RDF mappers such as D2RQ and Triplify
#PeterM #Bud born “ Peter Mika” label “ Budapest” label #Hun capital-of “ 2,000,000” population

Option 4: Feeds
Disadvantages:
No standard feed format for RDF: data needs to be formatted and often manually submitted for each search engine
Advantages
Submit your data without making it public
Competing and incompatible formats
DataRSS (Yahoo!)
Google Data Protocol
Open Data Protocol (Microsoft)
. #PeterM #Bud born “ Peter Mika” label “ Budapest” label #Hun capital-of “ 2,000,000” population #PeterM #Bud born “ Peter Mika” label “ Budapest” label #Hun capital-of “ 2,000,000” population #PeterM #Bud born “ Peter Mika” label “ Budapest” label #Hun capital-of “ 2,000,000” population

Option 5: Publishing a transformation of the data
Publish the rule to transform the HTML to structured data
GRDDL is a standard for linking an HTML page to a transformation that produces RDF data
Advantages
No change to the page
Disadvantages
Transformation needs to be executed to get to the data
Not much support by search engines
Tools
Intel MashMaker
Dapper
Glue API from AdaptiveBlue
<XSLT> xx yy 1 2

Option 6: Automatic markup
Web services that annotate HTML automatically
Advantages
No manual effort
Disadvantages
Limited to finding relevant entities in text
Tools
OpenCalais
Zemanta API
Peter Mika was born in Budapest. <person>Peter Mika</person> was born in <location>Budapest</location>.

Example: Zemanta
A personal writing assistant for bloggers
Plugin for popular blogging platforms and web mail clients
Analyzes text as you type and suggests hyperlinks, tags, categories, images and related articles
API available with the same functionality

Choosing a vocabulary
No vocabularies in many domains
Books, movies, stuff people care about…
Too many competing proposals in other domains
Often versions of the same proposal
Example: vocabularies for microformats
Not maintained
I cannot maintain your vocabulary for you
Limited tool support
Too many expert tools until now
Many vocabularies are not designed for annotation
Missing meeting point and social process
An ontology is a shared , formal representation of a domain

Choosing a vocabulary
Search the Web or ask for advice on mailing lists
[email_address]
[email_address]
Wikis
semanticweb.org
vocamp.org
Beware of people who claim to have the vocabulary of everything
Preferably you want something small and targeted
Never a 100% fit  you will need to introduce vocabulary terms (classes and properties)
Do not introduce new classes/properties in existing namespaces
Example: the namespace http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/ is used by the FOAF project. Try not to introduce a new term without contacting the owner, i.e. the membership of the FOAF mailing list.

Advanced topic: creating a vocabulary
Get advice on methodology
vocamp.org and semanticweb.org
Choose a namespace and a prefix
Give sensible names, e.g. name it after your site, but don’t call it searchmonkey
Namespace ends either with a slash or a hash
Create an RDF or OWL document describing your classes and properties
Use an ontology editor such as Protégé 4.0
Follow naming conventions
Publish your vocabulary
Make sure the URIs of your properties and classes are resolvable
E.g. myvocab:digicam should resolve to a document containing the definition of myvocab:digicam
Convince others to adopt your vocabulary
If you are in fishing, convince other fishing businesses

How do we build communities? www.vocamp.org

Metadata in HTML

Brief history of the Annotated Web
1995: HTML meta tags
1996: Simple HTML Ontology Extensions (SHOE)
1998: RDF/XML
RDF/XML in HTML
RDF linked from HTML
2003: Web 2.0
Tagging
Microformats
Metadata in Wikipedia
Machine tags in Flickr
2005: eRDF
2008: RDFa 1.0
2011: RDFa 1.1
2012: Microdata?

HTML meta tags
<HTML>
<HEAD profile="http://dublincore.org/documents/dcq-html/">
<META name="DC.author " content=" Peter Mika ">
<LINK rel="DC.rights copyright" href=" http://www.example.org/rights.html " />
<LINK rel="meta" type="application/rdf+xml" title="FOAF"
href= " http://www.cs.vu.nl/~pmika/foaf.rdf ">
</HEAD>
…
</HTML>

SHOE example (Hefflin & Hendler, 1996)
<ONTOLOGY "our-ontology" VERSION="1.0">
<ONTOLOGY-EXTENDS "organization-ontology" VERSION="2.1" PREFIX="org" URL="http://www.ont.org/orgont.html">
<ONTDEF CATEGORY="Person" ISA="org.Thing">
<ONTDEF RELATION="lastName" ARGS="Person STRING">
<ONTDEF RELATION="firstName" ARGS="Person STRING">
<ONTDEF RELATION="marriedTo" ARGS="Person Person">
<ONTDEF RELATION="employee" ARGS="org.Organization Person">
</ONTOLOGY >
<HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Instance-Key" CONTENT="http://www.cs.umd.edu/~george"> <USE-ONTOLOGY "our-ontology" VERSION="1.0" PREFIX="our" URL="http://ont.org/our-ont.html"> </HEAD> <BODY> <CATEGORY "our.Person"> <RELATION "our.marriedTo" TO="http://www.cs.umd.edu/~helena"> <RELATION "our.employee" FROM="http://www.cs.umd.edu"> My name is <ATTRIBUTE "our.firstName"> George </ATTRIBUTE> <ATTRIBUTE "our.lastName"> Cook </ATTRIBUTE> and I live at...

SHOE system

SHOE Text-based query interface

SHOE Graphical Query Interface

Example: Creative Commons
Embedding CC license in HTML (now deprecated):
<HTML> <HEAD>… </HEAD> <BODY> … <!–- <rdf:RDF xmlns="http://creativecommons.org/ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"> <Work rdf:about="http://www.yergler.net/averages/"> <dc:title>The Law of Averages</dc:title> <dc:description>...because eventually i'll be right...</dc:description> <license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/" /> </Work> <License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/"> <requires rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Notice" /> <permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Reproduction" /> <permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Distribution" /> <prohibits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/CommercialUse" /> </License> </rdf:RDF> -->

Example: Creative Commons
Current: rel attribute (HTML4)
This work is licensed under a <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/">Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License</a>.
Use of the “rel” attribute for semantic annotation is the birth of the microformat…

Microformats (μf)
Agreements on the way to encode certain kinds metadata in HTML
Reuse of semantic-bearing HTML elements
Based on existing standards
Minimality
Microformats exist for a limited set of objects
hCard (persons and organizations)
hCalendar (events)
hResume
hProduct
hRecipe
Varying degrees of support and stability
hCard and rel-tag are widely supported
Community centered around microformats.org
Specifications and discussions are hosted there

Microformats: limitations
No shared syntax
Each microformat has a separate syntax tailored to the vocabulary
No formal schemas
Limited reuse, extensibility of schemas
Unclear which combinations are allowed
No datatypes
No namespaces, unique identifiers (URIs)
no interlinking
mapping between instances is required
Always appears in the HTML <body>

Example: the hCard microformat <cite class="vcard" > <a class="fn url" rel="friend colleague met” href="http://meyerweb.com/"> Eric Meyer</a> </cite> wrote a post (<cite> <a href="http://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/2005/12/16/tax-relief/"> Tax Relief</a></cite>) about an unintentionally humorous letter he received from the <span class="vcard” > <a class="fn org url" href="http://irs.gov/"> Internal Revenue Service</a> </span>. <div class="vcard" > <a class="email fn" href="mailto:jfriday@host.com">Joe Friday</a> <div class="tel" >+1-919-555-7878</div> <div class="title" >Area Administrator, Assistant</div> </div>

RDFa
W3C standard for embedding RDF data in HTML documents
A set of new HTML attributes to be used in head or body
A specification of how to extract the data from these attributes
RDFa is just a syntax, you have to choose a vocabulary separately
RDFa 1.0 is a W3C Recommendation since October, 2008
RDFa Primer
RDFa 1.1 is a small update on RDFa to make it easier to use
Currently Working Draft (March 31, 2011)
Updated version of the RDFa Primer (April 19, 2011)
RDFa API for accessing RDFa data in a webpage in the browser from JavaScript
Currently Working Draft (April 19, 2011)

RDFa 1.1
Changes
New vocab attribute to define the default namespace for the document or subtree
Profile documents to define multiple namespace prefixes
The prefix attribute as a recommended replacement of xmlns
You can use URIs even where only CURIEs where allowed before
RDFa 1.1 is backward compatible with RDFa 1.0
RDFa 1.1 is recommended if you want to use HTML5

When to use RDFa
Choose microformats when you find a microformat that fits your needs and supported by your consumers
Microformats are first option because they are simple
Yahoo supports all major microformats, see the documentation
It’s a common misconception that RDFa requires XHTML or that it’s compatible with HTML5
It’s compatible with HTML4, HTML5, XHTML
If you find none that perfectly fits your needs then you need RDFa
Microformats have a fixed schema: you can not add your own attributes
Example: a social networking site with user profiles
VCard is a good candidate, but for example it doesn’t have a way to express the user’s social connections
You either live without this, or go with RDFa

RDFa intro: metadata in the header
More info in the
<html prefix="og: http://ogp.me/ns#" > <head> <title>The Trouble with Bob</title> <meta property="og:title" content="The Trouble with Bob" /> <meta property="og:type" content="text" /> <meta property="og:image" content="http://example.com/alice/bob-ugly.jpg " /> ... </head>

RDFa intro: links with a flavor
More info in the
All content on this site is licensed under <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/"> a Creative Commons License </a>.

RDFa links: talking about subjects other than the page
More info in the
The trouble with Bob is that he takes much better photos than me: <div about="http://example.com/bob/photos/sunset.jpg" > <img src="http://example.com/bob/photos/sunset.jpg" /> <span property="og:title">Beautiful Sunset</span> by <span property="dc:creator">Bob</span>. </div>

RDFa links: talking about subjects other than the page
More info in the
<div typeof=”foaf:Person" > <p property=”foaf:name"> Alice Birpemswick </p> <p> Email: <a rel=”foaf:mbox” href="mailto:alice@example.com"> alice@example.com </a> </p> <p> Phone: <a rel=”foaf:phone" href="tel:+1-617-555-7332">+1 617.555.7332</a> </p> </div>

The process of annotating with RDFa
Find a vocabulary that fits your needs and supported by your consumers
A vocabulary describes a set of types and attributes within a given domain
If you don’t find a good candidate, extend an existing one or create a new one
Annotate your page.
Before you start, you might want to validate your page for (X)HTML conformance using the W3C’s (X)HTML Validator to reduce the chance of errors. Choose Document Type XHTML + RDFa.
No specific tool support. If you have an HTML or XML editor that supports DTDs, you will have syntax checking and highlighting.
Use the RDFa Distiller to validate which data can be extracted from your page.
If you fancy, use the RDF Validator to graphically visualize the RDF graph that is outputted.
Put the annotated page online
The data will be extracted by Google/Bing/Yahoo the next time your page is crawled and indexed
The data will be available to browser extensions, bookmarklets etc.
See http://rdfa.info/rdfa-implementations for new tools and APIs

RDFa can be hard to get right…
Validation problems can stop us from extracting data
Use the W3C validator
Use the right DOCTYPE declaration if using XHTML
Set the encoding of your page properly (using HTTP headers or XML declaration)
Prefixes need to be defined using the xmlns attribute
Unless you are making statements about the document, set the subject using the about attribute
Do not include HTML elements in literal values
Incorrect: <div property=“foaf:name”><b>Peter Mika</b></div>
Use absolute URIs as the value of the resource attribute
Or make sure you specify HTML base

RDFa can be hard to get right… II.
Be careful when using rel and typeof in combination because of the precedence rules
BAD example:
<div about=“#id”>
<span property=“foaf:name“>Peter Mika</span>
<span rel=“foaf:img“ typeof=“foaf:Image”>
<span property=“dc:format”>jpg</span>
…
</span
</div>
To correct, you need to put the typeof inside the <span> node with rel=“foaf:img”

RDFa can be hard to get right… III.
Typeof does two things at once: it creates a new subject resource and assigns the type to it
BAD example:
<div about=“#id”>
<span property=“foaf:name“>Peter Mika</span>
<span rel=“foaf:img“ resource=“http://www.example.org/photo.jpg”>
<span typeof=“foaf:Image”>
<span property=“dc:format”>jpg</span>
</span
</span
</div>
To correct, you have to repeat the resource attiribute on the span node with the typeof

RDFa can be hard to get right… IV.
Marking up <h1>:
<h1 property=“dc:title”>My homepage</h1>
NOT: <h1><div property=“dc:title”>My homepage</h1>
Marking up an image: <span rel=”foaf:img"> <img alt="Alex" src="http://example.org/alex.jpg"/> </span>
NOT:
<img rel=“foaf:img” src=“photo.jpg/>
Header
<meta property=“…” content=“…”>
NOT
<meta name=“…” content=“…”>

RDFa can be hard to get right… V.
You can not break up a description like this:
<span rel=“foaf:knows"> <span property=“foaf:name">Peter Mika</span> </span> ….
<span rel=“foaf:knows"> <a rel=“foaf:email“ href=“mailto:pmika@yahoo-inc.com /> </span>
This is not the same as:
<span rel=“foaf:knows"> <span property=“foaf:name">Peter Mika</span>
<a rel=“foaf:email“ href=“mailto:pmika@yahoo-inc.com />
</span>
In the first case there are two related resources, with one attribute each, in the second case there is a single related resource with two attributes.

Tips
Hiding information from being displayed
Links without content will not be rendered
Use <span property=“foaf:name” content=“Peter Mika”/>
Use datatypes to provide the expected type of a literal.
This helps validation because any tool can check whether the literal is indeed of that type.

Example: Facebook’s Like and the Open Graph Protocol
The ‘Like’ button provides publishers with a way to promote their content on Facebook and build communities
Shows up in profiles and news feed
Site owners can later reach users who have liked an object
Facebook Graph API allows 3 rd party developers to access the data
Open Graph Protocol is an RDFa-based format that allows to describe the object that the user ‘Likes’

Example: Facebook’s Open Graph Protocol
RDF vocabulary to be used in conjunction with RDFa
Simplify the work of developers by restricting the freedom in RDFa
Activities, Businesses, Groups, Organizations, People, Places, Products and Entertainment
Only HTML <head> accepted
http://opengraphprotocol.org/
<html xmlns:og="http://opengraphprotocol.org/schema/" > <head> <title>The Rock (1996)</title> <meta property="og:title" content="The Rock" /> <meta property="og:type" content="movie" /> <meta property="og:url" content="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117500/" /> <meta property="og:image" content="http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/rock.jpg" /> … </head> ...

Example: Yahoo! Enhanced Results (was: SearchMonkey)
Guide for publishers to mark-up their pages for common types of objects
Product, Local, News, Video, Events, Documents, Discussion, Games
Using popular microformats and RDF vocabularies
Copy-paste code
Validator
Yahoo as a consumer
See later

Example: Google’s Rich Snippets
Google accepts popular microformats and its own RDFa vocabulary
Similar approach to RDFa as Facebook
Validator to check if the markup is correct
Google displays enhanced results based on this metadata
Rich Snippets

Microdata example <div itemscope itemid=“http://www.yahoo.com/resource/person ”> <p>My name is <span itemprop="name" >Neil</span>.</p> <p>My band is called <span itemprop ="band">Four Parts Water</span>. I was born on <time itemprop="birthday" datetime="2009-05-10">May 10th 2009</time>. <img itemprop="image" src=”me.png" alt=”me”> </p> </div

Microdata
Currently under standardization at the W3C
Originally part of the HTML5 spec, but now a separate document
Similar to microformats, but with the extensibility of RDFa
Introduce new terms using reverse domain names or full URIs
HTML5 also has a number of “semantic” elements such as <time>, <video>, <article>…

RDFa on the rise Percentage of URLs with embedded metadata in various formats 510% increase between March, 2009 and October, 2010

The state of metadata in HTML
5-10% of webpages contain some explicit metadata
Depending on how you count…
Too many competing approaches
Too many formats: microformats vs RDFa vs Microdata
When using RDFa, publishers may need to use multiple different vocabularies to satisfy everyone

Publishing data on the Semantic Web

by Peter Mika on Apr 30, 2011

Accessibility

Categories

Tags

Upload Details

Usage Rights

Statistics

Publishing data on the Semantic Web — Presentation Transcript