Tutorial on Semantic Digital Libraries (ESWC'2007)

Tutorial – Semantic Digital Libraries - Introduction - Sebastian R. Kruk , Bernhard Haslhofer, Philipp Nußbaumer , Sandy Payette, Tomasz Woroniecki

Tutorial overview
Who we are
Sebastian R. Kruk, DERI Galway – Ireland
Bernhard Haslhofer, University of Vienna - Austria
Phillip Nußbaumer, Research Studios - Austria
Sandy Payette, Cornell University – USA
Tomasz Woroniecki, DERI Galway – Ireland
Today we want to
give you a brief introduction to the Semantic Web, and show how SW is related to digital libraries
present existing semantic digital library systems
discuss the current problems and future directions of semantic digital libraries and get feedback from you
After this tutorial you will know
what is the semantic digital library system
existing solutions in various degrees of detail
how to run semantic digital library solutions on your machine

Tutorial Schedule Comparison and the future of SemDL 12:15 – 12:30 Existing solutions - JeromeDL 9:45 – 10:30 Conclusions, discussio n 16: 45 - 17: 3 0 Lunch break 12:30 – 1 4 : 0 0 Hands-on session (part I) 14:00 – 15: 3 0 Coffee break 15: 3 0 – 1 6 : 0 0 Hands-on session (part II) 1 6:0 0 – 16: 45 Existing Semantic Digital Libraries solutions 1 1:00 - 12: 15 Coffee break 10:30 – 1 1:00 Introduction to Semantic Digital Libraries 9:00 - 9 : 45 Time

Outline
Introduction to Semantic Web
Semantic Digital Libraries

The Semantic Web – A Brief Introduction
Current Web vs. Semantic Web?
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]
Current Web was designed for humans, and there is little information usable for machines
Was the Web meant to be more?
Objects with well defined attributes as opposed to untyped hyperlinks between Internet resources
A network of relationships amongst named objects, yielding unified information management tasks
What do you mean by “Semantic”?
the semantics of something is the meaning of something
Semantic Web is able to describe things in a way that computers can understand

Where are we in the “S emantic W eb layer cake”?
You Are Here!

The challenge for the Semantic Web
The Semantic Web can’t work all by itself
For example, it is not very likely that you will be able to sell your car just by putting your RDF file on the Web
Need society-scale applications: Semantic Web agents and/or services, consumers and processors for semantic data, more advanced collaborative applications

The Semantic Web – What is RDF ?
Describing things on the S emantic W eb
RDF (Resource Description Framework)
a data format for describing information and resources,
the fundamental data model for the Semantic Web
Using RDF, we can describe relationships between things like:
A is a part of B or
Y is a member of Z
and their properties ( size , weight , age , price …) in a machine-understandable format where each thing has a
RDF graph-based model delivers straightforward machine process ing
Putting information into RDF files makes it possible for “scutters” or RDF crawlers to search , discover , pick up , collect , analyse and process information from the Web

The Semantic Web – What is RDF ?
A simple RDF example
Statement:
“ Stefan Decker is the creator of the resource (web page) http://www.stefandecker.org ”
Structure:
Resource (subject) http://www.stefandecker.org
Property (predicate) http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/creator
Value (object) “ Stefan Decker ”
Directed graph:
http://www.stefandecker.org dc:creator Stefan Decker

The Semantic Web – How RDF can help us?
How RDF can help us?
identify objects
establish relationships
express a new relationship  just add a new RDF statement
integrate information from different sources  copy all the RDF data together
RDF allows many points of view

What is an Ontology?
„ An ontology is a specification of a conceptualization.“
Tom Gruber, 1993
Ontologies are social contracts
Agreed, explicit semantics
Understandable to outsiders
(Often) derived in a community process
Ontology markup and representation languages:
RDF and RDF Schema
OWL
Other: DAML+OIL , EER , UML , Topic Maps , MOF , XML Schemas
The Semantic Web – Ontologies and Schemata

Defines small vocabulary for RDF:
Class, subClassOf, type
Property, subPropertyOf
domain, range
Vocabulary can be used to define other vocabularies for your application domain
The Semantic Web – RDF Schema Person Student Researcher subClassOf subClassOf Jeen type hasSuperVisor domain range Frank type hasSuperVisor

OWL – The Web Ontology Language
Owl took Christopher Robin’s notice from Rabbit and looked at it nervously. He could spell his own name WOL , and he could spell Tuesday so that you knew it wasn’t Wednesday, and he could read quite comfortably when you weren’t looking over his shoulder and saying "Well?" all the time...
provides a vocabulary for defining classes, their properties and their relationships among classes.
The Semantic Web – OWL owl :disjointWith s s s s Animal Herbivore Carnivore Omnivore
Based on Description Logics
OWL is a W3C Recommendation

The Semantic Web – Applications
Semantic Web cannot be and is not only a set of recommendations
Semantic Web is becoming reality by applications that support it and are based on it
Enabling technologies:
RDF Storages: Sesame, Jena, YARS
Reasoners: KAON, Racer
Editors: Protege, SWOOP, MarcOnt Portal
End-User applications:
Semantic wikis: Makna, SemperWiki
Semantic blogs
Semantic digital libraries

Outline
Introduction to Semantic Web

What is a Semantic Digital Library?
Semantic digital libraries
integrate information based on different metadata, e.g.: resources, user profiles, bookmarks, taxonomies – high quality semantics = highly and meaningfully connected information
provide interoperability with other systems (not only digital libraries) on either metadata or communication level or both – RDF as common denominator between digital libraries and other services
delivering more robust, user friendly and adaptable search and browsing interfaces empowered by semantics

Old days of hard-copy books
Library:
Archive (storage space)
Bibliographic cards (metadata)
Librarian (interface)
Pros:
Someone to talk to, to understand us, to explain, help in searching
Cons:
Based on physical location
Libraries are not connected – we have to visit every place

Yesterday of digital books
Digital library
Database and archive (storage)
Digital bibliographic descriptions (metadata)
Full-text search (interface)
Pros:
Content accessible online
Federations of libraries – visit less places
Cons:
Lonely user - n o one to talk to, we need to find the right keywords, what if we do not know them (“man without an ear” paintings example)
Still many problems with interconnecting (different) libraries

Today of interconnected content
Semantic bibliographic description (interconnected metadata)
Search and browsing on ontologies (interface)
Pros:
Search and browsing based on semantics can help in substituting the librarian
It is easier to interconnect heterogeneous libraries (RDF as common denominator)
Cons:
Semantics created from legacy formats – still hard to capture by most of average users

Tomorrow of social media
Social Semantic Digital Libraries
Bibliographic descriptions with annotations provided by users (metadata)
Collaborative search and browsing (interface)
Pros:
Users contribute to the classification process
Users can understand community driven annotations
Users enhance digital content using blogs, wikis on the side
Cons:
Not everyone is convinced

How are Semantic Digital Libraries different?
Semantic digital libraries extend digital libraries by
describing and exposing its resources in a machine ‘understandable’ way
resources can be
contents, digital artefacts
organization of objects (e.g. collections)
users, user communities
controlled vocabularies, thesauri, taxonomies
expose the semantics of their metadata in terms of an ontology
defined using a formal language
deliver mediation services for communication with other systems

Semantic Web Technologies for Digital Libraries?
Metadata is the key concept
the Web does not have metadata
the idea of a Semantic Web is nice but difficult to implement
many digital libraries do have metadata in place
we simply must make them available in a machine understandable format
the Semantic Web provides the format: RDF

Semantic Web Technologies for Digital Libraries?
Knowledge in bibliographic records
Digital Libraries already have controlled vocabularies, taxonomies or even ontologies in place
the challenge is to model this knowledge in a machine understandable way
the Semantic Web provides ontology language s:
RDF Schema
OWL
SKOS

A Sample Bibliographic Record Copyright 2000 The J. Paul Getty Trust & College Art Association, Inc . Terms taken from Controlled Vocabularies Vincent van Gogh; painter: Gogh, Vincent van (Dutch painter, 1853-1890) Creation-Creator/Role J. Paul Getty Museum Current Location-Repository Name irises , nature , soil , etc. Subject-Matter 1889, earliest: 1889, latest: 1889 Creation-Date Irises Title paintings Object/Work type Paintings Classification

Knowledge Organization Systems
tools that present the organized interpretation of knowledge structures
semantic tools - meaning of words and other symbols as well as (semantic) relations between symbols and concept
organize information and promote knowledge management
Examples:
classification and categorization schemata (organize materials at a general level)
subject headings (provide more detailed access)
authority files (control variant versions of key information such as geographic names and personal names)
highly structured vocabularies, such as thesauri
traditional schemes, such as semantic networks and ontologies

Taxonomy of Knowledge Organization Systems
Term Lists
Authority files ( FOAF )
Glossaries
Dictionaries
Gazetteers
Classifications and Categories ( DMoz )
Subject headings
Classification schemes
Taxonomies
Categorization Schemes.
Relationship Lists
Thesauri ( WordNet, MeSH )
Semantic networks
Ontologies
(Hodge, 2000)

Understanding Knowledge Organization Systems
controlled vocabulary - a list of terms that have been enumerated explicitly
taxonomy - a collection of controlled vocabulary terms organized into a hierarchical structure.
formal ontology – a controlled vocabulary expressed in an ontology representation language. This language has a grammar for using vocabulary terms to express something meaningful within a specified domain of interest.
meta-model - an explicit model of the constructs and rules needed to build specific models within a domain of interest. A valid meta-model is an ontology, but not all ontologies are modeled explicitly as meta-models.
as a set of building blocks and rules used to build models
as a model of a domain of interest, and
as an instance of another model.

Simple Knowledge Organization Systems (SKOS)
basic structure and content of concept schemes such as
thesauri,
classification schemes,
subject heading lists,
taxonomies,
'folksonomies ',
other types of controlled vocabulary
core concepts:
narrower and broader
isSubjectOf and subject ; isPrimarySubjectOf and primarySubject
member and Collection; memberList and OrderedCollection
related and semanticRelation
note, definition; altLabel and prefLabel ; symbol and altSymbol

Benefits of Semantic Digital Libraries
Problems of today’s libraries
rapidly growing islands of highly organized information
How to find things in a growing information space?
is it enough to have a full-text index (à la Google)?
typical “end-users” versus “expert users”
converging digital library systems
e.g. uniform access to Europe’s digital libraries and cultural heritage

Benefits of Semantic Digital Libraries
T he two main benefits of Semantic Digital Libraries
new search paradigms for the information space
Ontology - based search / facet search
Community-enabled browsing
providing interoperability on the data level
integrating metadata from various heterogeneous sources
Interconnecting different digital library systems

Searching the Sample Bibliographic Record
Full-text search
“ Paintings ” AND “ Van Gogh ” AND “ flowers ”  no result
Semantic query
if the knowledge that “ irises ” are “ flowers ” is modeled in an ontology (e.g. subclass-hierarchy)
we can query for all “ Paintings ” by “ Van Gogh ” with subject “ flowers ” and retrieve also the picture with subject “ irises ”
Copyright 2000 The J. Paul Getty Trust & College Art Association, Inc . Vincent van Gogh; painter: Gogh, Vincent van (Dutch painter, 1853-1890) Creation-Creator/Role J. Paul Getty Museum Current Location-Repository Name irises , nature , soil , etc. Subject-Matter 1889, earliest: 1889, latest: 1889 Creation-Date Irises Title paintings Object/Work type Paintings Classification

Semantic Digital Libraries and Existing DL Systems
how to handle the legacy (meta-)data problem
lifting existing (meta-)data to a semantic level
simple solutions like MARC21  DublinCore
complex ontologies like MarcOnt Ontology for capturing concepts from different standards
legacy libraries expose their metadata via well established protocols - the metadata can be imported into semantic DLs
semantic DLs can play a role of integration champions in the information retrieval process in heterogeneous networks:
OAI-PMH
Z39.50
Dienst

Application A reas for Semantic Web T echnologies
Thesauri & Controlled Vocabularies
qualified DublinCore
DMoz, DDC-based taxonomies
SKOS, WordNet and other thesauri
Schema Mappings / Crosswalks
MarcOnt Ontology – aims to cover concepts from MARC21, BibTeX and DublinCore
MarcOnt Mediation Services – an open mediation framework between common legacy metadata standards
Metadata Integration
RDF as a common data model for integrating metadata from various autonomous and heterogeneous data sources
OWL for modeling the data source’s semantics
SPARQL as a common query language

Semantic DL as Evolving Knowledge Space
In state-of-the-art digital libraries users are consumers
Retrieve contents based on available bibliographic records
Recent trends: user communities
Connetea
Flickr
In Semantic digital libraries users are contributers as well
Tagging (Web 2.0)
Social Semantic Collaborative Filtering
Annotations
Semantic Digital libraries enforce the transition from a static information to a dynamic (collaborative) knowledge space

Existing Semantic Digital Library Systems
JeromeDL
a social semantic digital library makes use of Semantic Web and Social Networking technologies to enhance both interoperability and usability
BRICKS
aims at establishing the organizational and technological foundations for a digital library network in order to share knowledge and resources in the cultural heritage domain.
FEDORA
delivers flexible service-oriented architecture to managing and delivering content in the form of digital objects
SIMILE
extends and laverages DSpace, seeking to enhance interoperability among digital assets, schemata, metadata, and services

Tutorial – Semantic Digital Libraries - Existing Semantic Digital Libraries Solutions - Sebastian R. Kruk , Bernhard Haslhofer, Philipp Nußbaumer , Sandy Payette, Tomasz Woroniecki

Existing Semantic Digital Library Systems
JeromeDL
a social semantic digital library makes use of Semantic Web and Social Networking technologies to enhance both interoperability and usability
BRICKS
aims at establishing the organizational and technological foundations for a digital library network in order to share knowledge and resources in the cultural heritage domain.
FEDORA
delivers flexible service-oriented architecture to managing and delivering content in the form of digital objects
SIMILE

Tutorial 7 – Semantic Digital Libraries - Existing Semantic Digital Libraries Solutions – JeromeDL Sebastian R. Kruk , Tomasz Woroniecki

Outline
JeromeDL - Motivation and Overview
JeromeDL - Architecture and Ontologies
JeromeDL - Semantic Services
JeromeDL - Social Services
JeromeDL - Semantics in Use

JeromeDL - Introduction
Joint effort of DERI, National University of Ireland, Galway and Gdansk University of Technology (GUT)
Distributed under BSD Open Source license
Digital library build on semantic web technologies to answer requirements from: librarians, scientists and everyone.

Motivation
How to integrate and search information from different bibliographic sources?
How to share and interconnect knowledge among people?

JeromeDL – Motivations Use Cases
Librarians:
support for rich metadata (MARC21) in uploading resources, accessing bibliographic information and searching
persistent identifiers
Scientists:
easy publishing (designed as a institute/university digital library)
creating hierarchical networks of digital libraries
support for accessing, sharing and searching using bibliography metadata (BibTeX)
Everyone:
simple search (incl. natural language queries)
community-aware information sharing and browsing,
support for interationalization

JeromeDL - Motivations
Support for different kinds of bibliographic medatata, like: DublinCore , BibTeX and MARC21 at the same time.
Making use of existing rich sources of bibliographic descriptions (like MARC21) created by human.
Supporting users and communities:
user s ha ve control over their profile information ;
community-aware profiles are integrated with bibliographic descriptions
support for community generated knowledge
Delivering communication between instances:
P2P mode for searching and users authentication
Hierarchical mode for browsing

Outline

JeromeDL – Architecture
Resources and annotations repository
Middleware:
query processing
community space
resources management
User interface agents:
Communication to the outside world
Administrative interface

Bibliographic Description in JeromeDL <?xml version ="1.0" encoding ="UTF-8" ?> <rdf:Description rdf:about ="http://...id=828374765" > <dc:title> JeromeDL - Adding Semantic Web Technologies to DLs </dc:title> <dc:creator> Sebastian Kruk </dc:creator> <dc:description> In recent years... </dc:description> </rdf:Description> 01450cas 922004331i 450000100...019c19329999gw qr|p| ||||0 |0ger | a0044-2992 9a200412140219bVLOADc200404071525dvkulc200310071018dvbjc200303101205dkopumky200209211341zVLOAD aGD U/MPcGD U/MPdGD U/MFdGD U/KKsdWR O/EJ0 ager1 aZ. Kunstgesch. 0aZeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte00aZeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte.18aZfK aMünchen ;aBerlin :bDeutscher Kunstverlag,c1932-. c26-29 cm. aKwart.0 a1 Bd. (Juni 1932)-. aOpis na podst.: LCC. aW 1932 założycielami czasopisma byli Wilhelm Waetzoldt i Ernst Gall.... These all can be represented in RDF @ InProceedings { jeromedexa2005, author = "Sebastian Ryszard Kruk and ... ", title = "{JeromeDL - Adding Semantic ...}", booktitle = "{In Proceedings to DEXA 2005}", year = 2005}

Structure ontology in JeromeDL

Bibliographic (MarcOnt) Ontology in JeromeDL

Community-aware (FOAFRealm) ontology

Ontologies in JeromeDL

Metadata and Services in JeromeDL

Outline

Semantic Metadata and Services

MarcOnt Initiative – Overview
Motivation:
Provide set of tools for
collaborative ontology
development
MarcOnt Initiative goals:
Create a framework for collaborative ontology improvement (E-learning)
Provide domain experts with tools to share their knowledge
Offer tools for data mediation between different data formats

MarcOnt Portal and MarcOnt Ontology
MarcOnt Ontology:
Central point of MarcOnt Initiative
Translation and mediation format
Continuos collaborative ontology improvement
Knowledge from the domain experts
MarcOnt Portal (source of knowledge):
Suggestions
Annotations
Versioning
Ontology editor

MarcOnt Mediation Services for Legacy Metadata Format translation RDF Translator Format co-operation MarcOnt Mediation Services

Browsing the data graph – why?
The search does not end on a (long) list of results
The results are not a list (!) but a graph
„ Lost in hyperspace”
A need for unified UI and services for filter/narrow and browse/expand services
Share browsing experience – navigate collaboratively

Browsing the data graph – how?
Defines REST access to services and their composition
Basic services: access, search, filter, similar, browse, combine
Meta services : RDF serialization, subscription channels, service ID generation ,
Context services : manage contexts, manage service calls/compositions in the context, lists contexts
Statistics services : properties, values, tokens

Browsing the data graph
JeromeDL exploits interconnected data

Browsing the data graph
… to allow browsing

Outline

Semantic Metadata and Services

Social Services in JeromeDL
Involve users into sharing knowledge
Blogs – comments and discussions about documents and resources
Tagging – collaborative classification
Wikis – collaboratively edited additional descriptions, such as summaries and interesting facts
Preserve knowledge for future use
Users can learn from experience of others instantly
Recommend new, interesting resources based on users’ profiles

FOAF - Describing Social Networks
FOAF - Stands for Friend-of-a-Friend
Defines properties for a person (but it does not have to be a person, can be an “agent”)
Does not only have to contain one person per file
Can build a network of people with foaf:knows links
FOAF can be easily extended to meet requirements, as in the case of FOAFRealm for identity management…

Identity management with FOAFRealm
Identity defined with extended FOAF metadata
Policies expressed by social networking
Distance between owner and requester
Friendship level between owner and requester, calculated across digraph of social network
Support for single registration and sign on
Distributed identity management with HyperCuP (“D-FOAF”)
FOAFRealm is currently implemented as a plugin for Tomcat (Realm/Valve implementation), with PHP and .NET versions coming soon

Why?
The bottom-line of acquiring knowledge: informal communication (“word of mouth”)
How?
Everyone classifies (filters) the information in bookmark folders ( user-oriented taxonomy )
Peers share (collaborate over) the information ( community-driven taxonomy )
Result?
Knowledge “flows“ from the expert through the social network to the user
System amass a lot of information on user/community profile (context)

Problems?
The horizon of a social network (2-3 degrees of separation)
How to handle fine-grained information (blogs, wikis, etc.)
Solutions?
Inference engine to suggest knowledge from the outskirts of the social network
Support for SIOC metadata :
SIOC browser in SSCF
Annotations and evaluations of “local” resources

What is S ocial S emantic C ollaborative F iltering?
Goal: t o enhance individual bookmarks with shared knowledge within a community
Users annotate catalogues of bookmarks with semantic information taken from DM oz or WordNet vocabularies
Catalogs can include ( transclusion ) friend's catalogues
Access to catalogues can be restricted with social networking-based polices
SSCF delivers:
Community-oriented, semantically-rich taxonomies
Information about a user's interest
Flows of expertise from the domain expert
Recommendations based on users previous actions
Support for SIOC metadata

Social Semantic Collaborative Filtering foaf:knows xfoaf:include xfoaf:bookmark

Social Networks in Digital Libraries Resource xfoaf:Annotation user_C creator_B foaf:knows marcont:hasCreator creator_A foaf:knows foaf:knows xfoaf:Directory user_D xfoaf:owns xfoaf:linksTo xfoaf:isIn

Support for online communities in SSCF

Outline

JeromeDL – Delivering Semantic Content
Providing semantic annotations during uploading process:
open module for handling any taxonomies
keywords based on WordNet and free tagging
defining structure of resources in the JeromeDL ontology
Lifting legacy metadata to MarcOnt ontology
Community maintained annotations
social semantic collaborative filtering
semantic descriptions based on the FOAF metadata

Annotating Library Resources

JeromeDL – Semantic Information In Use
Searching:
Keyword-based search with semantic query expansion
Semantic search:
Direct RDF quering
Natural language templates
Browsing
Exibit
MultiBeeBrowse
Sharing:
Semantically Interlinked Online Communities
Heterogeneous communication:
Bibster , A9 , OAI -PMH

Exposing Semantic Annotations

Filtering Resources in JeromeDL

Sharing Knowledge with SSCF

Information Retrieval in JeromeDL Fulltext Index Structure Repository MarcOnt Repository Resources’ Content FOAFRealm Repository (typed) keywords RDF & NL Query OpenSearch RSS collaborative filtering types translation semantic query expansion RDF Repositories Secure Snapshot local interface distributed interface

Networks of Digital Libraries
ELP (Extensible Library Protocol) implementation
communication within JeromeDL network
adapters for communication with other networks
D-FOAF integration (distributed user profile management)
single sign on and single registration within D-FOAF network
HyperCuP integration (scalable P2P network)
Independent ELP network entry point: http://search.jeromedl.org/
0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 2 2 2

Tutorial – Semantic Digital Libraries - Existing Semantic Digital Libraries Solutions – BRICKS Bernhard Haslhofer University of Vienna Austria Philipp Nußbaumer Research Studios Austria

Outline
BRICKS Overview
BRICKS Components
BRICKS Applications

What is BRICKS?
A software infrastructure for building digital library networks
Transparent access to distributed resources
Multilinguality
Easy installation & maintainance
A set of end-user applications
Network & content management
Web 2.0 tagging/annotations
Domain specific applications
A business model
Open source, platform independent
Low cost infrastructure
User communities  sustainability

BRICKS Architecture
A decentralized P2P network
Avoid central coordination
Highly Scalable, increased reliability
Minimized maintainance costs
Each P2P Node is a set of SOA components
Web Service interface
Platform independent
Flexible composition
Components for
Storing, accessing and protecting digital objects
(Semantic) search & browsing
P2P commmunication

Accessing Data

A Look into a BNode { BNode

Outline
BRICKS Overview
BRICKS Components
BRICKS Applications

Collection Manager
Single access point for all content and metadata related operations (local and remote)
Physical Collection
Similar to folder/directory hierarchy in a file system
Bound to a single BNode
Each digital content object belongs to exactly one collection
Logical Collection
Virtual folder for organizing content items independent of their physical location
Links to content items from various physical collections on different BNodes
A content item might belong to many of them
Stored Query similar to database views

Content Manager
Two ways to handle content in BRICKS
Stored locally at site of a member party, accessed via URL
Stored within BRICKS
Based on Java Content Repository (JCR)
Provides a meta-content model
Re-use of existing content models
Use standard models

Metadata Manager
Metadata descriptions  RDF
Suitable for any application scenario
Express relationships between objects
React to changes without changing the model
Schema defintions  OWL
No fixed schema
Extensible (e.g. Application profiles)
Semantic concepts instead of schematic strucutures
SPARQL
Metadata queries over ontology concepts
Queries for graph patterns

Security Manager
Transparently invoked by the Framework
any service call is checked
Context-aware policies based on RBAC (via XACML rules)
supporting Roles, Groups, at DLObject level
Permission declaration through Javadoc @tags
Federated identity is managed through an adapted version of OpenSAML
Reputation-based Trust calculation integrated
Web-based GUI for security configuration

Digital Rights Management
DRM Component
Support for licenses based on MPEG-21 REL license declaration standard
Generic API for the integration of commercial DRM systems
Watermarking
Open-source watermarking tool for images
Other tools can be integrated
BRICKS Store web application for commercial content
Creative Commons support for other content in BRICKS

Outline
BRICKS Overview
BRICKS Components
BRICKS Applications

Application: BRICKS Workspace
What does it demonstrate?
A web application (thin client) accessing BRICKS Foundation services
Web 2.0 image annotations
Reference application
Primary customers
General end-users (citizens)
Application developers
Technology
Struts based interface to the BCH

Application: BRICKS Desktop
A rich client application accessing BRICKS foundation services
Direct access to the BCHN
Primary customers
Expert end-users (researchers, educators)
Application developers
Technology
Eclipse based rich client interface

Application: Annotation Tool
Tool which allows end-users to annotate images
Creation of annotation threads
Supervised Annotations
Primary customers
End-users
Institutions with large image collections
Technology
Web Application

Application: Online Exhibition Authoring Tool
Creating and publishing online exhibitions using contents that is available in the BRICKS network
Primary customers?
Expert end-users (curators)
Technology
Web Application

Application: Archeological Finds Identifier
A web application for comparing findings (e.g. ancient coins) with objects in reference collections
Application of complex domain ontology (CIDOC-CRM)
Map visualization of GIS-Metadata
Primary customers?
Museum curators, archaeologists, students, amateurs,
Technology
Struts based interface

References
BRICKS Community Web Site
http://www.brickscommunity.org/
Main Contact: silvia.boi@metaware.it
Related (de-facto) standards
Resource Description Framework (RDF)
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/
OWL Web Ontology Language (OWL)
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/
SPARQL
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/
Java Content Repository (JCR)
http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=170
Tools and Libraries
Jackrabbit
http://jackrabbit.apache.org/
Jena Semantic Web Framework
http://jena.sourceforge.net/

Tutorial – Semantic Digital Libraries - Existing Semantic Digital Libraries Solutions – Fedora Sandy Payette Director, Fedora Project Cornell University

Outline
Fedora
Examples: PLoS ONE and National Science Digital Library

Fedora Semantic Digital Libraries enable … Scholarly and Scientific Workbenches “ Web 2.0” Collaborative Repositories Museum Exhibits with Lesson Plans Linking Data and Publications blog and wiki

The Fedora Project
Fedora
F lexible
E xtensible
D igital
O bject
R epository
A rchitecture
History
Cornell Research (1997-2002)
DARPA and NSF-funded research and reference implementations
Distributed, Interoperable Repositories (experiments with CNRI)
Open Source Project (2002-present)
Andrew W. Mellon Foundation (2002-2009)
Joint development by Cornell University and University of Virginia
Transitioning into non-profit organization (Fedora Commons 501c3)

Arts and Humanities

Sciences Education

Fedora - Technology Integration Semantic Repository Enterprise Preservation
Information Networks
Contextualization
Relationships
Query
Inference
Workflow
Messaging
Transactions
Replication
Digital Objects
Manage
Access
Versioning
Storage
Integrity Check
Monitoring
Alerting
Migration

Fedora Digital Objects
Flexible object model can support
Documents, articles, journals
Electronic Scholarly Texts
Digital Images
Complex multimedia publications
Datasets
Metadata
Learning objects
More…
Create “networks” of objects using RDF
Define object relationships and other properties via RDF
Collection/member; part/whole; etc.

RDF in the Fedora Digital Object Model

Motivations: Fedora and Semantic Technologies
A natural model for exposing repository as network of objects
Object-to-object relationships
Relationships to external entities
Query the graph; traversal to discover related stuff
Indexing based on generalizable data model
Graph-based data model is a common reduction
Avoid fixed schema problems and metadata mud wrestling
Extensible enrichment of object descriptions
Keep overlaying statements from multiple ontologies
Organic evolution
Powerful queries and inference for repository management
Transitive relationships among objects
Dependency analysis;
Detection/Extraction of sub-graphs
Provenance of disseminations

Digital Objects contain their RDF assertions
Assert relationships from Fedora base ontology
Collection – member
Whole – part
Equivalence
Description Of
More…
Assert relationships/properties from community ontologies
isAnnotationOf
isRecommendedBy
isCertifiedBy
More ….

Example: Digital Objects with “compositional semantics”

Use Case: scholarly objects and annotation in the humanities musuem and library objects commercial web content scholarly objects URI-100 xx:recommends URI-55 yy:certifies

3 Objects – 3 RDF “Relationships” Datastreams <rdf:Description rdf:about="info:fedora/uva:pid-11> <ais:annotationOf rdf:resource=“info:fedora/uva:pid-3”/> </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF> <rdf:Description rdf:about="info:fedora/uva:pid-3"> <uva:hasPartLetter rdf:resource="info:fedora/uva:pid-2"/> <uva:hasPartDiagram rdf:resource="info:fedora/uva:pid-1"/> </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF> <rdf:Description rdf:about="info:fedora/uva:pid-10> <ais:providesContextFor rdf:resource=“info:fedora/uva:pid-3”/> </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF>

NOT the core object store - RI is a graph-based index of the repository
Automatic, incremental indexing into triplestore
Search/query the repository via Fedora RI Query Interface
Fedora RDF-based Resource Index (RI) RDF Index of Repository RDF datastream Fedora object properties DC datastream Digital Object Store

RI Graph - view 1 (abbreviated) …

RI Graph - view 2 (abbreviated) …

RI Implementation: The Triplestore Challenge
Scalability
Few triplestores perform well for 100M+ triples
Kowari – we tested to 180M triples
MPTStore – we tested to 250M triples
Performance
Jena - easy to get out of memory
Sesame Native - slow for complex queries
Kowari
Fast queries and full-featured query language (iTQL)
Instability and corruption problems
MPTStore
Very fast for SPO queries (limited support for complex queries)
Add/modify significantly faster than Kowari
Mulgara
Fork of Kowari; complex queries; models; inference
Major bug fixes to fix stability and corruption problems
XA2 transactions
Claims support for billions of triples

Fedora Repository – Notable Features
Generic Digital Object Model
Automatic content versioning and audit trail
Web Service Interfaces (REST and SOAP)
Authentication
Authorization
Flexible fine-grained policy enforcement
Built-in support for Extensible Access Control Markup Language (XACML)
RDF
Each object contains its own RDF assertions
Repository-wide index of all object (RDF triplestore)
Self-healing – rebuild repository via digital object source files

Outline
FEDORA
Examples: PLoS ONE and National Science Digital Library

PLoS ONE and Topaz Open Access Publishing and Collaboration

NSDL: Semantic Digital Library Architecture NDR

What is NSDL committed to?
NSDL 2.0 as a platform for a collaborative, contributory semantic digital library
Supporting communities across the full range of science, technology, engineering and mathematics research, learning and education
Supporting the creation of context around library resources to enhance discovery, use, and understanding

NSDL Semantic Digital Library repository requirements
Supports storing both content and metadata
Allows arbitrary relationships among resource and metadata objects: organization, annotation, citation
Accessible through web service architecture of remixable data sources and transformations

NSDL Data Repository (NDR)
Implemented in Fedora 2.2 with MPTStore
Moderately large
4.7 million digital objects
250 million RDF triples
Digital Objects
Resources
Metadata
Agents
Metadata providers
Aggregators
REST API and authentication
In production at nsdl.org

NSDL as Semantic Digital Library : collaboration, context, and contribution
Platform: Fedora repository and services
Applications:
Solution 1: Leverage the existing successful models: blogs, wikis, bookmarking/tagging
Solution 2: Leverage the existing software: WordPress, MediaWiki, Connotea, Sakai
Solution 3: Engage with partners and the broader community to build applications to the platform

Expert Voices - Blogs on top of Fedora

Expert Voices
NSDL Blogosphere (http://expertvoices.nsdl.org)
Topic-based discussions (e.g. forensics) linked to related library resources
A way for NSDL community members to become NSDL contributors of resources, questions, reviews, annotations, metadata
Technology:
Wordpress-based multi-user multi-blog application (open source, plug-in architecture)
Owner controls publication of entries as NSDL resources and visibility of comments (NSDL middleware and Shibboleth)
Blog Entries:
linked references to NSDL library resources

NSDL 2.0 – The Whole Ecosystem … Protocol: OAI-PMH HTTP REST NDR API STEM Collections Search Service Archive Service Fedora-based NDR

NSDL 2.0 and the Semantic Web
NSDL 2.0 applications situate resources in context, aiding both discovery and use
Users become contributors, adding new resources, ratings, annotations, and organizational structure – frequently as a side effect of using the library
Fedora-based semantic web technology organizes resources, ties context to content, maintains provenance, enables discovery, empowers the user, and powers the library

Fedora Web Site: www.fedora.info Community Open Source Tools: www.fedora.info/tools Fedora Wiki: www.fedora.info/wiki Tutorial: : http://openarchives.org/fedora/ESWC-Fedora.zip

Tutorial – Semantic Digital Libraries - Comparison and the Future - Sebastian R. Kruk , Bernhard Haslhofer, Philipp Nußbaumer , Sandy Payette, Tomasz Woroniecki

Outline
SIMILE – short overview
Comparison between existing solutions
Digital Libraries and Social Web
Semantic Digital Libraries Scenarios

SIMILE – Introduction
SIMILE - Semantic Interoperability of Metadata and Information in unLike Environments
joint project conducted by the W3C, HP, MIT Libraries, and MIT's Lab for Computer Science.
Goal: Make metadata interoperability easier for digital libraries by providing useful tools for browsing, searching and mapping heterogeneous metadata in RDF [ MacKenzie Smith, MIT Libraries ]

SIMILE – Introduction
SIMILE :
enhances interoperability and provides end-user services:
for digital assets, arbitrary schemata, metadata and services.
across distributed individual, community, and institutional stores.
though the application of RDF and semantic web techniques.
implements a digital asset dissemination architecture based upon web standards

SIMILE – Delivered Components
Tools for Metadata Managers
Gadget - XML inspector
RDFizers - Batch tools to transform existing XML data into RDF
Solvent - Firefox extension for Javascript screen scraping
Welkin - Graphical tool to inspect/edit RDF graph
Tools for End-Users
Longwell - Web-based RDF faceted metadata browser
Piggy Bank - Firefox extension for personal information management of metadata in RDF
Semantic Bank - Web-based server that allows data publishing and sharing by individuals, groups, or communities
Exibit - lightweight structured data publishing framework
Timeline - AJAXy widget for visualizing time-based events

RDFizers - T ransform XML data into RDF
RDFizers - Transform XML data into RDF:
tools that allow to transform existing data into an RDF representation
List of RDFizers in SIMILE:
MARC/MODS  RDF
OAI-PMH  RDF
OCW  RDF
EMail  RDF
BibTEX  RDF
Flat  RDF
Weather  RDF
Java  RDF
Javadoc  RDF
Jira  RDF
Subversion  RDF
Random  RDF

Solvent - Java S cript screen scraping
Solvent - JavaScript screen scraping:
a Firefox extension that helps write Javascript screen scrapers for Piggy Bank.
Motivation:
Piggy Bank needs web pages to embed information in RDF .
Unfortunately , not many web pages embed or link to RDF information .
Piggy Bank is capable to execute a particular screen scraper on particular pages in order to "extract" the information it needs.
turn s a regular web page into a semantic web page, freeing the data from the page/site that contains it.

Solvent - Java S cript screen scraping

Longwell - RDF faceted metadata browser

PiggyBank
Firefox extension for managing metadata - Loads RDF into local Longwell server
Search and faceted browse of local RDF - Views defined by library, other users
Users can find, collect, annotate RDF - Can then publish for access by others

PiggyBank

SemanticBank
Semantic Bank use cases:
persist information remotely on a server
share information with other people
lets you publish your information, both in RDF or to regular web pages
f or individuals, groups, communities - e.g. conference proceedings
t he ability to tag resources creates a powerful serendipitous categorization
Longwell facetted browsing view of published information

Timeline

Exibit

Outline

System Features Comparison General Properties JeromeDL BRICKS Fedora OS Support Any Any Any Hardware Requirements 500MB RAM, min 128MB HD 500MB RAM, min 100MB HD 500MB RAM, min 100MB HD Software Requirements Java 1.5, Tomcat 5.5, Sesame Java 1.4/1.5, Jena Java 1.5, Tomcat, Kowari/Mulgara or MPTStore Current Stage Research Stable version 2.0.1 Second Prototype Production Version 2.2 No. Installations 12+ ~ 8 ~50 monitored; large # of downloads unmonitored Support Model Open Source Open Source Open Source

System Features Comparison Architectural Aspects JeromeDL BRICKS Fedora Distribution Distributed searching (P2P), aggregated browsing (hierarchical) Fully decentralized (P2P) federation via nameresolver search services; Alvis P2P Architecture Granularity Low (main building blocks) High (many Components) High (core repository service with configurable modules; loosely coupled services) DB - Support Any Sesame-compliant backend Any Jena compliant backend MySQL, Postgres, Oracle, McKoi; Kowari/Mulgara

System Features Comparison Content & Metadata Aspects JeromeDL BRICKS Fedora Content Types All All All Content Models JeromeDL ontology Any Any Metadata Schema MarcOnt + extensions Any RDF/S & OWL schema Any XML Schema, RDF/S & OWL schema Query types Full-text, Filed-Search, Ontology-based, NL Query Templates Full-text, Field-Search, Ontology-based (sparql) Field Search, Ontology-based (itql, rdql, sparql, spo), Full-Text (Lucene or Zebra backed service)

System Features Comparison Security & DRM Aspects JeromeDL BRICKS Fedora Security Model FOAFRealm RBAC XACML Policy Granularity Resource Component, Method, Object Object, Datastream, Dissemination method DRM Model Fair use DRM under development MPEG-21 REL DRM Datastreams DRM Enabling Tool Support Watermarking

System Features Comparison Semantic Aspects & Community Features JeromeDL BRICKS Fedora Reasoning Recommendation engine based on Prolog Configurable inference engine Holding pattern; look to Mulgara; Tagging Free tagging, Wordnet-based Annotation middleware component middleware/apps (e.g., NSDL/NDR; PLoSONE/Topaz) Taxonomies Any (JOnto) Any Any Knowledge Sharing SSCF component via middleware upon BRICKS via middleware upon Fedora Communities SIOC and FOAF compli a nce

Outline

The future - Social Semantic Digital Libraries
Why current (semantic) digital libraries are not enough?
digital libraries should not be for librarians only but for average people
they concentrate on delivering content/information, not on knowledge sharing within a community of users
digital libraries have lost human-part of their predecessors

What could be the solution?
make users/readers involved in the content annotation process
allow users/readers to share their knowledge within a community
provide better communication between users in and across communities

What is Web 2.0?
The Web where “ordinary” users can meet, collaborate, and share using whatever is newly popular on the Web (tagged content, social bookmarking, AJAX, etc.)
The term Web 2.0 was made popular by Tim O’Reilly: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html
Popular examples include: Bebo, del.icio.us, digg, Flickr, Google Maps, Skype, Technorati, Wikipedia…

The future - Social Semantic Digital Libraries (3)
Web 2.0 focuses include:
The Web as a platform for social and collaborative exchange
Reusable community contributions
Subscriptions to information, news, data flows, services
Mass-publishing using web-based social software
Social software for communication and collaboration:
IM, IRC, Forums, Blogs, Wikis, Social Network Services, Social Bookmarks, MMOGs…

Social Semantic Information Spaces

Comparing Web 1.0 / Web 2.0 / Semantic Web 2.0 Semantic Social Networks Online Social Networks Buddy Lists, Address Books Semantic Social Information Spaces - - Social Semantic Digital Libraries Google Scholar, Book Search CiteSeer, Project Gutenberg Semantic Forums and Community Portals Community Portals Message Boards Semantic Blogs Blogs Personal Websites Semantic Search Google Personalised, DumbFind Altavista, Google Semantic Wikis Wikis Content Management Systems Semantic Web 2.0 Web 2.0 Web 1.0

Outline

Geo, Time, and Machine Tagging
Geo-tagging for resources with a specific geographical location
Time-tagging – community driven process of assigning auxiliary multimedia content
Machine-tagging – ability to mix structured annotations into tags
ROI-tagging :
Regions of interest
ERP game
Asynchonous version with annealing of annotations for less frequently visited libraries

SDL in eLearning
One of potential sources of future e-Learning systems
On the verge between formal (libraries) and informal (communities) learning sources
Semantic interoperability with Learning Management Systems
Improve knowledge creation, delivery and sharing

SDL in Future Museums
Museums have physical objects
Should bind digital annotations with physical objects
Real-virtual tours
Start with real, guided tour
Ubiquitous browse through context information
Locate other exhibitions in the vicinity
Share your knowledge and experience with others, leave bread-crumbs for others
Get the most of the exhibition during your visit

Discussion – Feedback The Librarian from Unseen University in Ankh-Morpork (formerly Dr. Horace Worblehat)

http://semdl.info	271
http://www.slideshare.net	7
http://static.slideshare.net	1
http://translate.googleusercontent.com	1

Tutorial on Semantic Digital Libraries (ESWC'2007)

by Sebastian Kruk

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

4 Embeds 280

Statistics

Tutorial on Semantic Digital Libraries (ESWC’2007) Presentation Transcript