Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Linked Data Workshop Stanford University

2,822 views

Published on

Presented by Jerry Persons at Linked Data and Libraries 2011, London 14th July 2011

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

Linked Data Workshop Stanford University

  1. 1. Linked Data Workshop Stanford University June 27 – July 1, 2011
  2. 2. Linked Data Workshop Stanford University June 27 – July 1, 2011
  3. 3. <ul><li>who </li></ul><ul><li>CLIR (Council on Library and Information Resources) </li></ul><ul><li>Research Libraries </li></ul><ul><li>National Libraries </li></ul><ul><li>HighWire Press </li></ul><ul><li>LOCKSS / CLOCKSS </li></ul><ul><li>Metaweb / Freebase (Google) </li></ul><ul><li>Research Center for Informatics, National Institute for Informatics, Japan </li></ul><ul><li>sameAs.org, Seme4 and University of Southampton </li></ul><ul><li>Semantic Computing Research Group (SeCo), Aalto University, Finland </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Michigan </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Stanford </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Virginia </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Bibliotheca Alexandrina </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>California </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Emory </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Bibliothèque nationale de France </li></ul><ul><li>British Library </li></ul><ul><li>Deutsche Nationalbibliothek </li></ul><ul><li>Kongelige Bibliotek (Denmark) </li></ul><ul><li>Library of Congress </li></ul>
  4. 4. <ul><li>what </li></ul>The Stanford Workshop focused on crafting fund-able plans for creating tools, processes, and vehicles to expedite a disruptive paradigm shift in the work flows, data stores, and interfaces used for managing, discovering and navigating the knowledge and information resources that fuel scholarship and research. The goal was identifying knowledge management capabilities and specifying designs for requisite new components, mechanisms, environments, and communities that will:
  5. 5. <ul><li>what </li></ul><ul><li>The Stanford Workshop will focus on crafting fund-able plans for </li></ul><ul><li>creating tools, processes, and vehicles to expedite a disruptive </li></ul><ul><li>paradigm shift in the work flows, data stores, and interfaces used </li></ul><ul><li>for managing, discovering and navigating the knowledge and </li></ul><ul><li>information resources that fuel scholarship and research. </li></ul><ul><li>The goal is identifying knowledge management capabilities and </li></ul><ul><li>specifying designs for requisite new components, mechanisms, </li></ul><ul><li>environments, and communities that will: </li></ul><ul><li>move beyond current metadata practices based on discrete, distributed, and replicated database records; </li></ul><ul><li>precipitate a new family of methods and tools to replace today’s metadata records with an array of emergent, open, link-driven meta services ; </li></ul>
  6. 6. <ul><li>what </li></ul><ul><li>rapidly expand the breadth, density, and reliability of well-curated identifiers and links associated with the publications, data, manuscripts, documents, artifacts, and other resources available via the services and holdings of the world’s national+research libraries, museums, archives, and other science, social science, and cultural heritage institutions; and </li></ul><ul><li>provide for continuous improvement in the quality and density of link-driven navigation and discovery capabilities through provision of open, managed feedback and annotation by individuals and communities who seek, gather, consume, and build content in the course of their reading, teaching, learning, scholarship, research, and other knowledge-based activities. </li></ul>
  7. 7. <ul><li>context </li></ul>
  8. 8. <ul><li>context </li></ul>
  9. 9. <ul><li>context </li></ul>
  10. 10. <ul><li>context </li></ul>
  11. 11. <ul><li>context </li></ul>
  12. 12. <ul><li>context </li></ul>I’ve liked to characterize the current moment as a circle of libraries, museums, archives, universities, journalists, publishers, broadcasters and a number of others in the culture industries standing around, eyeing other and at the space in between them while wondering how they need to reconfigure for a world of digitally networked knowledge. Josh Greenberg, Moving a handful of blocks north …, April, 2010.
  13. 13. <ul><li>context </li></ul>I’ve liked to characterize the current moment as a circle of libraries, museums, archives, universities, journalists, publishers, broadcasters and a number of others in the culture industries standing around, eyeing other and at the space in between them while wondering how they need to reconfigure for a world of digitally networked knowledge. Josh Greenberg, Moving a handful of blocks north …, April, 2010. Whichever organizations do an excellent job of providing context and coherent linkages will be the go-to ones for data consumers. As we have seen to date, merely publishing linked data triples does not meet this test. Mike Bergman, I have yet to metadata I didn’t like , 2010
  14. 14. <ul><li>context </li></ul>The biggest problem we face right now is a way to ‘link’ information that comes from different sources that can scale to hundreds of millions of statements (and hundreds of thousands of equivalences). Equivalences and subclasses are the only things that we have ever needed of OWL and RDFS, we want to ‘connect’ dots that otherwise would be unconnected. Stefano Mazzocchi, Darkness is relative, I guess ,  January, 2007.
  15. 15. <ul><li>context </li></ul>The biggest problem we face right now is a way to ‘link’ information that comes from different sources that can scale to hundreds of millions of statements (and hundreds of thousands of equivalences). Equivalences and subclasses are the only things that we have ever needed of OWL and RDFS, we want to ‘connect’ dots that otherwise would be unconnected. Stefano Mazzocchi, Darkness is relative, I guess ,  January, 2007. comment for every one of these questions,  I know multiple librarians who would know the answers off the top of their heads rejoinder can I have copies of those librarians? anonymized from the IRC back channel at a Code4Lib meeting
  16. 16. <ul><li>issues ... snapshot at mid-point of workshop </li></ul>1. co-referencing, reconciliation – across formats, disciplines ... 2. use of extant, well curated metdata – including authority files, ... 3. killer apps – via GLAM communities? ... emergent via web? 4. provenance – attribution / origin / authority 5. staff training; creating, deriving, publishing URIs, making links, using links in discovery environments 6. usability of data -- “reifiable” 7. QC – immediate and over time – across language boundaries 8. standards for URIs – versioning 9. data curation – i.e. linked data and its various components 10. distribution of responsibility – e.g. preserve metadata, content 11. feedback, reporting, reward systems, metrics, contribute linkable data (filling gaps), contribute URIs (SEO issues)
  17. 17. <ul><li>issues </li></ul><ul><li>marketing / outreach – user seduction & training </li></ul><ul><li>workflow </li></ul><ul><li>scalability [an indicator of success, fixes exist] </li></ul><ul><li>indexing – how to get data once you have the link </li></ul><ul><li>use of ontologies </li></ul><ul><li>licensing – focused on metadata at this juncture, content later </li></ul><ul><li>annotation – linked data extended / improved by its consumers </li></ul><ul><li>relationship to e-scholarship (esp. e-science) & e-learning </li></ul><ul><li>cultural diversity (languages, character sets) – existing schema adequate? </li></ul><ul><li>search engine optimization </li></ul><ul><li>social networking (FaceBook, Google+, ...) </li></ul>
  18. 18. extant metadata reconcile + newly minted <ul><li>vectors: 1. workflow / pipeline </li></ul>transcode reconcile reconcile revise published canon WWW fabric of linked data via algorithm killer app(s) via people
  19. 19. + newly minted <ul><li>vectors: 1. workflow / pipeline </li></ul>WWW fabric of linked data via algorithm reconcile reconcile revise published canon killer app(s) via people
  20. 20. <ul><li>vectors: 2. projects  issues </li></ul>Bring issues to bear in project plans for a real-life project 1. Use cases [3. killer apps] a. put yourself in role of linked-data developer and/or consumer - what’s needed, what will foster new/better capabilities b. what are relationships between this and other data - what vocabularies, schema, URIs, and models are in play c. components (the test case is journals) [2. extant authorities] - names, journal & article titles, date ranges, citations, publishers, ISSN, language, topics/classification d. effect of proposed project [19. relationship to e-scholarship, etc.] 2. Output data representation / model a. [17. licensing] for the metadata b. schema / vocabulary selection - [8. standards for URIs] - [6. usability] and [20. cultural / language issues ] 3. Production [13. workflows] a. [5. staff training ...] b. [1. co-referencing & reconciliation] c. massive conversion from strings to URIs typical w/ extant data
  21. 21. <ul><li>vectors: 2. projects  issues </li></ul>4. Maintenance - production systems vs. new mgmt requirements for linked data - where are updates & revisions applied? - [9. Data curation] and [7. QC, immediate & over time] - [10l shared responsibilities, e.g. meta data preservation] 5. Distribtution - [12. marketing/outreach, user seduction] - [14. scalability] - [21. SEO] - [22. social networking (FaceBook, Google+, etc)] - [15. indexing] and [18. annotation]
  22. 22. <ul><li>vectors: 2. projects  issues </li></ul>4. Maintenance - production systems vs. new mgmt requirements for linked data - where are updates & revisions applied? - [9. Data curation] [QC, immediate & over time] - [shared responsibilities, e.g. meta data preservation] 5. Distribtution - [12. marketing/outreach, user seduction] - [14. scalability] - [21. SEO] - [22. social networking (FaceBook, Google+, etc) - [15. indexing] [18. annotation] 6. Metrics [11. feedback, reporting, reward systems, ...] Value added linked-data consumers
  23. 23. <ul><li>vectors: 2. projects  issues </li></ul>4. Maintenance - production systems vs. new mgmt requirements for linked data - where are updates & revisions applied? - [9. Data curation] [QC, immediate & over time] - [shared responsibilities, e.g. meta data preservation] 5. Distribtution - [12. marketing/outreach, user seduction] - [14. scalability] - [21. SEO] - [22. social networking (FaceBook, Google+, etc) - [15. indexing] [18. annotation] 6. Metrics [11. feedback, reporting, reward systems, ...] Value added   Value accrued linked-data consumers metadata producers
  24. 24. <ul><li>vectors: 3. cookbook  issues </li></ul>value statements use cases ingestion of data confidence of data, provenance publishing data providing / engendering services education / outreach user seduction
  25. 25. <ul><li>vectors: 3. cookbook  issues </li></ul>maturity novice journeyman master value statements use cases ingestion of data confidence of data, provenance publishing data providing / engendering services education / outreach user seduction
  26. 26. <ul><li>vectors: 3. cookbook  issues </li></ul>maturity novice journeyman master value statements use cases ingestion of data confidence of data, provenance publishing data providing / engendering services education / outreach user seduction reference implementations
  27. 27. <ul><li>elephants in the room </li></ul><ul><li>URIs, not strings </li></ul><ul><ul><li>must not underestimate the amount of effort required to transform large subsets of GLAM metadata from flat records into linked data replete with URIs </li></ul></ul><ul><li>reconciliation   provenance </li></ul><ul><ul><li>need plans for mgmt of co-references emerging from large swaths of newly minted GLAM linked data, e.g. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>-- norms / vehicles for provenance that track and record reconciliation events, agents, criteria, etc. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>-- means to track negative co-reference decisions </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>feedback, reporting, reward systems, metrics </li></ul><ul><ul><li>need persuasive justifications for building and supporting linked-data systems for the cultural heritage community </li></ul></ul>
  28. 28. http://blog.okfn.org/2011/06/24/notes-from-open-metadata-workshop-hague-15th-june-2011/ Notes from Open Metadata Workshop [Europeana] The Hague, 15th June 2011 Posted on June 24, 2011 by Jonathan Gray <ul><li>e.g. </li></ul>
  29. 29.
  30. 30. <ul><li>caveats </li></ul><ul><li>mgmt of co-references needs to be a bottom-up process </li></ul><ul><ul><li>funders will pressure to impose standards </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>risk is that top-down approach will capsize the effort </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>need to let things grow organically </li></ul></ul>
  31. 31. <ul><li>caveats </li></ul><ul><li>mgmt of co-references needs to be a bottom-up process </li></ul><ul><ul><li>funders will pressure to impose standards </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>risk is that top-down approach will capsize the effort </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>need to let things grow organically </li></ul></ul><ul><li>build systems that accept the way the world is, not what you would like it to be </li></ul>
  32. 32. <ul><li>caveats </li></ul><ul><li>mgmt of co-references needs to be a bottom-up process </li></ul><ul><ul><li>funders will pressure to impose standards </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>risk is that top-down approach will capsize the effort </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>need to let things grow organically </li></ul></ul><ul><li>build systems that accept the way the world is, not what you would like it to be </li></ul><ul><li>focus on changing current practices (in the long run), not only on reconciling data (in the short run) </li></ul>
  33. 33. <ul><li>caveats </li></ul><ul><li>mgmt of co-references needs to be a bottom-up process </li></ul><ul><ul><li>funders will pressure to impose standards </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>risk is that top-down approach will capsize the effort </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>need to let things grow organically </li></ul></ul><ul><li>build systems that accept the way the world is, not what you would like it to be </li></ul><ul><li>focus on changing current practices (in the long run), not only on reconciling data (in the short run) </li></ul><ul><ul><li> preventing problems is better than solving them </li></ul></ul>
  34. 34. <ul><li>stay tuned </li></ul><ul><li>CLIR linked-data survey </li></ul><ul><li>Workshop documents </li></ul><ul><ul><li>introductory presentations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>agendas as they evolved </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>reports from the work groups </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>summaries </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Proposals for work </li></ul><ul><ul><li>specific projects </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>communities of practice </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>opportunities to collaborate & contribute </li></ul></ul>
  35. 35. <ul><li>questions / thoughts ? </li></ul>Thank you for your time and attention Jerry Persons [email_address]

×