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.

W3C Library Linked Data Incubator Group - 2011

4,177 views

Published on

The same presentation as http://www.slideshare.net/antoineisaac/w3c-library-linked-data-incubator-group , but after 1 year of work!

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

W3C Library Linked Data Incubator Group - 2011

  1. 1. W3C Library Linked Data Group A Summary Antoine Isaac Europeana Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Talis Linked Data and Libraries day, London, July 14th 2011
  2. 2. ?
  3. 3. W3C incubator (XG) activity <ul><li>Short-lived working groups: around 1 year </li></ul><ul><li>No delivery of W3C Recommendations, but “innovative ideas for specifications, guidelines, and applications that are not (or not yet) clear candidates as Web standards” </li></ul>http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/
  4. 4. Library Linked Data incubator <ul><li>May 2010 – August 2011 </li></ul><ul><li>51 participants </li></ul><ul><li>23 W3C member organizations </li></ul><ul><ul><li>VU Amsterdam, INRIA, Library of Congress, JISC, Deutsche Nationalbibliotek, DERI Galway, OCLC, Talis, LANL, Helsinki University of Technology, University of Edinburgh, etc. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Invited experts from other organizations </li></ul><ul><ul><li>BnF, National Library of Latvia, German National Library of Economics, etc. </li></ul></ul>
  5. 5. <ul><ul><li>Up-to-date list at http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=44833 </li></ul></ul>
  6. 7. <ul><li>To help increase global interoperability of library data on the Web, by </li></ul><ul><li>bringing together people involved in Semantic Web activities —focusing on Linked Data—in the library community and beyond, </li></ul><ul><li>building on existing initiatives , and </li></ul><ul><li>identifying collaboration tracks for the future . </li></ul>Mission
  7. 8. Linked Library Cloud 2008 [Ross Singer, Code4Lib2010] http://code4lib.org/conference/2010/singer
  8. 9. 2010 [Ross Singer, Code4Lib2010] http://code4lib.org/conference/2010/singer
  9. 10. Now
  10. 11. Technological bits and pieces <ul><li>Vocabularies/schemas </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Dublin Core, SKOS, BIBO, FRBR </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Web services </li></ul><ul><li>Semantic Web search engines </li></ul><ul><li>Ontology editors </li></ul><ul><li>Etc. </li></ul>
  11. 12. Need for mapping the landscape
  12. 13. Investigate answers to higher-level questions
  13. 14. What’s this I hear about the Semantic Web ? <ul><li>What is the Semantic Web? </li></ul><ul><li>What does it have to do with bibliography? </li></ul><ul><li>Does it make life better for patrons? </li></ul><ul><li>Does it strengthen libraries? </li></ul><ul><li>Is it practical? </li></ul><ul><li>Where can we get some? </li></ul>http://www.slideshare.net/stuartweibel/semantic-web-technologies-changing-bibliographic-descriptions
  14. 15. Various activities <ul><li>Discussions </li></ul><ul><li>Presentations in various fora – libraries and beyond </li></ul><ul><li>Writing papers, blog posts </li></ul><ul><li>Gathering use cases and implementation examples </li></ul><ul><li>Identifying relevant technology pieces </li></ul><ul><li>Publishing linked data! </li></ul>
  15. 16. Deliverables <ul><li>Side deliverable on use cases </li></ul><ul><li>Side deliverable on available data </li></ul><ul><li>Main report </li></ul>
  16. 17. Use Cases <ul><li>Identify business cases and examples implementations </li></ul><ul><li>Over 50 cases from XG participants and community </li></ul><ul><li>Grouped into 8 topical clusters </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Bibliographic data, vocabulary alignment, citations, digital objects, social and new uses… </li></ul></ul>http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/UseCaseReport
  17. 18. Available Data <ul><li>Document surveying </li></ul><ul><li>Datasets </li></ul><ul><li>Value vocabularies </li></ul><ul><li>Element sets </li></ul><ul><li>CKAN LLD group </li></ul><ul><li>http://ckan.net/group/lld </li></ul>http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Vocabulary_and_Dataset
  18. 19. Main report <ul><li>Intended at a general library audience: decisions-makers, developers, metadata librarians, etc. </li></ul><ul><li>Tries to expand on general benefits, issues and recommendations </li></ul><ul><li>An entry point into more specific resources </li></ul><ul><ul><li>LLD XG side deliverables, many external links </li></ul></ul>
  19. 20. Benefits <ul><li>General benefits of linked data </li></ul><ul><li>Benefits to researchers, students and patrons </li></ul><ul><li>Benefits to cultural institutions </li></ul><ul><li>Benefits to librarians, archivists and curators </li></ul><ul><li>Benefits to developers </li></ul>
  20. 21. Relevant technologies <ul><li>Linked data front-ends to existing data stores </li></ul><ul><li>Web Application Frameworks </li></ul><ul><li>Web services for library linked data </li></ul><ul><li>Microformats, Microdata and RDFa </li></ul><ul><li>Tools for data designers </li></ul><ul><li>Etc. </li></ul>
  21. 22. Implementation challenges and barriers to adoption <ul><li>Designed for stability, the library ecosystem resists (technological) change </li></ul><ul><li>ROI is difficult to calculate </li></ul><ul><li>Data may have rights issues that prevent (open) publication </li></ul><ul><li>Data in library-specific formats is not easily shared outside the library community </li></ul>
  22. 23. Recommendations <ul><li>Assess </li></ul><ul><li>Facilitate </li></ul><ul><li>Design and prepare </li></ul><ul><li>Curate, identify and link </li></ul>
  23. 24. Still one week for feedback! <ul><li>Wiki page </li></ul><ul><ul><li>http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReportWithTransclusion </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Comments can be sent to the public LLD list </li></ul><ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Blog for fine-grained comments </li></ul><ul><ul><li>http://blogs.ukoln.ac.uk/w3clld/ </li></ul></ul>Or wait till we have finished…
  24. 25. The future? <ul><li>Discussions and collaboration should continue </li></ul><ul><li>Existing groups within libraries or with wider scope </li></ul><ul><ul><li>IFLA Semantic Web special interest group </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>LOD-LAM </li></ul></ul><ul><li>A new W3C Community group? </li></ul>
  25. 26. A long-term effort
  26. 27. <ul><li>Libraries are in a unique position for this </li></ul>
  27. 28. Questions? <ul><li>Links </li></ul><ul><li>Official page @ W3C </li></ul><ul><ul><li>http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/ </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Wiki site </li></ul><ul><ul><li>http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/ </li></ul></ul><ul><li>LLD community mailing list </li></ul><ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lld/ </li></ul></ul>
  28. 29. Questions? <ul><li>Some slides adapted from William Waites, http://eris.okfn.org/ww/2011/06/nls/ </li></ul><ul><li>Pictures: </li></ul><ul><li>http://www.flickr.com/photos/nationalarchives/3048286070/ </li></ul><ul><li>http://www.europeana.eu/portal/record/03903/78FA3F8B4299B45C25C395345D3D16ED24EA7F4F.html </li></ul><ul><li>http://www.europeana.eu/portal/record/03912/E9666896A50FDDE5F7F15A17C11219A7FBCBBC50.html </li></ul><ul><li>http://europeana.eu/portal/record/09405o/651D82BEC748FF421B4252C699CC2498EF57E466.html </li></ul><ul><li>(Europeana links give access to resources on original sites, with copyright info) </li></ul>
  29. 30. General benefits of linked data <ul><li>Shareable </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Globally unique resolvable identifiers - URI </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Libraries can make trusted metadata descriptions for common use </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Extensible </li></ul><ul><ul><li>&quot;Open world&quot; - no description is complete, anybody can add descriptive information from within their own publishing space </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Re-usable </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Descriptions from diverse sources talking about the same thing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Annotations, enrichments, etc. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Internationalisable </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Full support for translations of terms to other languages </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Natural language strings are not used as identifiers </li></ul></ul>Back
  30. 31. Benefits to researchers, students and patrons <ul><li>Greater discovery and use capabilities, across library and non-library resources, across disciplines </li></ul><ul><li>Information seekers can extract and re-mix the parts of the data they need, add own annotations to library global graph </li></ul><ul><li>Semantics in HTML allow resources to be better discovered from websites they use routinely </li></ul><ul><li>Library items and data can be fully integrated into research documents and bibliographies </li></ul>Back
  31. 32. Benefits to cultural institutions <ul><li>Use of mainstream technologies rather than formats and integrated systems specific to libraries </li></ul><ul><li>Sharing data, particularly for items/works and authority data, means less duplication of effort, lower infrastructure costs </li></ul><ul><li>Clarification of metadata licensing </li></ul><ul><li>Greater visibility on the web and reuse </li></ul>Back
  32. 33. Benefits to librarians, archivists and curators <ul><li>Use of web-based identifiers makes resources immediately available and up-to-date </li></ul><ul><li>Pull together data from outside their domain environment </li></ul><ul><ul><li>across cultural heritage datasets </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>from the web at large </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Concentrate on their domain of local expertise rather than re-creating existing descriptions </li></ul>Back
  33. 34. Benefits to developers <ul><li>Use of well known standard protocols and techniques instead of domain-specific software </li></ul><ul><ul><li>HTTP instead of Z39.50 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>RDF instead of MARC or EAD </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>REST </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Freely mix or mash-up data from libraries with other sources </li></ul>Back
  34. 35. Challenges and barriers <ul><li>Designed for stability, the library ecosystem resists (technological) change </li></ul><ul><li>Tendency to engage only with well-established standards and practices </li></ul><ul><li>Standardization processes are long-term, top-down </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Bottom-up can be successful but garner little recognition </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Tech. expertise lies mostly with a small number of software vendors or in large academic libraries </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Libraries are Libraries are understaffed in the technology area </li></ul></ul>
  35. 36. Challenges and barriers <ul><li>… </li></ul><ul><li>Sharing of data traditionally happens amongst libraries, not with the wider world </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>There is fear that data will need to be &quot;dumbed down&quot; in order to interact with other communities; few see the possibility of &quot;smarting up” data </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Cooperative metadata creation is economical but centralised </li></ul>Back
  36. 37. Challenges and barriers <ul><li>ROI is difficult to calculate </li></ul><ul><li>Cost of current practice is not well known </li></ul><ul><li>LD requires tech. staff with specific expertise in library data </li></ul><ul><li>Library-specific data formats require niche systems solutions </li></ul>Back
  37. 38. Challenges and barriers <ul><li>Data may have rights issues that prevent (open) publication </li></ul><ul><li>Some data cannot be opened </li></ul><ul><li>Rights have perceived value </li></ul><ul><li>Ownership of rights can be unmanageably complex </li></ul>Back
  38. 39. Challenges and barriers <ul><li>Data in library-specific formats is not easily shared outside the library community </li></ul><ul><li>Data is expressed primarily as text strings, not &quot;linkable&quot; URIs </li></ul><ul><li>Self-contained records differ from open-world graphs </li></ul><ul><li>Best practices or standardisation for using RDF with library data are needed </li></ul><ul><li>The library and LD communities lack shared terminology for metadata concepts </li></ul><ul><ul><li>statement, heading, authority control </li></ul></ul>Back
  39. 40. Recommendations <ul><li>Assess </li></ul><ul><li>Identify candidate datasets for early exposure as linked data </li></ul><ul><li>For each dataset, determine ROI of current practices, and costs and ROI of exposing as LD </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluate migration strategies </li></ul><ul><li>Foster a discussion about open data and rights </li></ul>Back
  40. 41. Recommendations <ul><li>Facilitate </li></ul><ul><li>Cultivate an ethos of innovation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Small scale R&D within individual library organisations </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Identify Linked Data literacy needed for different staff roles in the library </li></ul><ul><li>Include metadata design in library and information science education </li></ul><ul><li>Increase participation in linked-data standardisation efforts </li></ul>Back
  41. 42. Recommendations <ul><li>Design and prepare </li></ul><ul><li>Translate library data and standards into linked data </li></ul><ul><li>Develop best practices and design patterns for data </li></ul><ul><li>Directly use or map to commonly understood LD vocabularies </li></ul><ul><li>Design user stories and exemplar UIs </li></ul><ul><li>Identify tools supporting the creation and use of LLD </li></ul>Back
  42. 43. Recommendations <ul><li>Curate, identify and link </li></ul><ul><li>Apply library experience in curation and long-term preservation to linked data (and other) datasets </li></ul><ul><li>Ensure preservation of relevant linked data vocabularies </li></ul><ul><li>Assign unique identifiers (URIs) for all significant things in library data </li></ul><ul><li>Create explicit links between library datasets and to other well-used datasets </li></ul>Back

×