W3C Library Linked Data Incubator Group - 2011


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

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

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