Digital Libraries Of The Future 16459

Digital Libraries of the Future Use of Semantic Web and Social Bookmarking to support E-learning in Digital Libraries Sebastian Ryszard Kruk Digital Enterprise Research Institute National University of Ireland, Galway

[email protected] http://corrib.deri.ie/  Copyright 2006 Digital Enterprise Research Institute. All rights reserved.

www.deri.ie

Presentation outline • Motivation • Short Introduction to Semantic Web 2.0 • Building Social Semantic Digital Library – Semantic Digital Libraries – Towards Online Communities for Digital Libraries

• • • •

2

JeromeDL and other Corrib components JeromeDL in Action e-Learning 2.0 Conclusions

Motivations • John teaches biology, over the Internet, using digital libraries and modern technologies (wikis, blogs)

• How to deliver the material just-in-time? • How to pre-asses students? • How to automate most of the process? 3

Web 1.0 e-Learning

Creation

Consumption

4

Web 2.0 e-Learning

Creation

Communities

Consumption

5

Semantic Web e-Learning

Creation

Semantic sources

Consumption

6

Semantic Web 2.0 e-Learning

Semantic sources Creation

Contribution Communities

Consumption

7

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

The Semantic Web – A Brief Introduction

Where are we in the “Semantic Web layer cake”?

You Are Here!

The Semantic Web – A Brief Introduction 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 Semantic Web – 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 processing – 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

The Semantic Web – Ontologies and Schemata • 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 – RDF Schema • Defines small vocabulary for RDF: – Class, subClassOf, type – Property, subPropertyOf – domain, range

• Vocabulary can be used to define other vocabularies for your application domain Person subClassOf

Student

domain

subClassOf range

hasSuperVisor

type Frank

Researcher type

hasSuperVisor

Jeen

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

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

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 languages: – RDF Schema – OWL – SKOS

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 The 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 Classification

Paintings

•

Full-text search –

Object/Work type

paintings

Title

Irises

CreationCreator/Role

Vincent van Gogh; painter: Gogh, Vincent van (Dutch painter, 1853-1890)

Creation-Date

1889, earliest: 1889, latest: 1889

Subject-Matter

irises, nature, soil, etc.

Current LocationRepository Name

J. Paul Getty Museum

Copyright 2000 The J. Paul Getty Trust & College Art Association, Inc.

•

“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”

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 Areas for Semantic Web Technologies • 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

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

The future - Social Semantic Digital Libraries • 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 • 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 Web 1.0

Web 2.0

Semantic Web 2.0

Personal Websites

Blogs

Semantic Blogs

Content Management Systems

Wikis

Semantic Wikis

Altavista, Google

Google Personalised, DumbFind

Semantic Search

CiteSeer, Project Gutenberg

Google Scholar, Book Search

Social Semantic Digital Libraries

Message Boards

Community Portals

Semantic Forums and Community Portals

Buddy Lists, Address Books

Online Social Networks

Semantic Social Networks

-

-

Semantic Social Information Spaces

Evolution of Libraries Social Semantic Digital Library Involves the community into sharing knowledge

Semantic Digital Library Accessible by machines, not only with machines

Digital Library Online, easy searching with a full-text index

Library Organized collection

Existing Semantic Digital Library Systems • SIMILE – extends and laverages DSpace, seeking to enhance interoperability among digital assets, schemata, metadata, and services

• 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

JeromeDL - Introduction • Joint effort of DERI International 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. • A successor for prototype semantic digital library – ElvisDL build at GUT

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: – users have 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

Bibliographic Description in JeromeDL 01450cas 922004331i 450000100...019c19329999gw qr|p| ||||0 |0ger | a0044-2992 9a200412140219bVLOADc200404071 525dvkulc200310071018dvbjc20030 3101205dkopumky200209211341zVL OAD 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....

JeromeDL - Adding Semantic Web Technologies to DLs Sebastian Kruk In recent years...

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

38

Bibliographic (MarcOnt) Ontology in JeromeDL

39

Community-aware (FOAFRealm) ontology

40

Ontologies in JeromeDL

Metadata and Services in JeromeDL

42

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

43

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

Initial Ontology

Sugested Poposals

Versioning

Proposal discussion

Proposal anotations



Knowledge from the domain experts

MarcOnt Portal (source of knowledge): •

Suggestions

•

Annotations

•

Versioning

•

Ontology editor

Proposal autopromoting

Proposal voting

Next Revision MarcOnt Portal

MarcOnt Mediation Services for Legacy Metadata

Format translation

Format co-operation

MarcOnt Ontology MarcOnt RDF

MARC21 RDF

Dublin Core RDF

New format RDF

MARC21 XML

Dublin Core XML

New format XML

MARC21

Dublin Core

New format

MarcOnt Mediation Services

46

RDF Translator

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…

47

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 48

What is Social Semantic Collaborative Filtering? • Goal: to enhance individual bookmarks with shared knowledge within a community • Users annotate catalogues of bookmarks with semantic information taken from DDC, DMoz, and 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

49

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

50

Social Networks in Digital Libraries

Resourc e

marcont:hasCreator creator_A

xfoaf:isIn

foaf:knows

xfoaf:Director y

xfoaf:owns foaf:knows creator_B

xfoaf:Annotation

xfoaf:linksTo

foaf:knows user_D

user_C

SIOC (Semantically-Interlinked Online Communities) • Framework/ontology for connecting different online community sites and expressing information collected from them • Allows instant import/export of the data to the semantic character for further use • Still developed to cover more Web 2.0 community sites 52

Support for online communities in SSCF

53

Support for online communities in SSCF

54

JeromeDL in Action

55

Didaskon project • Deliver a framework for assemblying an ondemand curriculum from existing Learning Objects (LOs) provided by e-Learning services • Connection between formal and informal learning: – Repository of couses prepared by specialists (formal LOs) – Transform data collected from SSIS into LOs (informal knowledge)

• Used ontologies link user needs and the characteristics of the learning material

56

Didaskon project

•

LOs described with LOM ontology, composed into a learning path for a specific student

•

User profile (knowledge level in different domains and goals/expectations from the course) described with FOAF ontology – preconditions

•

Didaskon: – returns learning material customized for specific user’s needs – allows more scalable helper features for students supervision

•

Produced curriculum: – reflects user requirements – introduces new interdisciplinary, extensible and robust meaning of eLearning

57

E-Learning Solution based on Social Sem. DL • 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

58

E-Learning Solution based on Social Sem. DL

59

Evaluation of e-Learning Solution based on SSDL • Comparison between process based on JeromeDL and a set of other services • Some tasks take shorter to execute with JeromeDL • Some tasks are automated within JeromeDL • Roughly twice less time spend with JeromeDL

60

E-Learning Project at DERI Galway

61

Between e-Learning and DL - Museum Scenario • 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 breadcrumbs for others – Get the most of the exhibition during your visit

62

Conclusions • New generation of Internet services can bring digital libraries: – Closer to each other (interoperability) – Closer to the users (online communities)

• Social and semantic services delivered in digital libraries can enhance user experience in: – E-Learning – Real world (!) museums – ... and other online and real services

• JeromeDL is the first digital library that aims to implement these services • Growing number of JeromeDL instances world-wide: http://wiki.jeromedl.org/Instances 63

JeromeDL answers various expectations

as the Digital Library on Social Semantic Information Spaces http://www.jeromedl.org/ http://wiki.jeromedl.org/

Sebastian Ryszard Kruk DERI, NUI Galway, Ireland [email protected]

64