Semantic Web Technologies for Digital Libraries - Coursework Example

Semantic Web Technologies for Digital Libraries: From Libraries to Social Semantic Digital Libraries, Over Semantic Digital Libraries 1st 1st authors affiliation 1st line of address 2nd line of address Telephone number, incl. country code 1st E-mail ABSTRACT Digital libraries have been an important source of information in the history of mankind. It has been present in our societies in different forms. The traditional libraries have found their on the desktops of internet users. They have taken the shape of semantic digital libraries; that are accessible at any time and provide a more meaningful search. This paper further discusses social semantic digital libraries that also incorporate the social and collaborative aspect. Keywords: Traditional libraries, Semantic Digital Libraries, Social Semantic Digital Libraries. 1. INTRODUCTION Mankind leaped to a new level after the advent of modern technology in our lives. The internet has played a great role in this evolution of modern lifestyles. Then became a valuable invention that made internet accessible and more convenient to its users- this was the ‘Web’. It was in invented in 1989 by a graduate of Oxford University, England; his name was Tim-Berners Lee. He was responsible for writing the first web client and server in 1990 at CERN (which is the European Particle Physics Laboratory). His vision was to design an internet-based hypermedia system that would facilitate the uploading of information from all corners of the globe so that everyone can benefit from that knowledge [1]. The later developments in the web witnessed the evolution of ‘Semantic Web’. It was still derived from the vision of Tim-Berners Lee of making information global and universal for its users. Semantic Web extends the meaning (semantic) of information by enabling the web to comprehend the demands of the user and computers so that they can utilize the web for information [2]. Semantic Web is based on a set of design principles and the concept of providing useful results to the user [27]. Web offered services and information that could be comprehended by humans only, but semantic web is able to produce information in a manner that can be understood by computers also [46]. Some of the main technologies of Semantic Web are: Resource Description Framework (RFD) [29] OWL Ontologies [28] Figure 1: Semantic Web Stack [45] Resource Description Framework (RFD) was initially implemented as a metadata data model. With the passage of the years, it has evolved into a mode of conceptual description and a mechanism to provide more meaning to information on the web [30], [31]. Ontology can be described as the method of representing information in a formal and structured manner by the help of a set of concepts and their respective relationships. Web Ontology Language (OWL) is described as the set of information modeling languages that can be used to produce ontologies [32], [33], [36]. Ontologies play an important role to cope with the structural differences and metadata standards that might prevail in different systems [35]. 1.1 Applications of Semantic Web Technologies Semantic Web technologies are not merely some proposed solutions, they are becoming a reality and different fields of life are making use of them: Semantic Wikis [41] Semantic Blogs [34] Semantic Digital Libraries [3] 1.2 Challenges of Semantic Web The semantic web is dependant on some other mechanisms as it cannot work on its own. There needs to be the amalgamation of society-scale application to make it work like semantic web agents collaborative applications etc [3]. There is a need to standardize ontology representation [42]. 2. PAST: DIGITAL LIBRARIES Computers made revolutionary changes in every field of life. The field of education and information has been no different. The conventional libraries moved to the concept of digital libraries- that made gaining of knowledge more efficient and organized. But an important fact here is that the digital library should stand for more than a well-organized centralized form of information [26]. They should have the essence of communication in them as well which was originally the aspect of face-to-face interaction between the people at a conventional library [4], [5], [6]. 2.1 Advantages People can access required information at any time of the day as long as they have access to the internet [17]. 2.2 Disadvantages Search is not efficient as it may not provide meaningful data to the user as a result of his command. In many cases, access to certain information is limited by copyright law [13], [40]. Data is static; therefore no users can contribute their views or share their knowledge with the other participants [12]. 3. FROM DIGITAL LIBRARIES TO SEMANTIC DIGITAL LIBRARIES After the advent of digital libraries in our lives, another new step followed. This step was towards making the search more meaningful and directed. It was to refrain from the habit of searching all the things ‘everywhere’ [7], [9]. The growth of Web 2.0 has given way to new methods of accessing information and contributing their opinions. Semantic Digital libraries enable the user to get the intended information regarding an object without the presence of the exact word in the search [8]. This integrated form of information is based on different metadata which provides a more meaningful data. These libraries tend to provide a better and more convenient form of browsing interfaces [18]. Figure 2: Evolution of Semantic Digital Libraries [3] 3.1 Key Differences between Digital Libraries and Semantic Digital Libraries The major difference between the two is that of metadata. Metadata can be defined as the structured form of data about the data. It is very common for digital libraries, government agencies etc to maintain metadata. Semantic digital libraries formulate the information on the basis of the metadata such that even computers can access that information. Semantic Web provides the format RDF that presents data in a more meaningful format. Semantic Digital Libraries are coupled with semantic web ontology languages like OWL, RDF Schema, SKOS [37] that presents the meaning of their metadata in the form of ontology. These new forms of libraries provide a platform to enable interaction with other systems. 3.2 Advantages Semantic Digital Libraries makes it easier to find information in the vast ocean of available data. This is facilitated by Ontology based search and facet search [10]. Access is not confined to only one digital library. On the contrary it provides a mechanism of interoperability between different systems [38]. 3.3 Disadvantages The existing metadata of the digital libraries have to be lifted to a semantic level. Not all digital libraries, government agencies etc maintain metadata. 3.4 Existing Semantic Digital Library Systems Some of the Semantic Digital Library Systems are: SIMILE: This system focus on enhancing the integration aspect of metadata, services etc to increase accessibility [3]. JeromeDL: It can be considered as a social semantic digital library. It is based on Semantic Web as well as social networking to promote collaborative activities along with the other common uses of semantic digital libraries [24], [25]. BRICKS: This system focuses on the basic infrastructure of a digital library network so that information can be shared among the users in the cultural heritage domain [3]. 4. FROM SEMANTIC DIGITAL LIBRARIES TO SOCIAL SEMANTIC DIGITAL LIBRARIES Semantic digital libraries tend to focus more on retrieval of meaningful information rather than giving the opportunity of sharing user’s knowledge. This need led to the development of social semantic digital libraries [11]. Figure 3: Evolution of Social Semantic Information [10] This is achieved by the combination of Semantic Web with collaboration tools on the web [19]. Social semantic digital libraries complements the existing features of the semantic digital libraries by providing the opportunity to contribute to the information. Web 1.0 evolved into a collaborative platform where people could interact and share information- Web 2.0. Web 2.0 was promoted by Tim O’Reily around the year 2005 [14]. It gives ordinary internet users the opportunity to interact, meet and share information like never before. It involves concepts like blogs, wikis, social networking sites etc [49], [50]. 4.1 Advantages People can be involved in collaborative projects with the help of these libraries and thus achieve great things [16]. Dissemination of information, personal experiences from set of individuals to the other [15]. 4.2 Disadvantages It might produce amateurish data by some users [39]. It offers limited security. 5. SOCIAL SEMANTIC DIGITAL LIBRARIES AND THE FUTURE Social Semantic Digital Libraries (and Web 2.0) have made the web collaborative and interactive; however one drawback that has come out of this innovation is that of the information overload. Due to the increase in the internet users and thus their participation level on the forums, it has become difficult to point to the “knowledge” part of the content [20]. Figure 4: Evolution of Web 3.0 [20] Another drawback of these libraries is that web pages are dynamic but are not very structured [48]. The Web 2.0 tools enable to shape the content on the pages but not the content itself. The future will address these aspects and make the web more powerful and structured by the advent of Web 3.0 [43], [44], [47]. The basic concept behind Web 3.0 is that of “ontology”; defined by Thomas Gruber [21], [22] as “explicit specification of a conceptualization”. Another future enhancement that is foreseen for the future is that there shall be digital annotation linked with physical objects in life for example in a museum. An application of this technology can be to have real-virtual tours of a certain place, for example start with a real guided tour and then (if desired) can browse through the virtual context information or get information about other exhibitions in the premises [23]. 6. CONCLUSION Traditional libraries have taken the shape of interactive, accessible and efficient platform that are present for the user at any time of the day. The new forms of digital libraries i.e. semantic digital libraries have proved to produce more meaningful results for the user. Further developments in semantic digital libraries have evolved the concept of contribution of information and social interactivity between the contributors. The future holds much more promising and efficient mechanisms to handle information. REFERENCES [1] Diane, V., 2006, When did the Web start? Developed Traffic, http://developedtraffic.com/2006/08/04/when-did-the-web-start/ [2] Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., Lassila, O., 2001, The Semantic Web, Scientific American Magazine (May 17, 2001). http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-semantic-web&print=true. [3] Kruk, S., R., Haslhofer, B., Kneževic, P., 2007, Tutorial 7- Semantic Digital Libraries, JCDL 2007 [4] Lagoze, C., Krafft, D., B., Payette, S., Jesuroga, S., 2005, What Is a Digital Library Anymore, Anyway? D-Lib Magazine November 2005, Volume 11 Number 11, http://dlib.org/dlib/november05/lagoze/11lagoze.html [5] Borgman, C., L., 2000, Digital libraries and the continuum of scholarly communication, Journal of Documentation, 56 (4), pp. 412-430 [6] Borgman, C., L., 1999, What are digital libraries? Competing visions, Information Processing & Management, pp. 227-243, [7] Celino, I., Turati, A., Della Valle, E., and Cerizza, D. (2006). Squiggle Med: Semantic search for medical digital library, Technical report, CEFRIEL. [8] Baruzzo, A., Casoto, P., Challapalli, P., Dattolo, A., Pudota, N., Tasso, C., 2009, Toward Semantic Digital Libraries: Exploiting Web2.0 and Semantic Services in Cultural Heritage, Journal of Digital Information, Vol. 10, No 6. [9] Xu, X., Zhang, F., Ni, Z., 2008, An Ontology-Based Query System For Digital Libraries, IEEE Pacific-Asia Workshop on Computational Intelligence and Industrial Application [10] Kruk, S., R., Decker, S., Haslhofer, B., Kneževic, P., Payette, S., Krafft, D., 2007, Tutorial – Semantic Digital Libraries, BANFF 2007. [11] Thomas, S., 2006, Web 2.0 and the future for library systems, Technical Report, Univeristy of Adelaide, http://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/2440/14789/1/Web2.0.pdf [12] Baruzzo, A., Casoto, P., Dattolo, A., and Tasso, C., 2009, A conceptual model for digital libraries evolution. In WEBIST ’09: Proceedings of 5th Informational Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies, pages 299–304, Berlin. Springer-Verlag. [13] The Spiritus Temporis Web Ring Community, 2005 Digital library, http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/digital-library/disadvantages.html [14] Reilly, T., O., 2005, What Is Web 2.0, http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html [15] Bassler, S., 2008, Surfing into the Future: An Introduction to Web 2.0, AFB Access World http://www.afb.org/afbpress/pub.asp?DocID=aw090204 [16] Reilly T., O., Musser, J., Web 2.0 Principles and Best Practices, O’Reilly Radar, http://radar.oreilly.com/research/web2-report.html [17] Candela L., Castelli, D. and Pagano, P., 2007, A reference architecture for digital library systems: Principles and applications. In Digital Libraries: Research and Development, 1st International DELOS Conference, pages 22–35. [18] Woroniecki, T., Gzella, A., Dobrowski, M., Ryszard Kruk, S., 2007, JeromeDL - A Semantic Digital Library. In Semantic Web Challenge Co-olocated with The 6th International Semantic Web Conference and the 2nd Asian Semantic Web Conference the 2nd Asian Semantic Web Conference, Busan, Korea. [19] Avello, D., G., Gutiérrez, D., A., The Cooperative Web: A Complement to the Semantic Web, Proceedings of the 26th Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC’02) [20] Padula, M., Reggiori, A., Capetti, G., 2009, Managing Collective Knowledge in the Web 3.0, First International Conference on Evolving Internet [21] Gruber, T., R., 1993, A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications, Knowledge Acquisition, vol. 5, issue 2, June 1993, Academic Press Ltd. London, UK, pp. 199 – 220. [22] Gruber, T., R., Liu, L., 2008, Ontology, Encyclopedia of Database Systems, http://tomgruber.org/writing/ontology-definition-2007.htm [23] Kruk, S., R., Burke, M., Decker, S., Irish Digital Libraries Summit, Digital Libraries at the eve of the Next Generation Internet, http://www.slideshare.net/skruk/irish-digital-libraries-summit [24] Kruk, S., R., Zimmermann, K., Sapkota, B., 2006, Semantically Enhanced Search Services in Digital Libraries, Proceedings of the advanced international Conference on Telecommunications and International Conference on Internet and Web applications and Services. [25] S, R, Kruk, Decker, S., Zieborak, L., 2005, JeromeDL- Managing Digital Library Database with the Semantic Web Technolgies, Proceedings DEXA2005, Copenhagen, Denmark, August 2005 [26] Kruk, S., R., 2004, Advanced Search and browsing in digital Libraries, Proceedings of ISWC 2004 [27] Xu, X., Niu, Z., Shi., C, 2008, An Ontology-Based Digital Library System for E-Learning, International Conference on Information Management, Innovation Management and Industrial Engineering [28] Guo, L., Zhou, Y., 2009, Ontology Based Digital library Search Model Research, Granular Computing 2009. [29] RDF Working Group, 2004, Resource Description Framework (RDF), W3C, http://www.w3.org/RDF/ [30] Klyne, G., 2000, Contexts for RDF Information Modeling, Nine By Nine, http://www.ninebynine.org/RDFNotes/RDFContexts.html [31] Harth, A., Decker, S., 2005, Optimized Index Structures for Querying RDF from the Web, 3rd Latin American Web Congress, Buenos Aires, Argentina, October 31 to November 2, pp. 71-80 [32] Antoniou, G., Harmelen, F., 2003, Web Ontology Language: OWL, http://www.cs.vu.nl/~frankh/postscript/OntoHandbook03OWL.pdf [33] Costello, R., L., Jacobs, D., B., 2003, A Quick Introduction to OWL Web Ontology Language, The MITRE Corporation, DARPA, http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~lapalme/ift6281/OWL/CostelloQuickIntroOwl.pdf [34] Klyne, G., 2004, Semantic Web Applications, http://www.ninebynine.net/Papers/SemanticWebApplications.pdf [35] Kruk, S., R., Haslhofer, B., Piotrowski, P., Westerski, A., Woroniecki, T., 2006, The Role of Ontologies in Semantic Digital Libraries [36] OWL Web Ontology Language: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/ [37] OWL Web Ontology Language: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/ [38] Sicilia, M., Davies, J., Digital Libraries in the Knowledge Era: Knowledge Management and Semantic Web Technologies, Computers Engineering and Informatics Department, Technical Report, University of Patras, Greece [47] Metz, C., 2007, Web 3.0, PCMag.com, http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2102852,00.asp [48] Mahmoud, H., 2009, Web 3.0- The Semantic Web, http://www.slideshare.net/HatemMahmoud/web-30-the-semantic-web [49] Lynch, C., 2005, Where Do We Go From Here? The Next Decade for Digital Libraries, D-Lib Magazine, July/August 2005, Volume 11 Number 7/8 [50] Morrison, J., L., Peters, T., 2004, The Future of the Digital Library: An Interview with Tom Peters, http://innovateonline.info/pdf/vol1_issue3/The_Future_of_the_Digital_Library-_An_Interview_with_Tom_Peters.pdf [39] Kruk, S., R., Mocan, A., Sapkota, B., Zaremba, M., 2005 Building Semantic Web Services Infrastructure for Digital Libraries, www.marcont.org/marcont/pdf/eswc2005_swsl2l.pdf [40] Chen, C., 1999, Visualizing Semantic Space and Author co-citation Networks in Digital Libraries, Information Processing and Management, Vol. 35, 401-420 [41] Kruk, S., R., Cygan, M., Piotrowski, P., Samp, K., Westerski, A., Decker, S., 2006, Building a Heterogeneous Network of Digital Libraries on the Semantic Web", Proceedings of the Semantics Conference. [42] S, L., Dong M., Fotouhi, F., 2002, The Semantic Web: opportunities and challenges for next-generation Web applications, Information Research, Vol. 7, No. 4. [43] Agarwal, A., 2009, Web 3.0 Concepts, Digital Inspirations, http://www.labnol.org/internet/web-3-concepts-explained/8908/ [44] Nations, D., What is Web 3.0? About.com Guide, http://webtrends.about.com/od/web20/a/what-is-web-30.htm [45] World Wide Web Consortium, 2008, Representing Knowledge in the Semantic Web, http://www.w3c.it/talks/2005/openCulture/slide7-0.html [46] Bates, M., J., 1990, Where Should the Person Stop and the Information Search Interface Start, Scientific American, 284(5), pp. 34–43. Read More