Geo-annotations in Semantic Digital Libraries

Copyright 2006 Digital Enterprise Research Institute. All rights reserved.

www.deri.ie

Geo-annotations in Semantic Digital Libraries

Geospatial Knowledge Infrastructures Workshop

Maciej Dąbrowski, Sebastian Ryszard KrukDigital Enterprise Research Institute

National University of Ireland, Galway

[email protected]

2

About us

• Sebastian Kruk• Lead researcher• Semantic Digital Libraries• Social Web• Semantic Search and

Browsing

[email protected]

• Maciej Dąbrowski• PhD student, project manager• Collaboration• Human-Computer Interaction• Visualizations of tagging

[email protected]

3

DERI Galway – Mission

DERI Galway’s Mission is “to exploit semantics for

• People• Organisations• Systems

to collaborate and interoperate on a global scale”

4

DERI – Project Partners

IFOMIS

5

Social semantic information spaces: Semantic (Web 2.0)

Web 2.0and socialsoftware

6

Static WWWURI, HTML, HTTP

Bringing Bringing the web to the web to its full its full potentialpotential

Semantic WebRDF, RDF(S), OWL

Dynamic Web ServicesUDDI, WSDL, SOAP

Intelligent WebServices

Semantic Web and Web Services

7

Semantic Web Foodchain

Semantically Interlinking Online

Semantic Web Search Engine:

Multi-Faceted Metadata Browsing

Social Semantic Collaborative Filtering

Creating Metadata

Searching Metadata

Navigating Metadata

Locally Sharing

Metadata

Globally Sharing and Deploying of Metadata

Social Semantic Desktop

SALT – Semantic Annotated LaTex

Dynamics & Versioning

DINODynamics, INtegration, Ontologies

JeromeDL

MarcOnt

Multi-Bee Browse

notitio.us Foaf-Realm Didaskon

8

Outline

• Motivation

• Ontologies in the world of digital libraries

• JeromeDL – Social Semantic Digital Library

• MarcOnt – Collaborative ontology development

• Geo-tagging

9

Motivation

World of Digital Libraries

Identified Problems:• Interoperability• Format translation

Multiple data formats in DL:• How to support them?• How to translate between them?• Who should create mappings?

Bibtex

MARC21

Dublin Core?

10

Real-life problems – user’s expectations

Searching:

• Effective and AccurateWe want correct and fast answers!!

• Intuitive and SimpleAsking questions should be easy.

• MeaningJaguar – a car or an animal?

• ReasoningGive me articles written by students of X in Galway?

Identified problems:

• Intuitive interface for asking complex querries

11

Real-life problems - summary

Digital Libraries should provide:

• Interoperability

• Support for many (legacy) formats

• Complex search features

• Intuitive interfaces

12

Digital Enterprise Research Institute www.deri.ie

6

Yesterday’s world of digital content

• Digital library– Database and archive (storage)

– Digital bibliographic descriptions (metadata)

– Full-text search (interface)

• Pros:– Content accessible online

– Federations of libraries – visit less places

• Cons:– Lonely user

– No one to talk to, we need to find the right keywords, what if we do not know them (“man without an ear” paintings example)

– Still many problems with interconnecting other sources, incl. libraries

13


7

Today of interconnected, social media

• Social Semantic Information Spaces– Semantic description (interconnected metadata)– Annotations provided by users (social metadata)– Collaborative search and browsing (interface)

• Features– Search and browsing based on semantics empowers users– Users contribute to the classification process– Users can understand community driven annotations– Users enhance digital content using blogs, wikis on the side– Library can interact with other Internet services


JeromeDL - Properties

• JeromeDL is the social semantic digital library that provides

– Integrated social networking with user profiling.

– Enhanced personalized search facility.

– Interconnects meaningful description of resources with social media.

– Extensible access control based on social networks.

– Collaborative browsing and filtering.

– Dynamic collections.

– Integration with Web 2.0 services.

15


Metadata and Services in JeromeDL

16


Creating Semantics

• Each resource is described with:– structure annotations - chapters, media parts, attachments– basic bibliographic annotations – knowledge organization systems - keywords, categories– social annotations (soft semantics)– Geotags

• Resource can be annotated with hard semantics during the uploading process

16

17

Exposing Semantic Annotations

Ontologies in JeromeDL

19


Search based on semantics

• Natural language templates– allows to perform complex queries using natural language

– can be created and modified based on the needs of users

– easily internationalized

• Semantic Query Expansion (alpha)– refines query based on current context

– extensible context definition: user profile, history of queries, current query, etc.

19

20


Access to semantics

• Exposing underlying semantics– rendering RDF in various flavors– exposing semantics in JSON and SIOC– syndication feeds (RSS)

• Querying semantic database– RDF query endpoint– OAI-PMH (beta)

• Delivering metadata to other services– MarcOnt Mediation Services

20

21


Beyond JeromeDL - connecting to Web 2.0

• Other Web 2.0 services can easily hook up to information and services provided by JeromeDL

• Example - notitio.us– aggregates semantics from different

sources, including JeromeDL– involves users in providing more

annotations– exposes content to other services, such

as Learning Management Systems– contains components familiar from

JeromeDL21

22


Browsing on semantics

• Exhibit (SIMILE, MIT)– powerful faceted filtering

– rendering related dates on timeline

– rendering related places on google maps

• MultiBeeBrowse– collaborative browsing

– allows to perform complex browsing operations

– user can overview browsing context and look up browsing history

– search, browse, filter ...

– Keyword, RDF querry22

23

Exhibit

24

Multi-Bee Browse

25


Conclusions

• JeromeDL delivers a set of components that enables semantic web technology

• It enhances users experience through the social interactions

• It uses semantics existing on the web• It delivers semantics for other services

25

26

26

• JeromeDL bringsJeromeDL bringsSemantic Web and Online Communities Semantic Web and Online Communities to the Digital Librariesto the Digital Libraries

• as the Digital Library on as the Digital Library on Social Semantic Information SpacesSocial Semantic Information Spaces

• http://www.jeromedl.org/• http://wiki.jeromedl.org/http://wiki.jeromedl.org/

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

27

MarcOnt Initiative

Motivation:

• Build a bibliographic ontology for the Jerome Digital Library

MarcOnt Initiative goals:

• Deliver a set of tools for collaborative ontologydevelopment

• Create a community of domain expert

• Enable mediation between formats (MMS)

28

MarcOnt Ontology

• Central point of MarcOnt Initiative

• Translation and mediation format

• Continuous collaborative ontology improvement

• Knowledge from the domain experts

• Community influence and evaluation

29

MarcOnt Ontology

Goals:

• Capture concepts from the legacy bibliographic formats– MARC21, Bibtex, Dublin Core– Lattes, ...

• Create a uniform bibliographic description format for digital libraries.

• Enable the use of Semantic Web technologies (eg. reasoning) to improve capabilities of digital libraries

• Improve interoperability

30

Format Translation Scenario

Author:John SmithDate of Birth:1956-10-15Date of death:2004-09-10

Author:John SmithDate of Birth:??Date of death:??



Dublin Core

31

Format Translation Scenario





RDF Storage

Dublin Core



32

MarcOnt Tools

• MarcOnt Initiative involves development of tools:– MarcOnt Mediation Services (MMS) – allows users to

retrieve the description of the given bibliographic resource in multiple formats

– RDF Translator – tool for RDF data translation between formats using the set of given mapping rules

– Rulegenerator – allows defining mapping (translation) rules between concepts from different ontologies.

– MarcOnt Portal – enabling collaborative ontology development

33

MarcOnt Mediation Services

34

MarcOnt Mediation Services

MarcOnt OntologyMarcOnt RDF

MARC21 RDF

MARC21 XML

MARC21

Bibtex RDF

Bibtex XML

Bibtex

New format RDF

New format XML

New format

Format translationInteroperability

MarcOnt Mediation Services RDF Translator

35

Rulegenerator – a tool for mapping rules creation

36

MarcOnt Portal – ontology lifecycle

Collaborative ontology development.

Portal provides:• Suggestions• Annotations• Versioning• Ontology editor

Sugested Poposals

Initial Ontology

Proposal discussion

Proposal anotations

Proposal votingProposal autopromoting

Versioning

Next RevisionMarcOnt Portal

37

MarcOnt Portal

• Goals– Deliver set of tools for domain experts enabling ontology

development– Support collaborative ontology development process

• Requirements– Easy access (no installation)– Intuitive interface– Ontology versioning– Ontology visualizations– Ontology editing

38

MarcOnt Portal - architecture

Web browser

MarcOnt

User Management

RepositoryManagement

Rating And Voting

Storage

Sesame SemVersion

Thick client

MarcOnt REST SOA

39

MarcOnt Portal - features

On-line ontology editing Visualization of ontologies

40

MarcOnt Portal - features

Comparing versions of ontologies

41

MarcOnt Initiative Roadmap

• Lattes – CV platform used in Brasil• Ontology visualisation and graphical edition• User profiling

• MarcOntX agent – automatic integration of concepts from Digital Libraries

42

MarcOnt Initiative summary

MarcOnt Initiative goals:

• Create a framework for collaborative ontology development

• Provide domain experts with tools to share their knowledge

• Offer tools for data mediation between different data formats

• Develop MarcOnt bibliographic ontology

• Create a community of users (domain experts)

43

MarcOnt Initiative references:

• http://www.marcont.org/

• http://mms.marcont.org/

• http://rdft.marcont.org/

• http://library.deri.ie/

44

Geotagging

• Geotagging (Geocoding) is the process of adding geographical identification metadata to various media such as websites, RSS feeds, or images. This data usually consists of latitude and longitude coordinates, though it can also include altitude and place names

• Geocoding also refers to the process of taking non-coordinate based geographical identifiers, such as a postal address, and assigning geographic coordinates to them (or vice versa).

45

Geotags

46

Examples

• Geo-tagsgeotagged

geo:lat=51.483387

geo:lon=-3.169792

• Geo-Metatags<meta name="geo.placename" content="Cardiff, Cardiff, UK" />

<meta name="geo.position" content="51.483387;-3.169792" />

<meta name="geo.region" content="GB-Wales" />

<meta name="ICBM" content="51.483387, -3.169792" />

47

Flickr

48

Exhibit

49

Why geo-tagging?

• Geotagging can help users find a wide variety of location-specific information. – find images taken near a given location by entering latitude and

longitude coordinates into a Geotagging-enabled image search engine.

– news– websites– other resources.

• Determine the localisation of a given „concept” in the scene– http://copernicus.corrib.org/

50

Copernicus in action

51

Summary

• Semantics can bring digital libraries to a new level of providing services.

• There is a need for usable and community based appication that would allow annotations (Semantic Web + Web 2.0).

• Search and browsing services are crucial from the user’s perspective.

• References:– http://jeromedl.org/– http://marcont.org/– http://copernicus.corrib.org/– http://wiki.corrib.org/

Geo-annotations in Semantic Digital Libraries

Technology

semantic annotations

semantic web foodchain

semantic web search

http semantic web rdf

metadata annotations

social networks

social software

users users