Semantic Web and Library Applications Workshop

1. Semantic Web and Library Applications Workshop Presented by Luit Gazendam Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek

2. About the participants • 23 participants from 12 countries • 70 % (generally interested people) • only little knowledge about SW • no experience with SW • get more knowledge on SW possibilities • 20 % (people ready to jump on the SW train) • Some SW knowledge • thinks about using SW techniques • Learn about easy and effective techniques and the killer app. • Sees benefits but also has serious doubts • 10 % (people who have drunk the SW cooling liquid) • Implemented SW techniques • Wanted to see what more is out there Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek

3. We formulated these goals • Learn about the Semantic Web (SW) • What is needed to start with the SW • Value of SW (killer application) • Use of thesauri on the Semantic Web • overview of available SW data, software and applications. Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek

4. Learn about the Semantic Web: examples • GTAA thesaurus browser (http://ems01.mpi.nl:8080/GTAABrowser) • Museo Suomi (http://www.museosuomi.fi/) • E-culture browser (http://e-culture.multimedian.nl/demo/search) • Early American Imprints SW Library application (http://evans.ub.rug.nl/swhi/) • Martin Malmsten showed his SW implementation (Lightning talk) • Ron Davies showed British Standard 8723 on thesaurus development (NON SW, but close to SKOS: XSLT) Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek

5. What did these examples show • The applications showed • Mash ups (e.g. with google maps) • Facetted browsing • Result grouping (Picasso Marble, P depicted, Painted by P) • Multiple ways of information visualization • SW applications are still demonstrators • SW applications are often designed to fulfill the same functionalities as Library applications • Improved under the hood performance is hard to show Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek

6. Group discussion (1) Q1. Are there gains for a library to post its data in a SW format? • It is the mission of Libraries to make data available, so also in a SW format. • Value is there if you are making applications on top of this. • Chicken-or-egg problem • SW is still a vision • If National libraries will start, we will follow. Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek

7. Group discussion (2) Q2. Are there gains of porting your vocabulary to a SW format? • SKOS (cheap) or ontology (expensive)? • Again value is only there if you are going to use it. • You can get grant money if you transform to an ontology. Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek

8. Group discussion (3) Q3. Where should you start with the Sem Web? • By making your data available in a SW format (Martin Malmsten) • By making your thesaurus available in a SW format (Ron Davies) • Depends on your control over the data and your thesaurus, (whether you have an own vocabulary) Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek

9. Group discussion (Final slide) • SW is unsexy • However 23 people show up at the ELAG SW & LibApp workshop • The SW seems to be a really nice answer, which fits a librarians way of thinking, but to what problem? • The idea is simple but its value is not (No killer app) • The value of standardization is clear, what are the other values? • The SW is a vision / an idea. The massive uptake is still uncertain. • What SW technology enables is also possible with current software and techniques (analogous to Gopher / WWW situation in 1993) • Investment in the understanding of SW techniques is big, using it seems easy. • Some people are hopping on the SW train, others do not know yet whether this is a wise idea (is it gaining enough momentum). Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek