Linked Data Workshop Stanford University
-
Upload
talis-consulting -
Category
Technology
-
view
2.785 -
download
2
description
Transcript of Linked Data Workshop Stanford University
1
Linked Data WorkshopStanford University
June 27 – July 1, 2011
2
Linked Data WorkshopStanford University
June 27 – July 1, 2011
3
who
CLIR (Council on Library and Information Resources) Research Libraries
National Libraries
HighWire Press LOCKSS / CLOCKSS Metaweb / Freebase (Google) Research Center for Informatics, National Institute for Informatics, Japan sameAs.org, Seme4 and University of Southampton Semantic Computing Research Group (SeCo), Aalto University, Finland
• Michigan• Stanford• Virginia
• Bibliotheca Alexandrina • California• Emory
• Bibliothèque nationale de France • British Library• Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
• Kongelige Bibliotek (Denmark)• Library of Congress
4
what
The Stanford Workshop focused on crafting fund-able plans for creating tools, processes, and vehicles to expedite a disruptive paradigm shift in the work flows, data stores, and interfaces used for managing, discovering and navigating the knowledge and information resources that fuel scholarship and research.
The goal was identifying knowledge management capabilities andspecifying designs for requisite new components, mechanisms, environments, and communities that will:
5
what
The Stanford Workshop will focus on crafting fund-able plans for creating tools, processes, and vehicles to expedite a disruptive paradigm shift in the work flows, data stores, and interfaces used for managing, discovering and navigating the knowledge and information resources that fuel scholarship and research.
The goal is identifying knowledge management capabilities andspecifying designs for requisite new components, mechanisms, environments, and communities that will:
1. move beyond current metadata practices based on discrete, distributed, and replicated database records;
2. precipitate a new family of methods and tools to replace today’s metadata records with an array of emergent, open, link-driven metaservices;
6
what
3. rapidly expand the breadth, density, and reliability of well-curated identifiers and links associated with the publications, data, manuscripts, documents, artifacts, and other resources available via the services and holdings of the world’s national+research libraries, museums, archives, and other science, social science, and cultural heritage institutions; and
4. provide for continuous improvement in the quality and density of link-driven navigation and discovery capabilities through provision of open, managed feedback and annotation by individuals and communities who seek, gather, consume, and build content in the course of their reading, teaching, learning, scholarship, research, and other knowledge-based activities.
7
context
8
context
9
context
10
context
11
context
12
context
I’ve liked to characterize the current moment as a circle of libraries, museums, archives, universities, journalists, publishers, broadcasters and a number of others in the culture industries standing around, eyeing other and at the space in between them while wondering how they need to reconfigure for a world of digitally networked knowledge.
Josh Greenberg, Moving a handful of blocks north …, April, 2010.
13
context
I’ve liked to characterize the current moment as a circle of libraries, museums, archives, universities, journalists, publishers, broadcasters and a number of others in the culture industries standing around, eyeing other and at the space in between them while wondering how they need to reconfigure for a world of digitally networked knowledge.
Josh Greenberg, Moving a handful of blocks north …, April, 2010.
Whichever organizations do an excellent job of providing context and coherent linkages will be the go-to ones for data consumers. As we have seen to date, merely publishing linked data triples does not meet this test.
Mike Bergman, I have yet to metadata I didn’t like, 2010
14
context
The biggest problem we face right now is a way to ‘link’ information that comes from different sources that can scale to hundreds of millions of statements (and hundreds of thousands of equivalences). Equivalences and subclasses are the only things that we have ever needed of OWL and RDFS, we want to ‘connect’ dots that otherwise would be unconnected.
Stefano Mazzocchi, Darkness is relative, I guess, January, 2007.
15
context
The biggest problem we face right now is a way to ‘link’ information that comes from different sources that can scale to hundreds of millions of statements (and hundreds of thousands of equivalences). Equivalences and subclasses are the only things that we have ever needed of OWL and RDFS, we want to ‘connect’ dots that otherwise would be unconnected.
Stefano Mazzocchi, Darkness is relative, I guess, January, 2007.
commentfor every one of these questions, I know multiple librarians who would know the answers off the top of their heads
rejoindercan I have copies of those librarians?
anonymized from the IRC back channel at a Code4Lib meeting
16
issues ... snapshot at mid-point of workshop
1. co-referencing, reconciliation – across formats, disciplines ... 2. use of extant, well curated metdata – including authority files, ... 3. killer apps – via GLAM communities? ... emergent via web? 4. provenance – attribution / origin / authority 5. staff training; creating, deriving, publishing URIs, making
links, using links in discovery environments 6. usability of data -- “reifiable” 7. QC – immediate and over time – across language boundaries 8. standards for URIs – versioning 9. data curation – i.e. linked data and its various components10. distribution of responsibility – e.g. preserve metadata, content11. feedback, reporting, reward systems, metrics, contribute
linkable data (filling gaps), contribute URIs (SEO issues)
17
issues
12.marketing / outreach – user seduction & training13.workflow14.scalability [an indicator of success, fixes exist]15. indexing – how to get data once you have the link16.use of ontologies17. licensing – focused on metadata at this juncture, content later18.annotation – linked data extended / improved by its consumers19. relationship to e-scholarship (esp. e-science) & e-learning20.cultural diversity (languages, character sets) – existing
schema adequate?21.search engine optimization22.social networking (FaceBook, Google+, ...)
18
extant metadata
reconcile
+ newly minted
vectors: 1. workflow / pipeline
transcode
reconcile
reconcile
revise
publishedcanon
WWWfabric of
linked datavia
algorithm
killerapp(s)
via people
19
+ newly minted
vectors: 1. workflow / pipeline
WWWfabric of
linked data
viaalgorithm
reconcile
reconcilerevise
publishedcanon
killerapp(s)
via people
20
vectors: 2. projects issues
Bring issues to bear in project plans for a real-life project
1. Use cases [3. killer apps]a. put yourself in role of linked-data developer and/or consumer
- what’s needed, what will foster new/better capabilitiesb. what are relationships between this and other data
- what vocabularies, schema, URIs, and models are in playc. components (the test case is journals) [2. extant authorities]
- names, journal & article titles, date ranges, citations, publishers, ISSN, language, topics/classification
d. effect of proposed project [19. relationship to e-scholarship, etc.]
2. Output data representation / modela. [17. licensing] for the metadatab. schema / vocabulary selection
- [8. standards for URIs]- [6. usability] and [20. cultural / language issues ]
3. Production [13. workflows]a. [5. staff training ...]b. [1. co-referencing & reconciliation]c. massive conversion from strings to URIs typical w/ extant data
21
vectors: 2. projects issues
4. Maintenance- production systems vs. new mgmt requirements for linked data- where are updates & revisions applied?- [9. Data curation] and [7. QC, immediate & over time]- [10l shared responsibilities, e.g. metadata preservation]
5. Distribtution - [12. marketing/outreach, user seduction]- [14. scalability]- [21. SEO]- [22. social networking (FaceBook, Google+, etc)]- [15. indexing] and [18. annotation]
22
vectors: 2. projects issues
4. Maintenance- production systems vs. new mgmt requirements for linked data- where are updates & revisions applied?- [9. Data curation] [QC, immediate & over time]- [shared responsibilities, e.g. metadata preservation]
5. Distribtution - [12. marketing/outreach, user seduction]- [14. scalability]- [21. SEO]- [22. social networking (FaceBook, Google+, etc)- [15. indexing] [18. annotation]
6. Metrics [11. feedback, reporting, reward systems, ...]
Value added
linked-data consumers
23
vectors: 2. projects issues
4. Maintenance- production systems vs. new mgmt requirements for linked data- where are updates & revisions applied?- [9. Data curation] [QC, immediate & over time]- [shared responsibilities, e.g. metadata preservation]
5. Distribtution - [12. marketing/outreach, user seduction]- [14. scalability]- [21. SEO]- [22. social networking (FaceBook, Google+, etc)- [15. indexing] [18. annotation]
6. Metrics [11. feedback, reporting, reward systems, ...]
Value added Value accrued
linked-data consumers
metadata producers
24
vectors: 3. cookbook issues
value statementsuse cases
ingestionof data
confidence of data,provenance
publishingdata
providing / engenderingservices
education / outreachuser seduction
25
vectors: 3. cookbook issues
maturity
novice journeyman master
value statementsuse cases
ingestionof data
confidence of data,provenance
publishingdata
providing / engenderingservices
education / outreachuser seduction
26
vectors: 3. cookbook issues
referenceimplementations
maturity
novice journeyman master
value statementsuse cases
ingestionof data
confidence of data,provenance
publishingdata
providing / engenderingservices
education / outreachuser seduction
27
elephants in the room
URIs, not strings• must not underestimate the amount of effort required to transform large subsets of GLAM metadata from flat records into linked data replete with URIs
reconciliation provenance• need plans for mgmt of co-references emerging from large swaths of newly minted GLAM linked data, e.g.
-- norms / vehicles for provenance that track and record reconciliation events, agents, criteria, etc.-- means to track negative co-reference decisions
feedback, reporting, reward systems, metrics• need persuasive justifications for building and supporting linked-data systems for the cultural heritage community
28http://blog.okfn.org/2011/06/24/notes-from-open-metadata-workshop-hague-15th-june-2011/
Notes from Open Metadata Workshop [Europeana] The Hague, 15th June 2011
Posted on June 24, 2011 by Jonathan Gray e.g.
29
30
caveats
mgmt of co-references needs to be a bottom-up process
• funders will pressure to impose standards• risk is that top-down approach will capsize the effort• need to let things grow organically
31
caveats
mgmt of co-references needs to be a bottom-up process
• funders will pressure to impose standards• risk is that top-down approach will capsize the effort• need to let things grow organically
build systems that accept the way the world is, not what you would like it to be
32
caveats
mgmt of co-references needs to be a bottom-up process
• funders will pressure to impose standards• risk is that top-down approach will capsize the effort• need to let things grow organically
build systems that accept the way the world is, not what you would like it to be
focus on changing current practices (in the long run),
not only on reconciling data (in the short run)
33
caveats
mgmt of co-references needs to be a bottom-up process
• funders will pressure to impose standards• risk is that top-down approach will capsize the effort• need to let things grow organically
build systems that accept the way the world is, not what you would like it to be
focus on changing current practices (in the long run),
not only on reconciling data (in the short run)
preventing problems is better than solving them
34
stay tuned
CLIR linked-data survey
Workshop documents• introductory presentations• agendas as they evolved• reports from the work groups• summaries
Proposals for work• specific projects• communities of practice• opportunities to collaborate & contribute