Digital Libraries of the Future: Use of Semantic Web and Social Bookmarking to support E-learning in Digital Libraries

Copyright 2006 Digital Enterprise Research Institute. All rights reserved.

www.deri.ie

Digital Libraries of the FutureUse of Semantic Web and Social Bookmarking to

support E-learning in Digital Libraries

Sebastian Ryszard KrukDigital Enterprise Research Institute

National University of Ireland, Galway

[email protected]://corrib.deri.ie/

2

Presentation outline

• Motivation• Building Social Semantic Digital Library

– Semantic Digital Libraries

– Towards Online Communities for Digital Libraries

• JeromeDL and other Corrib components– Motivation and Overview

– Architecture and Ontologies

– Semantic Services

– Social Services

– Semantics in Use

• JeromeDL in Action• e-Learning 2.0• Conclusions

3

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?

4








– Social Services



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 – high quality semantics = highly and meaningfully connected information

– provide interoperability with other systems (not only digital libraries) on either metadata or communication level or both – RDF as common denominator between digital libraries and other services

– delivering more robust, user friendly and adaptable search and browsing interfaces empowered by semantics

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

9

Taxonomy of Knowledge Organization Systems

• Term Lists

– Authority files (FOAF)

– Glossaries

– Dictionaries

– Gazetteers

• Classifications and Categories (DMoz)

– Subject headings

– Classification schemes

– Taxonomies

– Categorization Schemes.

• Relationship Lists

– Thesauri (WordNet, MeSH)

– Semantic networks

– Ontologies

(Hodge, 2000)

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

11








– Social Services



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

• 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

Social Semantic Information Spaces

Semantic Social NetworksOnline Social NetworksBuddy Lists, Address Books

Semantic Social Information Spaces

--

Social Semantic Digital Social Semantic Digital LibrariesLibraries

Google Scholar, Book Search

CiteSeer, Project Gutenberg

Semantic Forums and Community Portals

Community PortalsMessage Boards

Semantic BlogsBlogsPersonal Websites

Semantic SearchGoogle Personalised, DumbFind

Altavista, Google

Semantic WikisWikisContent Management

Systems

Semantic Web 2.0Semantic Web 2.0Web 2.0Web 2.0Web 1.0Web 1.0

Comparing Web 1.0 / Web 2.0 / Semantic Web 2.0

Evolution of Libraries

Social Semantic Digital LibraryInvolves the community into sharing knowledge

Semantic Digital LibraryAccessible by machines, not only with machines

Digital LibraryOnline, easy searching with a full-text index

LibraryOrganized 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

18








– Social Services



JeromeDL - Introduction

• Joint effort of DERI, National University of Ireland, Galway

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.

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

21








– Social Services



JeromeDL – Architecture

• Resources and

annotations repository

• Middleware:– query processing

– community space

– resources management

• User interface agents:

• Communication to the

outside world

• Administrative interface

23

Structure ontology in JeromeDL

24

Bibliographic (MarcOnt) Ontology in JeromeDL

25

Community-aware (FOAFRealm) ontology

Ontologies in JeromeDL

27

Metadata and Services in JeromeDL

28








– Social Services



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

Sugested Poposals

Initial Ontology

Proposal discussion

Proposal anotations

Proposal votingProposal autopromoting

Versioning

Next RevisionMarcOnt Portal

MarcOnt Ontology: Central point of MarcOnt Initiative

Translation and mediation format

Continuos collaborative ontology

improvement

Knowledge from the domain experts

MarcOnt Portal (source of

knowledge):• Suggestions

• Annotations

• Versioning

• Ontology editor

31

MarcOnt Mediation Services for Legacy Metadata

MarcOnt OntologyMarcOnt RDF

MARC21 RDF

MARC21 XML

MARC21

Dublin Core RDF

Dublin Core XML

Dublin Core

New format RDF

New format XML

New format

Format translation

RDF Translator

Format co-operation

MarcOnt Mediation Services

32








– Social Services



33

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

34

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

35

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 DMoz or 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

36

Example of Social Semantic Collaborative Filtering

foaf:knows

xfoaf:include

xfoaf:bookmark

Social Networks in Digital Libraries

Resource

xfoaf:Annotation

user_C

creator_B

foaf:knows

marcont:hasCreator

creator_A

foaf:knows

foaf:knows

xfoaf:Directory

user_D

xfoaf:owns

xfoaf:linksTo

xfoaf:isIn

38

Support foronline communities

in SSCF

39

Support foronline communities

in SSCF

40








– Social Services



JeromeDL – Delivering Semantic Content

• Providing semantic annotations during uploading process:

– open module for handling any taxonomies

– keywords based on WordNet and free tagging

– defining structure of resources in the JeromeDL ontology

• Lifting legacy metadata to MarcOnt ontology

• Community maintained annotations

– social semantic collaborative filtering

– semantic descriptions based on the FOAF metadata

42

Annotating Library Resources

JeromeDL – Semantic Information In Use

• Searching:– Keyword-based search with semantic query expansion

– Semantic search:• Direct RDF quering

• Natural language templates

• Browsing– Exibit

– MultiBeeBrowse

• Sharing:– Social Semantic Collaborative Filtering

– Semantically Interlinked Online Communities

• Heterogeneous communication:– Bibster, A9, OAI-PMH

44

Exposing Semantic Annotations

45

Filtering Resources in JeromeDL

46

Sharing Knowledge with SSCF

Information Retrieval in JeromeDL

Fulltext Index

StructureRepository

MarcOntRepository

Resources’Content

FOAFRealmRepository

(typed)keywords

RDF & NLQuery

OpenSearchRSS

collaborativefiltering

localinterface

distributedinterface

types translation

semantic queryexpansion

RDF Repositories Secure Snapshot

Networks of Digital Libraries

• ELP (Extensible Library Protocol) implementation

– communication within JeromeDL network

– adapters for communication with other networks

• D-FOAF integration (distributed user profile management)

– single sign on and single registration within D-FOAF network

• HyperCuP integration (scalable P2P network)

• Independent ELP network entry point:

http://search.jeromedl.org/

0 0

11

0

0

11

0

2 2

22

49

JeromeDL in Action

50








– Social Services



51

Web 1.0 e-Learning

Creation

Consumption

52

Web 2.0 e-Learning

Creation

Communities

Consumption

53

Semantic Web e-Learning

Semantic sources

Creation

Consumption

54

Semantic Web 2.0 e-Learning

Contribution

Creation

Consumption

Communities

Semantic sources

55

Didaskon project

• Deliver a framework for assemblying an on-demand 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) – IKHarvester– 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 e-Learning

57

• 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

E-Learning Solution based on Social Sem. DL

58

E-Learning Solution based on Social Sem. DL

59

• 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

Evaluation of e-Learning Solution based on SSDL

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 bread-

crumbs 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 one of the first digital library that aims to implement these services

• Growing number of JeromeDL instances world-wide: http://wiki.jeromedl.org/Instances

63

JJeromeDL answereromeDL answers s various expectationsvarious expectations

asas the Digital Library on the Digital Library on Social Semantic Information Social Semantic Information SpacesSpaces

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

Sebastian Ryszard KrukDERI, NUI Galway, Ireland

[email protected]

Business

Digital Libraries of the Future: Use of Semantic Web and Social Bookmarking to support E-learning in Digital Libraries