scholarly journals In the Name of the Name: RDF literals, ER attributes and the potential to rethink the structures and visualizations of catalogs

2016 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manolis Peponakis

<p>The aim of this study is to contribute to the field of machine-processable bibliographic data that is suitable for the Semantic Web. We examine the Entity Relationship (ER) model, which has been selected by IFLA as a “conceptual framework” in order to model the FR family (FRBR, FRAD and RDA), and the problems ER causes as we move towards the Semantic Web. Subsequently, while maintaining the semantics of the aforementioned standards but rejecting the ER as a conceptual framework for bibliographic data, this paper builds on the Resource Description Framework (RDF) potential and documents how both the RDF and Linked Data’s rationale can affect the way we model bibliographic data.</p>In this way, a new approach to bibliographic data emerges where the distinction between description and authorities is obsolete. Instead, the integration of the authorities with descriptive information becomes fundamental so that a network of correlations can be established between the entities and the names by which the entities are known. Naming is a vital issue for human cultures because names are not random sequences of characters or sounds which stand just as identifiers for the entities - they also have socio-cultural meanings and interpretations. Thus, instead of describing indivisible resources, we could describe entities that appear in a variety of names on various resources. In this study, a method is proposed to connect the names with the entities they represent and, in this way, to document the provenance of these names by connecting specific resources with specific names.

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 562-582 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Baker ◽  
Karen Coyle ◽  
Sean Petiya

Purpose – The 1998 International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA) document “Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records” (FRBR) has inspired a family of models that view bibliographic resources in terms of multiple entities differentiated with regard to meaning, expression, and physicality. The purpose of this paper is to compare how three FRBR and FRBR-like models have been expressed as Semantic Web vocabularies based on Resource Description Framework (RDF). The paper focusses on IFLA’s own vocabulary for FRBR; RDF vocabularies for Resource Description and Access (RDA), an emergent FRBR-based standard for library cataloging; and BIBFRAME, an emergent FRBR-like, native-RDF standard for bibliographic data. Design/methodology/approach – Simple test records using the RDF vocabularies were analyzed using software that supports inferencing. Findings – In some cases, what the data actually means appears to differ from what the vocabulary developers presumably intended to mean. Data based on the FRBR vocabulary appears particularly difficult to integrate with data based on different models. Practical implications – Some of the RDF vocabularies reviewed in the paper could usefully be simplified, enabling libraries to integrate their data more easily into the wider information ecosystem on the Web. Requirements for data consistency and quality control could be met by emergent standards of the World Wide Web Consortium for validating RDF data according to integrity constraints. Originality/value – There are few such comparisons of the RDF expressions of these models, which are widely assumed to represent the future of library cataloging.


2009 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 55 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martha M. Yee

<span>This paper is a think piece about the possible future of bibliographic control; it provides a brief introduction to the Semantic Web and defines related terms, and it discusses granularity and structure issues and the lack of standards for the efficient display and indexing of bibliographic data. It is also a report on a work in progress—an experiment in building a Resource Description Framework (RDF) model of more FRBRized cataloging rules than those about to be introduced to the library community (Resource Description and Access) and in creating an RDF data model for the rules. I am now in the process of trying to model my cataloging rules in the form of an RDF model, which can also be inspected at </span><a href="http://myee.bol.ucla.edu/">http://myee.bol.ucla.edu/</a><span>. In the process of doing this, I have discovered a number of areas in which I am not sure that RDF is sophisticated enough yet to deal with our data. This article is an attempt to identify some of those areas and explore whether or not the problems I have encountered are soluble—in other words, whether or not our data might be able to live on the Semantic Web. In this paper, I am focusing on raising the questions about the suitability of RDF to our data that have come up in the course of my work.</span>


2004 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 127-151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dragan Gasevic

This paper gives the Petri net ontology as the most important element in providing Petri net support for the Semantic Web. Available Petri net formal descriptions are: metamodels, UML profiles, ontologies and syntax. Metamodels are useful, but their main purpose is for Petri net tools. Although the current Petri-net community effort Petri Net Markup Language (PNML) is XML-based, it lacks a precise definition of semantics. Existing Petri net ontologies are partial solutions specialized for a specific problem. In order to show current Petri net model sharing features we use P3 tool that uses PNML/XSLT-based approach for model sharing. This paper suggests developing the Petri net ontology to represent semantics appropriately. This Petri net ontology is described using UML, Resource Description Framework (Schema) RDF(S) and the Web Ontology Language-OWL.


Author(s):  
Franck Cotton ◽  
Daniel Gillman

Linked Open Statistical Metadata (LOSM) is Linked Open Data (LOD) applied to statistical metadata. LOD is a model for identifying, structuring, interlinking, and querying data published directly on the web. It builds on the standards of the semantic web defined by the W3C. LOD uses the Resource Description Framework (RDF), a simple data model expressing content as predicates linking resources between them or with literal properties. The simplicity of the model makes it able to represent any data, including metadata. We define statistical data as data produced through some statistical process or intended for statistical analyses, and statistical metadata as metadata describing statistical data. LOSM promotes discovery and the meaning and structure of statistical data in an automated way. Consequently, it helps with understanding and interpreting data and preventing inadequate or flawed visualizations for statistical data. This enhances statistical literacy and efforts at visualizing statistics.


Author(s):  
Kaleem Razzaq Malik ◽  
Tauqir Ahmad

This chapter will clearly show the need for better mapping techniques for Relational Database (RDB) all the way to Resource Description Framework (RDF). This includes coverage of each data model limitations and benefits for getting better results. Here, each form of data being transform has its own importance in the field of data science. As RDB is well known back end storage for information used to many kinds of applications; especially the web, desktop, remote, embedded, and network-based applications. Whereas, EXtensible Markup Language (XML) in the well-known standard for data for transferring among all computer related resources regardless of their type, shape, place, capability and capacity due to its form is in application understandable form. Finally, semantically enriched and simple of available in Semantic Web is RDF. This comes handy when with the use of linked data to get intelligent inference better and efficient. Multiple Algorithms are built to support this system experiments and proving its true nature of the study.


2008 ◽  
pp. 3309-3320
Author(s):  
Csilla Farkas

This chapter investigates the threat of unwanted Semantic Web inferences. We survey the current efforts to detect and remove unwanted inferences, identify research gaps, and recommend future research directions. We begin with a brief overview of Semantic Web technologies and reasoning methods, followed by a description of the inference problem in traditional databases. In the context of the Semantic Web, we study two types of inferences: (1) entailments defined by the formal semantics of the Resource Description Framework (RDF) and the RDF Schema (RDFS) and (2) inferences supported by semantic languages like the Web Ontology Language (OWL). We compare the Semantic Web inferences to the inferences studied in traditional databases. We show that the inference problem exists on the Semantic Web and that existing security methods do not fully prevent indirect data disclosure via inference channels.


Author(s):  
Giorgos Laskaridis ◽  
Konstantinos Markellos ◽  
Penelope Markellou ◽  
Angeliki Panayiotaki ◽  
Athanasios Tsakalidis

The emergence of semantic Web opens up boundless new opportunities for e-business. According to Tim Berners-Lee, Hendler, and Lassila (2001), “the semantic Web is an extension of the current Web in which information is given well-defined meaning, better enabling computers and people to work in cooperation”. A more formal definition by W3C (2001) refers that, “the semantic Web is the representation of data on the World Wide Web. It is a collaborative effort led by W3C with participation from a large number of researchers and industrial partners. It is based on the resource description framework (RDF), which integrates a variety of applications using eXtensible Markup Language (XML) for syntax and uniform resource identifiers (URIs) for naming”. The capability of the semantic Web to add meaning to information, stored in such way that it can be searched and processed as well as recent advances in semantic Web-based technologies provide the mechanisms for semantic knowledge representation, exchange and collaboration of e-business processes and applications.


Author(s):  
Sikha Bagui ◽  
Richard Sweetman

In this paper the authors present a conceptual framework for translating Service Data Objects (SDOs) and XML’s SDOs to the Entity Relational (ER) Model. With the increasing dependence on service oriented architectures and the increasing need for SDOs in service oriented architectures (SOA), it is important to have a good understanding of SDOs in terms of the ER model so that SDOs can be easily converted to the relational model. In this paper they show how common SDO constructs and XML’s SDO constructs conceptually map to the ER model.


2011 ◽  
pp. 254-273
Author(s):  
Rolf Grutter ◽  
Claus Eikemeier ◽  
Johann Steurer

It is the vision of the protagonists of the Semantic Web to achieve “a set of connected applications for data on the Web in such a way as to form a consistent logical Web of data” (Berners-Lee, 1998, p. 1). Therefore, the Semantic Web approach develops languages for expressing information in a machine-processable form (“machine-understandable” in terms of the Semantic Web community). Particularly, the Resource Description Framework, RDF (Lassila & Swick, 1999), and RDF Schema, RDFS (Brickley & Guha, 2000), are considered as the foundations for the implementation of the Semantic Web. RDF provides a data model and a serialization language; RDFS a distinguished vocabulary to model class and property hierarchies and other basic schema primitives that can be referred to from RDF models, thereby allowing for the modeling of object models with cleanly defined semantics. The idea behind this approach is to provide a common minimal framework for the description of Web resources while allowing for application-specific extensions (Berners-Lee, 1998). Such extensions in terms of additional classes and/or properties must be documented in an application-specific schema. Application-specific schemata can be integrated into RDFS by the namespace mechanism (Bray, Hollander & Layman, 1999). Namespaces provide a simple method for qualifying element and attribute names used in RDF documents by associating them with namespaces identified by URI (Uniform Resource Identifier) references (Berners-Lee, Fielding, Irvine & Masinter, 1998).


Heritage ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 1471-1498 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ikrom Nishanbaev ◽  
Erik Champion ◽  
David A. McMeekin

The amount of digital cultural heritage data produced by cultural heritage institutions is growing rapidly. Digital cultural heritage repositories have therefore become an efficient and effective way to disseminate and exploit digital cultural heritage data. However, many digital cultural heritage repositories worldwide share technical challenges such as data integration and interoperability among national and regional digital cultural heritage repositories. The result is dispersed and poorly-linked cultured heritage data, backed by non-standardized search interfaces, which thwart users’ attempts to contextualize information from distributed repositories. A recently introduced geospatial semantic web is being adopted by a great many new and existing digital cultural heritage repositories to overcome these challenges. However, no one has yet conducted a conceptual survey of the geospatial semantic web concepts for a cultural heritage audience. A conceptual survey of these concepts pertinent to the cultural heritage field is, therefore, needed. Such a survey equips cultural heritage professionals and practitioners with an overview of all the necessary tools, and free and open source semantic web and geospatial semantic web platforms that can be used to implement geospatial semantic web-based cultural heritage repositories. Hence, this article surveys the state-of-the-art geospatial semantic web concepts, which are pertinent to the cultural heritage field. It then proposes a framework to turn geospatial cultural heritage data into machine-readable and processable resource description framework (RDF) data to use in the geospatial semantic web, with a case study to demonstrate its applicability. Furthermore, it outlines key free and open source semantic web and geospatial semantic platforms for cultural heritage institutions. In addition, it examines leading cultural heritage projects employing the geospatial semantic web. Finally, the article discusses attributes of the geospatial semantic web that require more attention, that can result in generating new ideas and research questions for both the geospatial semantic web and cultural heritage fields.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document