Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

  • Providing discovery endpoints
    • ‘hardened’ SPARQL endpoints may be less prone to down time – e.g., Fuseki documentation states that "authentication and control of the number of concurrent requests can be added using an Apache server"
  • publishing starting points with examples and standard extracts may help
    • emulate Social Explorer http://socialexplorer.com as a way to query the contents of a larger data source, in that case census data
    • the linked data fragments technology (http://linkeddatafragments.org) may facilitate hosting linked data without the server-side overhead and risk of a public SPARQL endpoint
  • VIVO/Vitro 'rich export' – augmenting standard linked data responses with standard queries
    • e.g., get all a person's publications from a single request rather than client having to issue multiple requests
  • Semantic Web crawling leveraging HTML web crawler experience

Synchronizing harvested information

  • Risk of harvested or aggregated information going out of sync
    • Resource sync standard addressed the need to repeatedly synchronize and update
  • Semantic Web crawling leveraging HTML web crawler experience
    • what's attached
    • what has changed

Desire to be able to query on different axes

...

Reconciliation services

  • not necessarily centralized or monopolies
  • would work best in an iterative mode, with curation and provenance to manage difference of opinion (or evidence)
    • who's made that assertion – differentiate librarians from crowdsourcing
    • some way to express variable confidence levels
  • incorporate feedback from users
  • need protocols – could leverage a common API for reconciliation building on the OpenRefine API — specify as much metadata as you have, get ranked results back
  • surface (publish) the results – known servers, as with annotations – select which servers to request responses or harvest data from
    • notifications of new matches?
    • ability to +1 or thumbs-up the connection to corroborate – Reddit gets a lot of traction that way
    • repeating assertions in multiple repositories
  • sameAs.org but with other expressions for and levels of confidence in the relationship

Validation

  • RDF data shapes working group
  • DCMI tutorial on RDF validation
  • Measure the consistency of ontology use
  • Linked data needs mashup tools that test connections and illustrate bringing data together

Ontology extension mechanisms

Ability to push bookmarks

  • Small graphs of data, consumable by others, to a platform similar to Mendeley but not limited to bibliographic material
  • A service where I can push the results of my search, organized by topic
  • Add things to a collection I have 
  • Similar to an annotation service
  • You search, you refine it, you step back — now only save as bookmarks at one level
  • Nobody can use your web bookmarks now
centralized entity mapping
feedback by users on the mapping
need protocols
want to discover annotation — known servers with protocols 
collections have been done by many different places
if we do linked data, my list is a list of URIs from many sources
on the UI won’t see that
assuming accessible SPARQL endpoints
3
other cleanup tasks —  validation? consistency of ontology use
entity recognition — text mining or analytics for tools — autotaggers
4
constant crawling graphs of linked data
semantically aware web crawling — is it worth going down this path, what’s attached, what has changed
5
provenance space — who’s made a particular assertion for that
in the library domain, could imagine a layer about who’s responsible for an assertion
unspecified.
crowd sourcing — as move up toward the general public, typically track less who did it
variable credibility
acknowledge that
nanopublications
===== group 4 ====
reconciliation services — contains no data, queries a distributed set of resources
  • Hide the URIs behind a UI

Additional ideas

  • Semantic autotagging
  • Nanopublications – breaking academic articles into independent assertions with a mechanism to agree/disagree
  • Side wikis – a plugin for the Netscape browser where a wiki could be associated with any web page and display additional, user-entered content or commentary on any web page
  • individual libraries will become the authorities for special collections — items, people, events
    • queries to a central

...

    • area would find a match
    • cache the sameAs so don’t have to re-query

...

    • ; everybody who consumes has the cross-links
    • the sort of thing that OCLC might end up doing

...

    • could be any type of object — logical to start with

...

brings up the questions of the degrees of sameAs ness
when a new match is known, publish that — a notification mechanism
you would provenance those links to indicate where came from
used to be a plug-in for Netscape where a side-wiki and annotate — anybody could see what everyone else had done
now in the world of unique identifiers — a linkerator - for people to rank what they see
build up ant trails over time, around an object
how to make it in any way central — get it to the browser
how about the annotation example?
regular expressions against EAD for an object to suggest what they link to
    • works
  • regular expressions to apply against EAD to suggest what is linked to; feed into a system to validate

...

  • , then give pointers to the link

...

other levels of relationship than sameAs

...

  • a clustering algorithm

...

  • to track the number of times a link between two entities is traversed,

...

emergence sorting
software crawling the graph - how do you figure out what to trust? the world according to professor X or Y
trust is very tricky
  • effectively shortening the distance between them
  • a better

...

  • page rank algorithm for linked data

...

strenghthen the nodes to repeat confidence
repeating assertions in multiple repositories — I agree with them, the +1 or thumbs up
Reddit gets a lot of traction
nanopublications
if you reify assertions — to add confidence where have more knowledge or curation
confidence levels
wikipedia has a way to accept 
no confidence in semantic search engines
  • anybody a favorite semantic search engine (no – too siloed)

...

  • visualizations have to be crafted individually