Transcript Ontopia & the Ontopia Knowledge Suite™

S. C. PEPPER
“The minority is always right”
Henrik Ibsen
THE SHAPE OF TOPIC MAPS
TO COME
Closing
SWOT Analysis
Topic Maps
Norway /
Emnekart 2006
Steve Pepper, Ontopia
Coordinator RDF/TM Task Force
Convenor SC34/WG 3
The Shape of Topic Maps to Come
• Issues I’d like to talk about:
• The range of applications of Topic Maps
• The untapped power of Topic Maps
• The state of the ISO Topic Maps standard
• The relationship to the Semantic Web
• This presentation is structured as a SWOT analysis
© 2006 Ontopia AS –
www.ontopia.net
Slide 2
Topic Maps Norway / Emnekart 2006
So wot’s a SWOT?
• WordNet
(http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=swot)
– S: (n) swot, grind, nerd, wonk, dweeb (an insignificant
student who is ridiculed as being affected or studying
excessively)
• Stupid Waste of Time
• Stichting Wetenschappelijke Opleidingen Twente
• Surface Warfare Over-the-horizon Targeting
• Student With Outstanding Talent
• Study Without Teachers
• Semantic Web Ontology Train
• Strengths – Weaknesses – Opportunities – Threats
© 2006 Ontopia AS –
www.ontopia.net
Slide 3
Topic Maps Norway / Emnekart 2006
STRENGTHS
• An elegant, flexible and intuitive model of knowledge
• Status as an international standard under the democratic
control of the member bodies of ISO
• A passionate and committed community (장인)
• No big players pushing their own agenda
• Ready to go…
• …and in use today, all around the world
– Witness all the case studies today
– Norway, at least, has pretty much “crossed the chasm”
© 2006 Ontopia AS –
www.ontopia.net
Slide 4
Topic Maps Norway / Emnekart 2006
Chasm theory
• Theory of the technology adoption life cycle
• Developed by Geoffrey Moore in Crossing the chasm
• The tricky part is moving from early adopter phase to early majority phase
• In Norway, Topic Maps has pretty much crossed the chasm
• The “early majority” are listening (ref. today’s presentation on
regjeringen.no)
• Public sector portals are our “beachhead”
• Now we start to spread out: geographically, and into other verticals
and horizontals
Adoption of Innovations
Technology Adoption Curve
Group
Innovators
Motivation
Technology “High”
• Early Adopters
Early Adopters
Competitive Edge
• Early Majority
Early Majority
Productivity
• Late Majority
Late Majority
Conformity
Laggards
Compliance
• Innovators
C
h
34%
34%
13.5% a
16%
Early s
Early
Late
2.5%
Innovators adopters m majority majority Laggards
Technology Adoption Curve
• Laggards
Technical
Practical
Visionary
Conservative
Time of adoption of innovations
Source: http://faculty.msb.edu/homak/HomaHelpSite/slides/Crossing%20the%20Chasm%20-%20Presentation.ppt
© 2006 Ontopia AS –
www.ontopia.net
Slide 5
Topic Maps Norway / Emnekart 2006
South Korea
• Pansori Web Site
– Korean folk music
• Subject of a study
submitted to ASIST
(American Society for
Information Science and
Technology)
300
250
200
CPRS
150
TMPRS
100
50
0
T1
© 2006 Ontopia AS –
www.ontopia.net
T2
T3
Slide 6
T4
T5
T6
User
Query
Mean
Topic Maps Norway / Emnekart 2006
United States
•
DoE National Nuclear
Security Administration
•
The DoE’s Y-12 plant
uses Topic Maps for
asset management
•
The purpose is to get an
overview of
–
–
–
–
–
•
equipment,
processes,
materials required,
parts already built,
etc.
Y-12 manufactures
nuclear weapons
– So I can’t show you a
screen shot…
© 2006 Ontopia AS –
www.ontopia.net
Slide 7
Topic Maps Norway / Emnekart 2006
New Zealand Electronic Text Centre
• Mission:
– To create a
sustainable,
optimally usable,
and free online
library of New
Zealand and
Pacific Island texts
and materials
• Site built using
Open Source
TM4J
– Topic Maps for
navigation
© 2006 Ontopia AS –
www.ontopia.net
Slide 8
Topic Maps Norway / Emnekart 2006
Taxation: The IRS Tax Map
•
When taxpayers call
the IRS for assistance,
they don’t always get
the right answer.
•
Too much information,
changing rapidly.
•
The call centres
receive up to
1,000,000 calls a day.
•
The answer? Topic
Maps
•
Built by Michel
Biezunski and Steve
Newcomb
•
Distributed on CDROM to every taxpayer
in the US
© 2006 Ontopia AS –
www.ontopia.net
Slide 9
Topic Maps Norway / Emnekart 2006
Norway: Kulturnett.no
• Principal portal of the
Ministry of Culture
• Most advanced of the
many Topic Mapsbased portals in
Norway
• Currently populating
the TM with more and
better data…
• … and building a
PSI Server as the
foundation for a
national knowledge
base of Norwegian
culture
© 2006 Ontopia AS –
www.ontopia.net
Slide 10
Topic Maps Norway / Emnekart 2006
WEAKNESSES
• Not enough tools (but those that are, are pretty good)
• Insufficient penetration of industry (at least in Norway)
• Meagre toehold in academia (as yet, but TMRA will help)
• Lack of books on Topic Maps (mine is progressing)
• No big players to fund the work
• Too few active participants in standards work…
© 2006 Ontopia AS –
www.ontopia.net
Slide 11
Topic Maps Norway / Emnekart 2006
Standards Work: Current State
• ISO 13250 Topic Maps: New 7-part version of on its way:
– Part 2 (Data Model) undergoing final ballot
– Part 3 (XTM 2.0) to go to ballot in June
– Parts 1 (Introduction), 4 (Canonicalization), 5 (Reference Model)
in the works
– Parts 6 (Compact Syntax) and 7 (Graphical Notation) proposed
• ISO 18048 Topic Maps Query Language (TMQL)
– In the works
• ISO 19756 Topic Maps Constraint Language (TMCL)
– Ditto
• More experts needed: Get signed up with Standards
Norway
– More information: www.isotopicmaps.org
© 2006 Ontopia AS –
www.ontopia.net
Slide 12
Topic Maps Norway / Emnekart 2006
OPPORTUNITIES
• Enormous!
• The market is ready
– Witness all the talk about metadata, taxonomies and ontologies
– Those that put all their bets on search engines are being
disappointed
• There exists a real need that Topic Maps can meet
TODAY
– The range of applications is staggering
– Potential to become as important as RDBs
• The topic mapping of the Norwegian National Curriculum
is an event of global importance
– Please tell the world about itSlide! 13
© 2006 Ontopia AS –
www.ontopia.net
Topic Maps Norway / Emnekart 2006
THREATS (1 of 2)
• #1: The mistaken belief that the TAO is all there is
• Most Topic Maps applications we see today only use
a fraction of the real potential; they are “Proto-Topic
Maps”
– Only use topics, associations, and occurrences
– Limited number of topic types, association types, and
occurrence types
– Scope, reification, and merging yet to be fully exploited
• You ain’t seen nothin’ yet
• The biggest limitation is our own imaginations!
© 2006 Ontopia AS –
www.ontopia.net
Slide 14
Topic Maps Norway / Emnekart 2006
(associative)
Relationship Groups
Classification and
categorization
Weakly-structured
Ontology
Semantic networks
Concept
mapsmaps
TAO topic
Thesaurus
Thesauri
Faceted classification
Taxonomies
Classification schemes
Mind Maps
Facet classification
Taxonomies
Categorization schemes
Subject
Headings
Classification schemes
Classification
(hierarchical) &
Categorization
Weakly structured
Full topic maps
Ontologies
Strongly-structured
Strongly structured
Today’s applications (on a logarithmic scale)
Term
Lists
SubjectSynonym
headingsRings
Authority
Synonym rings Files
Term
Lists
Controlled Vocabulary
(flat)
Authority Lists
Controlled Vocabulary
Natural language
Controlled language
Natural language
© 2006 Ontopia AS –
www.ontopia.net
Formal, standardized language
Slide 15
Topic Maps Norway / Emnekart 2006
Scope
• For handling the (very human) problem of context
• Currently used mostly when topics have multiple names
(to express the contexts in which to use which name)
• But there are many other, very powerful, and as yet
untapped uses:
–
–
–
–
Multiple world views
Contextual knowledge
Traceable knowledge aggregation
Personalized knowledge
• One good Norwegian example:
– www.hoyre.no uses scope to enable over 400 different web sites
(one per local branch) from a single topic map
© 2006 Ontopia AS –
www.ontopia.net
Slide 16
Topic Maps Norway / Emnekart 2006
Reification
•
Provides a “zoom” mechanism for topic maps
a) Simple relationships are expressed as associations:
•
( Henrik Ibsen ) wrote ( An Enemy of the People )
b) To say more about that event, reify the association :
•
( ( Henrik Ibsen ) wrote ( An Enemy of the People ) )
while living in ( Gossensass )
c) This statement can then itself be reified:
•
•
( ( ( Henrik Ibsen ) wrote ( An Enemy of the People ) )
while living in ( Gossensass ) )
according to ( Michael Meyer ) ) )
Using reification, applications can let you “zoom in” from
(a) 50,000 feet, to (b) 10,000 feet, to (c) 1,000 feet –
and “zoom out” again, as necessary
© 2006 Ontopia AS –
www.ontopia.net
Slide 17
Topic Maps Norway / Emnekart 2006
Merging
• The most powerful feature of Topic Maps is the ability to
automatically merge arbitrary topic maps
• This makes it possible to
–
–
–
–
Collate information from disparate sources
Integrate legacy data systems
Aggregate knowledge across different organizations
Realize a Norwegian National Knowledge Base
• See next slide (from 2001) and
http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/kronikker/article242930.ece
• Successful merging requires careful use of identifiers
– PSIs (Published Subject Indicators) are the key to this
– Keep an eye on developments at psi.kulturnett.no – and follow
their example
© 2006 Ontopia AS –
www.ontopia.net
Slide 18
Topic Maps Norway / Emnekart 2006
Det uunngåelige Ibsen-eksempelet
“virkelighet”
emnekart
skrev
skrev
Nora
Henrik
Ibsen
Hedda
Gabler
Dr. Rank
Skien
Cap
Lex
SNL
NBL
Cap
Lex
Helmer
Et dukkehjem
A doll’s house
født i
andre emnekart
Krogstad
flettes inn ...
Fru Linde
kunnskap
SNL
SNL
Ibsensenter
Ibsensenter
informasjon
Ibsensenter
Ibsensenter
SNL
Skien
kommune
Ibsensenter
Ibsensenter
THREATS (2 of 2)
• #2 The widespread belief that RDF/OWL is a competitor
– RDF/OWL are languages of the Semantic Web
– Some people fear they might be betting on the wrong horse
• Semantic Web gets much more of the limelight
– Partly because the W3C can bask in the glamour of the Web
– Partly because RDF and OWL appeal more to academics
• Why the perceived competition with Topic Maps?
– Partly because RDF/OWL and TMs have a number of similarities
– Partly because they stem from rival organizations (W3C and
ISO)
– Partly because there are a few bigots (in each camp)
– Mostly because people do not fully understand the difference
© 2006 Ontopia AS –
www.ontopia.net
Slide 20
Topic Maps Norway / Emnekart 2006
Yes, they are similar in many ways
• Both “extend” XML into the realm of semantics
• Both allow assertions to be made about subjects in the outside world
• Both define abstract, associative (graph-based) models
• Both are intensely concerned with “identity”
• Both allow some measure of inferencing or reasoning
• Both have XML-based interchange syntaxes
• Both have constraint languages and query languages
• und so weiter
• But they are also different in some crucial respects…
© 2006 Ontopia AS –
www.ontopia.net
Slide 21
Topic Maps Norway / Emnekart 2006
The Most Crucial Differences
• RDF/OWL is for
machines;
Topic Maps is for
humans.
• RDF/OWL is optimized for inferencing;
Topic Maps is optimized for findability.
• RDF/OWL is based on formal logic;
Topic Maps is not based on formal logic.
• RDF/OWL is to mathematics as
Topic Maps is to language.
© 2006 Ontopia AS –
www.ontopia.net
Slide 22
Topic Maps Norway / Emnekart 2006
Who can tell me what this is?
• Is it an H or an A?
• Human or Agent?
H H A A
HH A A
T EC
© 2006 Ontopia AS –
www.ontopia.net
Slide 23
Topic Maps Norway / Emnekart 2006
Different capabilities
• RDF/OWL, to support logic-based inferencing, cannot
afford to be “fuzzy”;
Topic Maps, because it is for humans, has to support
fuzziness.
• OWL ontologies tend to be very stringent and complex;
Topic Maps ontologies tend to be simpler and less formal.
• OWL has properties for things that Topic Maps doesn’t
need;
Topic Maps has features that would be too complex for
OWL.
• So you need to decide what it is you really need…
© 2006 Ontopia AS –
www.ontopia.net
Slide 24
Topic Maps Norway / Emnekart 2006
RDF or Topic Maps: Some Rules of Thumb
• Do you simply want to encode document metadata?
– RDF is ideal and you won’t need OWL
• Do you want to achieve subject-based classification of
content?
– Topic Maps provides the best combination of flexibility and
user-friendliness
• Do you want both metadata and subject-based
classification?
– Go straight for Topic Maps, because it also supports metadata
• Do you want to develop agent-based applications?
– Use RDF/OWL; if you already have Topic Maps, you’re
already half way there
• Whatever you choose, know that you can move your data
between Topic Maps and RDF,Slide
thanks
to the RDFTM
25
© 2006 Ontopia AS –
Topic Maps Norway / Emnekart 2006
www.ontopia.net
work…
The RDF/TM task force
• A W3C task force supported by the ISO Topic Maps group
– Chartered to address RDF/Topic Maps interoperability
– Working within the Semantic Web Activity of the W3C
• http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/RDFTM/
• “Survey of RDF/Topic Maps Interoperability Proposals” published
3’05
• http://www.w3.org/TR/rdftm-survey/
• “Guidelines for RDF/Topic Maps Interoperability” at draft stage
• http://www.ontopia.net/work/guidelines.html
• Focus on data interoperability:
“The primary goal of these Guidelines is to enable data to be translated
from one form to the other without unacceptable loss of information or
corruption of the semantics. Further goals are to be able to query the
results of a translation in terms of the target model and to share
across the two paradigms.”
Slide 26
© 2006 Ontopiavocabularies
AS –
Topic Maps Norway / Emnekart 2006
www.ontopia.net
SWOT Summary
• We have a lot of strengths.
• We still have some weaknesses.
• The opportunities are immense.
• The threats are mostly in our own minds.
• As practitioners of Topic Maps, we are still a minority,
but we have the future on our side
• Which brings us back to Dr. Stockmann…
© 2006 Ontopia AS –
www.ontopia.net
Slide 27
Topic Maps Norway / Emnekart 2006
The minority is always right…
Emnekart 2006
“The minority is
alway right”
An Enemy of the
People
Henrik Ibsen
Dr. Stockmann
Dr. Newcomb
William Archer
Colonel Newcome
Vanity Fair
The Newcomes
William Makepeace
Thackeray
© 2006 Ontopia AS –
www.ontopia.net
Slide 28
“The minority is always
right... I think of the few
individuals among us who
have made all the new,
germinating truths their own.
These men stand, as it
were, at the outposts, so far
in advance that the compact
majority has not yet reached
them–and there they fight
for truths that are too lately
borne into the world's
consciousness to have won
over the majority.”
Henrik Ibsen
An Enemy of the People
1882
Topic Maps Norway / Emnekart 2006
Og for øvrig så
mener jeg at
Norges
nasjonale
kunnskapsbase
må baseres på
emnekart!
En
folkefiende
First edition* (1882) of Henrik
Ibsen’s An Enemy of the People,
presented to the Inventor of Topic
Maps,
Dr. Steven R.
Newcomb
* IBSEN, HENRIK: En folkefiende. Kbh. 1882.
(4) + 219 + (1) s. Orig., dek. helshirtingbd., rødt.
Helt gullsn.
Topic Maps Norway / Emnekart 2006