Transcript The Semantic Web, RDF, Ontology & Library Systems Name: Mariaan Smit & Eleta Grimbeek Job Title: Metadata Email: [email protected], [email protected] Tel: 012 643 9500

The Semantic Web,
RDF, Ontology &
Library Systems
Name: Mariaan Smit & Eleta Grimbeek
Job Title: Metadata
Email: [email protected], [email protected]
Tel: 012 643 9500
What is happening?
 Libraries are no longer the first place users search for information
 Users live in a highly interactive, networked world - turn to Web search
engines for their information needs. This new generation of users finds
library OPACs, difficult to use, and unnecessarily limited by a single
library's boundaries.
 The Internet especially “
(
“) changed the
way users get information.
 To get user attention, we must:
• Join the larger world of information.
 Learn how information attracts users, and take advantage of their
interest.
What We Must Leave Behind
 Metadata based on catalog cards
 Library software that can’t sort search results better than
“random” or “alphabetic”
 Search interfaces, even Librarians don’t like (and we know the
data)
 Static HTML pages that don’t attract interest, or give guidance.
 Silos for
 books,
 journal articles,
 images, e-books,

digitized books.
How are we going to do it ?
Tools
Technology & abstract concepts
To understand the Semantic Web, RDF, OWL etc.
we must create a pattern of information and form
a knowledge about it.
Symbolic Thinking Tools encourage us to……
 form symbolic mental images of our world,
according to Csikszentmihalyi (1990):” ..playing with ideas is
exhilarating.”
It’s Time to Explore
“The Web is the new platform”
 Explore tools and techniques for sharing bibliographic data.
 Express library standards in machine-readable and machineactionable formats, especially developed for use on the Web.
 Responsibility of those wanting to build a Semantic Web:
look beyond modern library limitations, and Explore functions
that have sustained the library as main custodian of information.
New Pieces in the Puzzle








Web 2.0
Semantic Web (Web 3.0)
RDF
SPARQL
OWL
SKOS
XML
OWL
ILS
RDF
WEB
SPARQL
XML
New words for the pieces
 Semantic Web: - Web 3.0
 RDF: Resource Description Framework (a W3C standard)
 RDF Schema: Vocabulary description language of RDF
 SPARQL: The query language of the Semantic Web
 OWL: Web Ontology Language
 SKOS: Simple Knowledge Organisation System (a W3C standard)
 An RDF application
 ILS: Integrated Library Systems
Towards the Semantic Web
Where did it all start?
 It all began in 1974 with TCP/IP – the language of communication
between computer connections
 In 1990 hyperlinks emerge – it interconnected documents and content
 The semantic wave embraces the three stages of internet growth.

The first stage was, Web 1.0, - connecting information and getting on net.
 Web 2.0 is about connecting people — putting the “I” in user interface, and
the “we” into a web of social participation.
 Web 3.0, is starting now. It is about representing meanings, and
connecting knowledge
Web 1.0
Read only web
Mostly flat information
Put content on the web
Netscape
Limited content
Limited creativity
Little engagement or Interactivity
Works but is clunky, not that efficient,
technically limited
Web 2.0
Read-write web
Collaboration
Power of Networks
Greater interactivity
Google
User generated content
Growth of social media / social
networking/ sharing content
Online communities created / social capital
Smoother experience, looks better
Still lacks cohesion
Connects people
Web 3.0
Semantic web
Joining up of information
Data portability
Meaning of data
Technological change
iGoogle
Browsers and search engines
become more ‘intelligent’
Greater scope for exploration
Limitless potential, smart
Connects everything
The Current Web

The current Web (Web 2.0) :
 Difficult for machine processing
 Needs only a single program to access it: a browser.
 Okay for humans
 set of Resources and Links identified by URL's (Uniform Resource Links)
•
It's made with computers but for people. The sites you visit every day use
natural language, images and page layout to present information in a way that's
easy for you to understand. Even though they are central to creating and
maintaining the Web, the computers themselves really can't make sense of
all this information. They can't read, see relationships or make decisions like
you can.

Exciting world – connects people, building networks
The Current Web
The Semantic Web
A Logical Extension to the Current Web
 Machines will be able to consume machine-readable information, better,
enabling computers and people to work, learn and exchange knowledge effectively
 Extensible; Relational
 Resources and Links are identified by URI's (Uniform Resource Identifiers)
 Web 3.0 is powered by semantic technologies.
The Semantic Web proposes to help computers "read" and use the Web.
The big idea is pretty simple -- metadata added to Web pages can make the
existing World Wide Web machine readable.
This won't bestow artificial intelligence or make computers self-aware, but it will
give machines tools to find, exchange and, to a limited extent, interpret
information.
 It's an extension of, not a replacement for, the World Wide Web.
Overview of the Semantic Web
Sir Tim Berners-Lee is the greatest technological pioneer
Britain has produced over the last 30 years - and has been
rewarded with all kinds of honours, from his knighthood, to
the Millennium Technology Prize, to Time Magazine's list of
the 100 most influential people of the 20th century.
The term “semantic web” came into existence in 1998 when
Sir Tim Berners-Lee published the “Roadmap to the Semantic Web” on
the homepage of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).

The Semantic Web will enhance the existing human-readable Web with
structured data that's easy for software to process

It will allow you to find, share, and combine information more easily.
Meaning of word “Semantics”
 Semantics = “the meaning of” (meaning behind what you say)
 Syntax = “study of grammar” (how to say something)
 The semantics of something = the meaning of something.
 The Semantic Web = “a Web with a meaning”
 Purpose Semantic Web = realizing the idea, having data on the Web
defined and linked in a way used by machines not for display purposes,
but for automation,
integration,
reuse of data across applications.
What is the Semantic Web?
 A seamless web of all the data in your life.
 It is a collection of standard technologies to realize a Web of Data.
 Statements are built with syntax rules. The syntax of a language defines
the rules for building language statements. But how can syntax become
semantic?
 This is what the Semantic Web is all about.
 Describing things in a way that computer applications can
understand.
 The Semantic Web is not about links between web pages.
 The Semantic Web describes relationships between things (like C is a
part of D and R is a member of S) and the properties of things (like
size, weight, age)
Goals of the Semantic Web

To create a universal medium for the exchange of data.

Data shared and processed by automated tools and by people.

Sir Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web, said that these
tools will let the Web -- currently similar to a giant book -- become a
giant database.

To focus on machine consumption.

Enable vocabulary semantics to be defined by communities of expertise.

Ultimate goal - the design of enabling technologies to support
machine facilitated global knowledge exchange.
Where is the Semantic Web?
 The Semantic Web is a web-technology that lives on top of the
existing web, by adding machine-readable information without
modifying the existing Web.
 The Semantic Web is an evolving extension of the World Wide
Web in which the semantics of information and services on the web is
defined, making it possible for the web to understand and satisfy
the requests of people and machines to use the web content.
 The Semantic Web will enhance the existing human-readable Web
with structured data that is easy for software to process.
 New web-technology emerging …..
Aspects of Miller’s “Library 2.0” / Web 2.0 (2006),
including a move toward a more semantic Web.(Web 3.0) emerging:
Blogs, social media, networking and technologies
 Tagging: semantic tagging, increasing via folksonomies and social
tagging projects (e.g., Flickr, Del.icio.us, Penn Tags, Facebook).
 Collaboration: Wikipedia
 Partnerships between academic and research libraries and
information industry leaders (Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft),
 Digital content and associated metadata are key commodities.

PennTags
 PennTags is a social bookmarking tool for locating, organizing, and
sharing favorite online resources.

Members of the Penn Community can collect and maintain URLs, links to journal
articles, and records in Franklin, the online catalog and VCat, the online video catalog.
Once these resources are compiled, it can be organized by assigning tags (free-text
keywords) and/or grouping them into projects, according to your specific preferences.

PennTags was developed by librarians at the University of Pennsylvania.
twitter
 Twitter is a service for friends, family, and co–workers
to communicate and stay connected through the
exchange of quick, frequent answers to one simple
question: What are you doing?
What are you doing?
Latest: I am working on a presentation for the RDA Lecture Series on the 22
July 2009 less than a minute ago from web
Flickr & Library of Congress
For the Common Good: The Library of Congress, Flickr Pilot Project
Historical photographs were made public on a Library account on Flickr photosharing
site. The response of the pilot was overwhelmingly positive.
 Statistics shows the popularity & impact of the pilot:
 October 23, 2008 = 10.4 million views of the photos on Flickr.
 67,176 tags added by 2,518 unique Flickr accounts.
 The Flickr project
 increases awareness of the Library and its collections;
 sparks creative interaction with collections;
 provides LC staff with experience with social tagging and Web 2.0
 project increased the reach of Library content & demonstrated the many kinds
of creative interactions that are possible, accessing collections within their own
Web communities.
The LibraryThing

LibraryThing = social cataloging web application –
storing and sharing personal library catalogs and book lists.

March 2009 = 650,000 users, 37 million books cataloged.

Users : informally known as thingamabrarians, can catalog personal
collections, keep reading lists, post book reviews, & chat to other users who
have the same books.

Thingamabrarians can browse the entire database by searching titles,
authors, or tags generated by users as they enter books into their libraries.

LibraryThing's social features define it as a Web 2.0 application.

Can be compared to bookmark manager
 Del.icio.us and the Collaborative music service Last.fm.
Web was all about read-only content and static HTML websites. People preferred
navigating the web through link directories of Yahoo!
1996
User-generated content and the read-write web. People are consuming as well as
contributing information through blogs or sites like Flickr, YouTube, Digg, etc.
2009
Web 3.0
2015 ?
This will be about semantic web (or the meaning of data), personalization (e.g.
iGoogle), intelligent search and behavioral advertising among other things.
Libraries and the Semantic Web

Libraries are defined by the following primary functions: collection development,
cataloging, reference, and circulation.

Primary library functions may also be valuable for developing the Semantic
Web.

The Semantic Web, is quite similar to the library for the following reasons:


has developed, in part, as a response to an abundance of information.
has mission statements grounded in service, information access
& knowledge discovery.
 has advanced as result of international and national standards.
 has grown due to a collaborative spirit.

The similarities is quite strong, further justifying the need for an inquiry on the
applicability of library functions for developing the Semantic Web.
Librarians and the Semantic Web
 The majority of Semantic Web documentation presents technical
standards or hypothetical scenarios, is currently not possible, which
makes it difficult for librarians to determine where their skills and
knowledge can aid Semantic Web development.
 The Semantic Web/library “gap,” it seems, could be reduced if librarians
could explore beyond their current domain and consider how their
skills are needed.
 Continued efforts may bridge the Semantic Web/library gap and lead to
new opportunities for both communities.
Technologies/Structure of the
Copyright: http://www.w3.org/2007/10/sw-logos.html
The Semantic Web is a layered structure.
Consists of:
A global naming scheme (URIs)
 (XML) that forms the basis, being the transport syntax.
 (RDF) provides the information representation framework.
 A standard means of describing the properties of that data (RDF Schema).
 On top of this layer, a standard means of describing relationships between
data items, schemas and ontologies provide the logical apparatus
necessary for the expression of vocabularies, enabling intelligent
processing of information.
Structure SW - Layer Cake
URI & XML
… the first layer of the semantic web
URI: Global Naming scheme
 Web naming/addressing technology: URIs.
 Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs, aka URLs) are short strings
that identify resources in the web:
 URIs (uniform resource identifiers) look like URLs, but they may
not represent an actual web page.
http://www.sabinet.org/contact#Sabinet
XML
EXtensible Markup Language
Is most likely how library systems will evolve after MARC.
•
XML is a markup language much like HTML
•
XML was designed to carry data, not to display data
•
XML tags are not predefined. You must define your own tags
•
XML is designed to be self-descriptive
•
XML is a W3C Recommendation

It is invisible to the people who read the document but visible to
computers
RDF
is the first layer of the semantic web standards
“is only for machines”
38
What is RDF?
 RDF = Resource Description Framework.
 The datamodel of the Semantic Web
 Is designed to be read and understood by computers.
 Is written in XML
 In order to make meaningful statements in RDF, the thing you’re
talking about has to be identified in some unique way. – by URIs
RDF
Compose of three basic elements
 Resources – the things being described
 Properties – the relationships between things
 Classes – the buckets used to group the things

Every piece of knowledge is broken down into things in the form of Triplets



Subject - The thing that the metadata describes.
Predicate - A property the statement describes.
[Predicates are always URIs]
Object - The value of the metadata.
<Subject>
Something
<Predicate>
Has the Property
<Object>
Characteristic
RDF Triples for Sabinet’s Home Page
Example of a RDF Document
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rdf:RDF
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:cd="http://www.recshop.fake/cd#">
<rdf:Description
rdf:about="http://www.recshop.fake/cd/Empire Burlesque">
<cd:artist>Bob Dylan</cd:artist>
<cd:country>USA</cd:country>
<cd:company>Columbia</cd:company>
<cd:price>10.90</cd:price>
<cd:year>1985</cd:year>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description
rdf:about="http://www.recshop.fake/cd/Hide your heart">
<cd:artist>Bonnie Tyler</cd:artist>
<cd:country>UK</cd:country>
<cd:company>CBS Records</cd:company>
<cd:price>9.90</cd:price>
<cd:year>1988</cd:year>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
RDF Building Blocks
 RDF permits you to have metadata about metadata
 RDF - is about making machine-processable statements, using a
machine-processable language –XML for representing RDF
statements
 A system of machine-processable identifiers for resources (subjects,
predicates, objects):
 Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)
 It provides a framework to describe resources.
Each component of an RDF statement (triple) is a “resource”
RDF and the Semantic Web
 XML and RDF are at the heart of the Semantic Web.
They give computers a structure in which to look for information and define
relationships between resources.
 Putting information into RDF files, makes it possible for computer
programs ("web spiders") to search, discover, pick up, collect, analyze and
process information from the web.
RDF language is a part of the W3C's “Semantic Web Vision” where :
 Web information has exact meaning.
 Web information can be understood and processed by computers.
 Computers can integrate information from the web.
RDF & SW cont…..
 It is not immediately obvious that the simple statement model of RDF
can be used to make the Semantic Web a reality.
 The most fundamental benefit of RDF compared to other meta-data
approaches is that using RDF, you can say anything about
anything.
 If information about music, cars, tickets, etc. were stored in RDF
files, intelligent web agents could collect information from many
different sources, combine information, and present it to users in a
meaningful way.
SPARQL
- Query interface
?
46
SPARQL: Accessing the Metadata
 SPARQL – SPARQL Protocol And RDF Query Language




One of the long-term goals of the Semantic Web is to allow agents,
software applications and web applications to access and use metadata.
A key tool for doing this is simple protocol & RDF Query Language
(SPARQL), which is still in development.
SPARQL's purpose = to extract information from RDF graphs.
It can look for data and limit and sort the results.
One of the advantages of the RDF structure is that these queries can be
very precise and get very accurate results.
Queries will become very important for distributed RDF data
SELECT ?isbn ?price ?currency # note: not ?x!
WHERE { ?isbn a:price ?x. ?x rdf:value ?price. ?x
p:currency ?currency.}
Ontology
Ontology Language
The first level above RDF required for the Semantic Web is
an ontology language to describe the meaning of
terminology used in Web documents.
49
Ontology- the O-Word

Ontologies are as ancient as human language, but interestingly the very
nature of this branch of philosophy will be required in order for the Web
to move from its current state to the promised Semantic Web.

For the web, ontology is about the exact description of web information
and relationships between web information.

LIS and cataloguing professionals are familiar with ontology and form the core
of their work. The traditional skills of librarianship - thesaurus construction,
metadata design, and information organization - are deeply important in the
creation of this next stage of Web development.
In general, ontologies aim to represent knowledge rather than describe
content.


Additional features allow them to be processed by computers.
What is OWL?
OWL is a language for processing web information.


OWL stands for Web Ontology Language
Is built on top of RDF

Is not designed for being read by people

Is written in XML
 By using XML, OWL information can easily be exchanged between different
types of computers using different types of operating system and
application languages.
OWL has three sublanguages
 OWL Lite
 OWL DL (includes OWL Lite)
 OWL Full (includes OWL DL)
OWL is a W3C standard


Goals of OWL

The natural acronym for Web Ontology Language would be WOL instead of
OWL. Although the character Owl from Winnie the Pooh wrote his name
WOL, the acronym OWL was proposed without reference to that character, as
an easily pronounced acronym that would yield good logos, suggest wisdom,
and honor.
 GOALS:
 Shared ontologies
 Ontology interoperability
 Inconsistency detection
 Ease of use
 XML syntax
 Internationalization
Why OWL?

OWL = part of the "Semantic Web Vision" - a future where:
 Web information has explicit meaning
 Web information can be processed by computers
 Computers can integrate information from the web

OWL = Designed for Processing Information
 To be read by computer applications (instead of humans).
 To develop ontologies that are compatible with the World Wide Web.

OWL = Different from RDF



To provide a common way to process the content of web information (instead of
displaying it).
OWL and RDF are much of the same thing, but OWL is a stronger language with
greater machine interpretability than RDF.
OWL comes with a larger vocabulary and stronger syntax than RDF.
SKOS
Simple Knowledge Organisation Systems

Also based on RDF

Designed specifically to express information that’s more hierarchical –
broader terms, narrower terms, preferred terms and other thesaurus-like
relationships
Extendable into OWL, if needed


SKOS is built upon RDF and RDFS, and main objective to enable easy
publication of controlled structured vocabularies for the Semantic Web.

SKOS = developed within the W3C framework.

Simpler than the more complex ontology language, OWL.
Security & Proof
The SW requires security measures
to protect data and transactions.
Digital signatures, encryption,
proofs and trust.
Proofs and trust relate to the logic
of the SW and applications'
abilities to verify that data
is correct and consistent
through all the
web's layers.
55
Conclusion
To complete the puzzle..
Will the SW become a reality?
People with appropriate skill sets for designing & building Semantic Web solutions
are not widely available.

RDF was developed by people with an academic background in logic and
artificial intelligence. For traditional developers it is not very easy to
understand.

Will it ever be possible to link all these RDF files together and build a semantic
web? No one knows, but someone will try.
Might be eBay, Microsoft, Google, or someone else. But someone will.


The SW will need help to become a reality.
A search engine database will have to be built for all the items, and a
standard will have to be developed.
Why Has It Not Already Been Done?
Quite simply, it’s hard to do. (it's hard enough to explain!)

In the 1990’s, a movement towards marking up content with a metadata
standard, Dublin Core – a set of 15 common types of information about on-line
content intended to help search for material. DC was encoded into RDF, and
linked to pages. The expectation was for search engines to look for this
extended metadata. It didn’t happen.

What happen was a radically different approach – the Google approach,
- a great tool, using simple keyword extraction and Web linking activity to
order links – BUT Metadata was ignored.

Google dominated the search engine scene, and outside specialist portals
has, held back the development of more structured information searches.
What Else Will We See?

Among other things, Web 2.0 turning the Web from a document-publishing
platform to an application platform. Has gone beyond the original vision.

The Web will retain the on-line world’s primary information resource.

It may take several years and a great deal of work before we realize the
benefits of a network of semantic websites.

The Semantic Web will transform the existing human-readable Web with
structured data that is easy for software to process.

Open Social Networking (Web 2.0) is a great application in the Web.




But again it suffers from the ‘Social Silo Problem’
Users have often accounts in platforms like Facebook/Linked/MySpace.
However, they are separated from each other in silos.
The challenge of the Semantic Web Community is now to interconnect the silos
via RDF, OWL, HTTP, and SPARQL.
Library Systems
Library Systems at present

Today libraries face unusual challenges as non-library entities invade into
traditional library territory.

Library users are more Web savvy than ever and have high expectations for
information providers.

What do end users want?
 Improved search relevance
 More links to online full text (and make linking easy)
 More summaries/abstracts: Make summaries more prominent
 More details in the search results (e.g., cover art and summaries)

There need to be rapid advances in library automation, because a wellfunctioning automation system is essential to the operation of the library
A New Look at Library Systems






Should be capable of relating evaluative data, such as reviews and ratings,
to bibliographic records.
Be enhanced to provide the capability to link to appropriate user-added
data available via the Internet (e.g., Amazon.com, LibraryThing, Wikipedia).
And be developed so that it can accept user input and other non-library data
without interfering with integrity of library-created data.
Investigate methods of categorizing creators of added data in order to enable
informed use of user-contributed data without violating the privacy obligations
of libraries.
Develop methods to guide user tagging through techniques that suggest
entry vocabulary (e.g., term completion, tag clouds).
ILS Vendors should explore opportunities for developing mutually
beneficial partnerships with commercial entities that would benefit from
arrangements.
Cataloging and RDA

Written a century before the development of the Web, Charles Cutter’s (1904) objectives
for a library catalog is still applicable to library operations today:



Enable a person to find a book when the author, title, or subject is known;
Show what the library has by author, subject, and literature genre; and
Assist in the selection of a book by its edition and literary or topical
composition.

Today, digital resource cataloging (metadata creation) is being guided by principles and
objectives documented in a variety of metadata schemes.

RDA: Resource Description and Access is the new proposed standard for resource
description and access designed for the digital world, and may have the most impact on
cataloging in the 21st century

It is important to recognize that RDA intends to provide cataloging guidance well beyond
what is presented in communication and encoding standards (e.g., MARC and XML).

Moreover, RDA’s objectives are helping with the development of the Semantic Web.
Cataloging and Semantic Web

Similarities between library cataloging and producing metadata for the
Semantic Web are obvious, both deal with representation.

Boundaries between the use of representation standards in the two
environments (libraries and the Semantic Web) is artificial.

The representation activity takes place along a continuum, with simple
bibliographic representation for search and retrieval on one end, and the
implementation of formal ontologies and machine supported deductive
reasoning on the other.

What are missing in the context of the SW are principles and objectives for
using metadata schemes and an ontological system. -------?

Similar to the library’s community extensive MARC documentation, the SW
provides comprehensive documentation for working with enabling
technologies, such as XML, RDF, and OWL but falls short, in providing
documentation to guide the use of metadata standards and ontologies.
Impact on ILS
 Biggest impact that RDA is likely to have – is secondary and that is on
online catalogues.
 Users will probably not notice much difference, although some
details might change
 ILS = Improved integration of metadata content rules and guidance
with cataloguing modules.
 RDA be published as an online product offering direct access to
individual rules, glossary terms and other specific content as well as
structured navigation across and within its component parts.
 ILS vendors are kept informed of RDA for them to develop their
cataloguing workflows and context-sensitive help services – to utilize
the functionality of the RDA product
Library Systems and RDA

OCLC's is currently doing experimental work, using OCLC's FRBR clustering
algorithms (building on Fiction Finder), to extract this kind of data along with
classification and other elements and present it to users at higher level displays.

Millennium - Are keeping an eye on RDA, “But so far there has been nothing
that is, as we say, machine-actionable, so being ready has mostly involved
monitoring the progress of the Joint Steering Committee.”

SirsiDynix - is closely monitoring the progress of RDA,
“And participating in RDA discussions where possible. Once the standard has
been fully developed and these principal libraries have provided
implementations recommendations, we will be in a better position to change our
code and parameters, if required, and to provide recommendations to our
customers.”
Library Systems and RDA


Aleph - The British Library is also participating in the development of RDA
The BL is currently developing plans to evaluate and test RDA in the second
half of 2009, with a view to implementation during 2010.
“The realisation of benefits from RDA implementation will be constrained by
existing system architectures. Our data must be sufficient to support these
developments, in terms of record content, relationships between records, and
links between the metadata and the actual content. The ever-increasing
dependence on records from elsewhere introduces challenges for data
interchange, especially as new standards such as RDA and new ways of
expressing data (e.g. in XML formats) are implemented.”

Sirsi - Web 2.0, faceted, pattern-recognition searching

There are interesting times ahead!
Be Prepared
Learning Strategies




Group Learning, self-directed learning,
Lists - discussing new ideas, watch blogs, for discussion and updates

[email protected], [email protected] onarchos.com

[email protected], [email protected]
Web tutorials:
 http://www.w3schools.com/
Blogs:




Lorcan Dempsey (http://orweblog.oclc.org/); Karen Coyle (http://kcoyle.blogspot.com/)
The FRBR Blog (http://www.frbr.org/) ; Catalogablog (http://catalogablog.blogspot.com/)
Cataloging Futures (http://www.catalogingfutures.com/), Metadata
(http://managemetadata.org/blog/)
RDF Online Validator

W3C's RDF Validation Service is useful when learning RDF. Here you can experiment
with RDF files. The online RDF Validator parses your RDF document, checks your
syntax, and generates tabular and graphical views of your RDF document.
What next?

Get familiar with the terminology.

Ask questions, talk with colleagues, participate in discussions.

Attend Conference presentations, Seminars, workshops.

Explore websites, tutorials and other resources.

Keep an open mind.

Be prepared for change. ……
most importantly don’t press the …. Button.
Bibliography






http://www.w3.org/2002/Talks/www2002-w3ct-swintro-em/slide4-0.html
http://www.amk.ca/talks/2003-03/
http://www.w3schools.com/semweb/default.asp
http://www.digital-web.com/
http://metadata.cetis.ac.uk/
http://www.w3schools.com/rdf/rdf_owl.asp

Online Catalogs: What Users and Librarians Want -An OCLC Report 2009

213 Chapter 11, Knitting the Semantic Web/Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 43(3-4) Pre-print

214 Chapter 11, Knitting the Semantic Web/Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 43(3-4) Pre-print

Cutter, Charles A., W. P. Cutter, Worthington Chauncey Ford, Philip Lee Phillips, and Oscar George
Theodore Sonneck, Rules for a dictionary catalog (Washington: Government Printing Offi ce, 1904).
Thank you!
Mariaan & Eleta