Transcript Integrated Collaborative Information Systems Thesis Proposal Ahmet E. Topcu [email protected] Outline Introduction  Motivation  Research Issues  Architecture 

Integrated Collaborative
Information Systems
Thesis Proposal
Ahmet E. Topcu
[email protected]
1
Outline
Introduction
 Motivation
 Research Issues
 Architecture

2
Introduction

Efforts for collaboration and sharing between
users and communities.

Grid


Sakai


Virtual Organizations
Collaboration and Learning Environment for Education
Web 2.0






Represents new web-based services.
Provides rich and lightweight online tools
Provides reusable services and data
Updates software and data often very rapidly
Provides interactive user interfaces
Provides an architecture for easy user contribution
3
Web 2.0 Examples






Blogs (blogger.com, GoogleBlog)
Wikis(Wikipedia, WikiWikiWeb)
Social Networking Tools(MySpace ,LinkedIn)
Social Bookmarking Tools(del.icio.us ,YouTube)
Domain of scientific research (CiteULike ,
Connotea , and Bibsonomy)
Domain specific academic search tools(CiteSeer,
Google Scholar, Windows Live Academic)
4
5
6
7
Motivation

Need for exploiting large set of data
sources


Google Scholar (GS), Windows Live Academic
(WLA) may have different scope
Utilizing best capabilities of the tools


GS has number of cited publications.
WLA has Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
8
9
Motivation

Integration



Necessities for integration
Need for common data format
Completeness
No easy way to find all publications
 Example: A search in Google Scholar for the
publications of our research lab (Community Grids
Lab) will return only about 20% of the total GS
search content.
 Wealth of information contained in numerous field
remains largely outside the scope of tools
10
Integration Manager
Gateway
1
Gateway
2
Gateway
3
Gateway
N
HTTP/
SOAP
Tool
Gateway
Tool-1
Google
Scholar
Tool-2
Tool-N
Windows
CiteSeer
Live Acad.
……..
Tool-3
Del.icio.us
Tools
……..
Client
Gadget
Service
Pull
Service
Push
Service
HTTP/
SOAP
……..
Information
Client
Service
Gateway
Filter
Handler
Filter
Processor
Token
checker
Token
builder
Filter
Permission
Handler
Controller
Controller
Data
Manager Extracter
Service
Inserter
Service
Database
Storage
11
Research Issues

Integration



Performance



A model to integrate community tools.
A model to collect related documents of data naturally
The cost of integration of the systems
Overhead for extracting information and uploading them
to the tools
Flexibility and Extensibility


Easy to add and remove service mechanism
Easy to integrate and collaborate services or gadgets
12
Architecture Principles






Community-centric platform of services
Integration of dynamic publication, search tools into
Cyberinfrastructure based scholarly research.
Integration such scientific research defining metadata and
using various url, and map them.
Services that aggregate information from a variety of
sources (i.e., “mash-up” tools) and provide added value to
communities of researchers
Do not build a new tool. Reuse the tools.
Easier to link together all relating information common
Digital Entity (DE)
Mash-up: A Web page or application that integrates complementary
elements from two or more sources.
13
Integration Manager
Gateway
1
Gateway
2
Gateway
3
Gateway
N
HTTP/
SOAP
Tool
Gateway
Tool-1
Google
Scholar
Tool-2
Tool-N
Windows
CiteSeer
Live Acad.
……..
Tool-3
Del.icio.us
Tools
……..
Client
Gadget
Service
Pull
Service
Push
Service
HTTP/
SOAP
……..
Information
Client
Service
Gateway
Filter
Handler
Filter
Processor
Token
checker
Token
builder
Filter
Permission
Handler
Controller
Controller
Data
Manager Extracter
Service
Inserter
Service
Database
Storage
14
Tool
Gateway
Pull Service
Request
Handler
HTTP
Service
Point
Web
Tools
WSDL
Information
Handler
Client
Gateway
Client
HTTP
Gadget
Service
Point
Ajax
WSDL
Gadget
Ajax
Metadata
Builder
<XML>
Presentation
Service
Information
Service
Integration Manager
15
DE
Digital
Entity
Filter
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
Filter
Handler
DE
DE
DE
Filter
Processor
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
16
Summary: Architecture
Build integration architecture
 We do not reinvent existing tools
 Use existing features of tools
 Supports microformats and universal
tagging services
 Provides common metadata
 Allows to use consistent data
 Provides common resolution of filters

17
Usage of Integration Model

We have used/tested Semantic Research
Grid (SRG) (a prototype model) for
published scientific research publications
in Community Grids Lab in which has 20
students ,and post-docs and faculty
members works.
18
Security Model


Security in web 2.0 is inadequate. Provide security for
inconsistent/in existed security model in web 2.0 domain.
There exists a number of security methods:





Access control matrix (ACL)
Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Role-based access control (RBAC)
Task-based access control (TBCA)
We used an access-control matrix model to provide
security for our information system


Supports multiple groups and multiple users for each object.
Similar to UNIX file system



The Unix RWX bits corresponds to Read, Write, and Execute
operation for each file and directory.
In proposed system, DE (Digital Entity) correspond to the file
element and folder corresponds to the directory element.
For each DE and folder, there are three types of access rights
defined in the systems: Read, Write, and Delete.
19
Security Model II

We have a security model that supports

Level of Authorization






Roles are defined as Super Administrator (SA) and
Group Administrator (GA), User (U)
The system allows having more than one SA.
An existing SA can add other SAs to the system.
SA can assign any U to become GA, and remove GA
from group.
Each group should at least one GA. GA add/remove U
from group
User profile

Share user profile between sites.
20
Contribution

Integration



Performance



We have successfully integrated Google Scholar and Windows
Live Academic search tools and CiteUlike, Delicious annotation
tools which provide a system that allow dynamic publication.
We will integrate CiteeSeer search tools to investigate our
proposed architecture.
We will investigate the cost of integration of the new tools into
the systems
Overhead for extracting information and uploading them to the
tools
Flexibility and Extensibility


We provides flexibility allowing integration of different tools
having common metadata.
Easy to add and extend service mechanism
21
End

Thanks!
22
Applications I : Search Tools

They have two main roles in the usage scenarios
of our system:


They will be used to seed the creation of a community
(e.g., the papers of a research group, the papers on a
chemical compound, etc.).
These seeds will then be expanded and refined by our
community-building tools and linked with the annotation
tools. They will be used to extract the citation count of
scientific papers.
23
Applications II : Search Tools

Extract information from Search Domain.

Example: Using heuristic method for Google Scholar.

Extract Metadata to build DEs having search key.

This model can be used for various search tools



Collect metadata for scholarly published papers.
Build communities implied by the co-authors of papers.
Search DEs through populated metadata
24