Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Semantic Web and Library Applications Workshop Presented by Luit Gazendam

Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek About the participants –23 participants from 12 countries –70 % (generally interested people) –only little knowledge about SW –no experience with SW –get more knowledge on SW possibilities –20 % (people ready to jump on the SW train) –Some SW knowledge –thinks about using SW techniques –Learn about easy and effective techniques and the killer app. –Sees benefits but also has serious doubts –10 % (people who have drunk the SW cooling liquid) –Implemented SW techniques –Wanted to see what more is out there

Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek We formulated these goals 1.Learn about the Semantic Web (SW) 2.What is needed to start with the SW 3.Value of SW (killer application) 4.Use of thesauri on the Semantic Web 5.overview of available SW data, software and applications.

Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Learn about the Semantic Web: examples –GTAA thesaurus browser ( –Museo Suomi ( –E-culture browser ( –Early American Imprints SW Library application ( –Martin Malmsten showed his SW implementation (Lightning talk) –Ron Davies showed British Standard 8723 on thesaurus development (NON SW, but close to SKOS: XSLT)

Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek What did these examples show –The applications showed –Mash ups (e.g. with google maps) –Facetted browsing –Result grouping (Picasso Marble, P depicted, Painted by P) –Multiple ways of information visualization –SW applications are still demonstrators –SW applications are often designed to fulfill the same functionalities as Library applications –Improved under the hood performance is hard to show

Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Group discussion (1) Q1. Are there gains for a library to post its data in a SW format? –It is the mission of Libraries to make data available, so also in a SW format. –Value is there if you are making applications on top of this. –Chicken-or-egg problem –SW is still a vision –If National libraries will start, we will follow.

Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Group discussion (2) Q2. Are there gains of porting your vocabulary to a SW format? –SKOS (cheap) or ontology (expensive)? –Again value is only there if you are going to use it. –You can get grant money if you transform to an ontology.

Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Group discussion (3) Q3. Where should you start with the Sem Web? –By making your data available in a SW format (Martin Malmsten) –By making your thesaurus available in a SW format (Ron Davies) –Depends on your control over the data and your thesaurus, (whether you have an own vocabulary)

Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Group discussion (Final slide) –SW is unsexy –However 23 people show up at the ELAG SW & LibApp workshop –The SW seems to be a really nice answer, which fits a librarians way of thinking, but to what problem? –The idea is simple but its value is not (No killer app) –The value of standardization is clear, what are the other values? –The SW is a vision / an idea. The massive uptake is still uncertain. –What SW technology enables is also possible with current software and techniques (analogous to Gopher / WWW situation in 1993) –Investment in the understanding of SW techniques is big, using it seems easy. –Some people are hopping on the SW train, others do not know yet whether this is a wise idea (is it gaining enough momentum).