SemCards: A New Representation for Realizing the Semantic Web
The Semantic Web promises increased precision in automated information sorting, searching, organizing and summarizing. Realizing this requires significantly more reliable meta-information than is readily available for basic human-readable data types today. Relying solely on hand-crafted ontologies and annotation, or solely on artificial intelligence techniques, seems less likely for success than a combination of the two. How this is best done, however, is far from obvious. We propose an intermediate ontological representational level we call SemCards that combines ontological rigour with flexible user interface constructs. SemCards are machine- and human-readable entities that allow non-experts to create and use semantic content with ease, while empowering machines to better assist and participate in the process. We have implemented the SemCard technology on the Semantic Web site Twine.com, which to date has a growing 250k subscribers and over 2 million monthly unique visitors. SemCards allow users to quickly create semantically-grounded data that in turn acts as examples for automation processes, creating a positive iterative feedback loop of metadata creation between user and machine. The result is an increasingly larger, more accurate amount of metadata than with either approach alone. The SemCard provides a holistic solution to the Semantic Web, resulting in powerful management of the full lifecycle of data, including its creation, retrieval, classification, sorting and sharing. Here we present the key ideas behind SemCards and describe the initial implementation of the technology on Twine.com.
KeywordsSemantic Web Ontologies Knowledge Management User Interface SemCards Human-Machine Collaboration
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Dill, S., Eiron, N., Gibson, D., Gruhl, D., Guha, R., Jhingran, A., Kanungo, T., Rajagopalan, S., Tomkins, A., Tomlin, J.A., Zien, J.Y.: SemTag and Seeker: Bootstrapping the Semantic seb via automated semantic annotation. In: Proceedings of the World Wide Web Conference (2003), DOI: 10.1145/775152.775178Google Scholar
- 2.Etzioni, O., Gribble, S.: An evolutionary approach to the Semantic Web. In: Poster presentation at the First International Semantic Web Conference (2002)Google Scholar
- 3.Maly, K., Nelson, M.L., Zubair, M.: Smart objects, dumb archives: A user-centric, layered digital library framework. D-Lib Magazine 5 (1999)Google Scholar
- 6.Lagoze, C., Payette, S., Shin, E., Wilper, C.: An architecture for complex objects and their relationships. Journal of Digital Libraries - Special Issue on Complex Objects (2005), DOI: arXiv:cs/0501012v6Google Scholar
- 7.Drummond, N., Jupp, S., Moulton, G., Stevens, R.: A practical guide to building OWL ontologies using the Protégé 4 and CO-ODE tools, 1.2 edn. (2009)Google Scholar
- 8.Huynh, D., Karger, D.R., Quan, D.: Haystack: A platform for creating, organizing and visualizing information using RDF. In: Semantic Web Workshop, WWW2002 (May 2002)Google Scholar
- 9.Decker, S., Melnik, S., Harmelen, F.V., Fensel, D., Klein, M., Erdmann, M., Horrocks, I.: Knowledge networking in the Semantic Web: The roles of XML and RDF (2000)Google Scholar
- 10.Ding, L., Zhou, L., Finin, T., Joshi, A.: How the Semantic Web is being used: An analysis of FOAF documents. In: Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 313.3 (2005), DOI: 10.1109/HICSS.2005.299Google Scholar
- 11.Sutton, S.A., Mason, J.: The Dublin Core and metadata for educational resources. In: International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, pp. 25–31 (2001)Google Scholar
- 12.Varma, V.: Building large scale ontology networks. In: Language Engineering Conference (LEC 2002), Hyderabad, India, p. 121 (2002)Google Scholar
- 13.Hong, J.F., Li, X.B., Huang, C.R.: Ontology-based predication of compound relations: A study based on SUMO. In: Proceedings of PACLIC18, pp. 151–160. Waseda University, Japan (2004)Google Scholar