20 Highlights for LODLAM Related Standards, Vocabularies and Data in 2014

The more we are aware what have happened this year, the less we need to convince people why LODLAM matters next year. 

Date	20 Highlights for LODLAM
09/01/2014	W3C  Chinese Digital Publishing Community Group
16/01/2014	JSON-LD /  DCAT as W3C Recommendation
20/02/2014	Getty AAT as LOD
25/02/2014	RDF 1.1 as W3C recommendation
25/02/2014	OCLC Exposes Bibliographic Works as LOD
01/04/2014	IDPF/ EPUB ZONE online
16/04/2014	WordNet3.1 released as RDF
23/04/2014	BBC launches its Ontology page
28/04/2014	OCLC Linked Data : WorldCat Works
30/04/2014	PROV as W3C Recommendation
10/06/2014	The Charter of Dublin Core task group is approved: RDF Data validation
26/06/2014	2 LOC Vocabularies: LCMPT & AFSET
15/07/2014	DBPedia Ontology as LOV
09/08/2014	Europeana enriches its data with AAT
18/08/2014	Schema.org additions with Bibliographic improvements
21/08/2014	Getty TGN as LOD
09/09/2014	DBPedia Version 2014 released
28/10/2014	HTML5 as W3C Recommendation
11/12/2014	W3C Web Annotation Data Model (First Public Working Draft)
16/12/2014	Linked Data Platform 1.0 as W3C Proposed Recommendation

See also some 2013 Collection for LODLAM Standards and Vocabularies.

A Linked Data Prototype for the Union Catalog of Digital Archives Taiwan

Linked data paradigm has provided the potential for any data to link or to be linked with structural information, internally and externally. To improve on current cultural service of the Union Catalog of Digital Archives Taiwan (catalog.digitalarchives.tw), a linked data prototype is developed and benefited by extending the Art & Architecture Thesaurus (AAT) for a machine-understandable catalog service.

However, knowledge engineering is time and labor consuming, especially for an archive that is non-western based in culture and multidisciplinary in natural. This makes data semantics of the he Union Catalog of Digital Archives Taiwan are extremely challenged for mapping to international standards and vocabularies.

At this stage, the triple store is an experimental addition to the existing Union Catalog of Digital Archives Taiwan architecture, and provides semantic links to target collections for relative suggestions. This will guide us in creating a future technical architecture that is scalable to the whole archive level, compliant with learning by doing guidelines, and preserves the data even that is difficult to be understood fully at present, but at least to be linked by others that may provide third-party’s understandings for their own reuse.

The Digital Archives Thesaurus

The dat Ontology

LOD Prototype System

-----------------------------------------------------------

• DOI: 10.13140/2.1.3569.8880
• Data Publication and Citation: http://dat.digitalarchives.tw/directory/Dataset
• Reusing:  http://dat.digitalarchives.tw/directory/Reusing

--------------------------------------------------------------
Reference

Article:

• Bizer, Christian, and Richard Cyganiak. "D2r server-publishing relational databases on the semantic web." Poster at the 5th International Semantic Web Conference. 2006.
• Bizer, Chris, Richard Cyganiak, and Tom Heath. "How to publish linked data on the web." (2007).
• Huang, Andrea Wei-Ching and Tyng-Ruey Chuang, “Relations for Reusing (R4R) in a
• Shared Context: An Exploration on Research Publications and Cultural Objects”, Proc. of the 4th International Workshop on Semantic Digital Archives (SDA), in conjunction with International Digital Libraries Conference (DL2014), London, 8th-12th September 2014.
• Malmsten, Martin. "Making a library catalogue part of the semantic web."Universitätsverlag Göttingen (2008): 146.
• OCLC Linked Data, http://oclc.org/developer/develop/linked-data.en.html
• LC Linked Data Service: Authorities and Vocabularies, http://id.loc.gov/

Data:

• 作者不詳（ - ） 。[ 銅琺瑯方瓶] 。《數位典藏與數位學習聯合目錄》。http://catalog.digitalarchives.tw/item/00/30/e5/f1.html
• 作者不詳（2500 B.C.-2200 B.C.）。[良渚文化晚期玉琮]。《數位典藏與數位學習聯合目錄》。http://catalog.digitalarchives.tw/item/00/0c/c0/4e.html
• 作者不詳（1199 B.C.-1000 B.C.）。[商後期□父丁方鼎]。《數位典藏與數位學習聯合目錄》。http://catalog.digitalarchives.tw/item/00/0c/be/f7.html
• 作者不詳（960 A.D.-1279 A.D.）。[宋官窯 翠青琮式瓶]。《數位典藏與數位學習聯合目錄》。http://catalog.digitalarchives.tw/item/00/0c/c4/b5.html
• 作者不詳（960 A.D.-1279 A.D.）。[宋定窯 劃花蓮花葵瓣口盤]。《數位典藏與數位學習聯合目錄》。http://catalog.digitalarchives.tw/item/00/5f/a4/74.html
• 作者不詳（1601 A.D.-1700 A.D.）。[明末清初銅胎琺瑯獸面紋方鼎式爐]。《數位典藏與數位學習聯合目錄》。http://catalog.digitalarchives.tw/item/00/33/0b/96.html
• 作者不詳（1601 A.D-1700 A.D）。[明 十七世紀 嵌玉石花鳥圓盒]。《數位典藏與數位學習聯合目錄》。http://catalog.digitalarchives.tw/item/00/33/0e/2d.html
• 作者不詳（1644 A.D.-1911 A.D.）。[清內填琺瑯纍絲瓜形盒]。《數位典藏與數位學習聯合目錄》。http://catalog.digitalarchives.tw/item/00/59/d2/1c.html
• 作者不詳（1644 A.D.-1911 A.D.）。[清玉香盒]。《數位典藏與數位學習聯合目錄》。http://catalog.digitalarchives.tw/item/00/11/1c/d8.html
• 作者不詳（1644 A.D.-1911 A.D.）。[清玉鎖環]。《數位典藏與數位學習聯合目錄》。http://catalog.digitalarchives.tw/item/00/33/48/ef.html
• 作者不詳（1644 A.D.-1911 A.D.）。[清伽南香手串（十八子）]。《數位典藏與數位學習聯合目錄》。http://catalog.digitalarchives.tw/item/00/5f/a0/ef.html
• 作者不詳（1644 A.D.-1911 A.D.）。[清周樂元 玻璃內繪行旅圖鼻煙壺]。《數位典藏與數位學習聯合目錄》。http://catalog.digitalarchives.tw/item/00/59/d0/6a.html
• 作者不詳（1644 A.D.-1911 A.D.）。[清青玉琱花爐]。《數位典藏與數位學習聯合目錄》。http://catalog.digitalarchives.tw/item/00/11/0b/3f.html
• 作者不詳（1644 A.D.-1911 A.D.）。[清剔彩耕作圓瓣式盒]。《數位典藏與數位學習聯合目錄》。http://catalog.digitalarchives.tw/item/00/33/49/38.html
• 作者不詳（1644 A.D.-1911 A.D.）。[清留青竹雕臂擱]。《數位典藏與數位學習聯合目錄》。http://catalog.digitalarchives.tw/item/00/10/b4/73.html
• 作者不詳（1644 A.D.-1911 A.D.）。[清瑪瑙葵瓣口碗]。《數位典藏與數位學習聯合目錄》。http://catalog.digitalarchives.tw/item/00/1c/c6/06.html
• 作者不詳（1644 A.D.-1911 A.D.）。[清銀鍍金嵌珠鳳蝶牡丹鈿花]。《數位典藏與數位學習聯合目錄》。http://catalog.digitalarchives.tw/item/00/5f/a2/79.html
• 作者不詳（1644 A.D.-1911 A.D.）。[清銀鍍金纍絲點翠嵌珠寶花蝶簪]。《數位典藏與數位學習聯合目錄》。http://catalog.digitalarchives.tw/item/00/5f/a2/85.html
• 作者不詳（1644 A.D.-1911 A.D.）。[清銅鎏金葫蘆式執壺]。《數位典藏與數位學習聯合目錄》。http://catalog.digitalarchives.tw/item/00/42/b7/6d.html
• 作者不詳（1644 A.D.-1911 A.D.）。[清燒藍竹桃蘭芝花籃形銀片]。《數位典藏與數位學習聯合目錄》。http://catalog.digitalarchives.tw/item/00/59/d1/3c.html
• 作者不詳（1736 A.D.-1795 A.D.）。[清乾隆 內填琺瑯番蓮紋瓶]。《數位典藏與數位學習聯合目錄》。http://catalog.digitalarchives.tw/item/00/0c/c5/bf.html
• 作者不詳（1736 A.D.-1795 A.D.）。[清乾隆 青花荔枝桃實執壺]。《數位典藏與數位學習聯合目錄》。http://catalog.digitalarchives.tw/item/00/42/b4/00.html
• 作者不詳（1736 A.D-1795 A.D）。[清 乾隆（1736-1795） 剔彩山人水物四瓣式套盒] 。《數位典藏與數位學習聯合目錄》。http://catalog.digitalarchives.tw/item/00/33/0e/34.html
• 作者不詳（1741 A.D.-）。[清乾隆六年 磁胎畫琺瑯八哥膽瓶]。《數位典藏與數位學習聯合目錄》。http://catalog.digitalarchives.tw/item/00/42/b7/d0.html
• 作者不詳（1742 A.D.-）。[清乾隆窯 琺瑯彩藍地開光花卉瓶]。《數位典藏與數位學習聯合目錄》。http://catalog.digitalarchives.tw/item/00/33/49/cf.html

Code:

• d2R, Database to RDF mapping engine and SPARQL server http://d2rq.org/, https://github.com/d2rq/d2rq
• Huang, Andrea Wei-Ching and Tyng-Ruey Chuang, Relations for Reusing (R4R) Ontology, http://guava.iis.sinica.edu.tw/r4r
• Huang, Andrea Wei-Ching, Chung-Hsi Hung, and Wan-Jung Shu, Keh-Jiann Chen and Tyng-Ruey Chuang, Beta: An Ontology for Publishing Chinese Artifacts as Linked Data Using the Digital Archives Thesaurus (dat), http://dat.digitalarchives.tw/ontology/

Relations for Reusing (R4R) in a Shared Context: An Exploration on Research Publications and Cultural Objects

[[中文]]

Will the rich domain knowledge from research publications and the implicit cross-domain metadata of cultural objects be compliant with each other? A contextual framework is proposed as dynamic and relational in supporting three different contexts: Reusing, Publication and Curation, which are individually constructed but overlapped with major conceptual elements. A Relations for Reusing (R4R) ontology has been devised for modeling these overlapping conceptual components (Article, Data, Code, Provence, and License) for interlinking research outputs and cultural heritage data. In particular, packaging and citation relations are key for building up interpretations for dynamic contexts. Examples are provided for illustrating how the linking mechanism can be constructed and represented as a result to reveal the data linked in different contexts.

Conclusion

Responding to recent developments (Section 1) that have challenged research data, ar-chival and cultural heritage communities to come up with a contextual framework to support a dynamic and shared context environment, we have proposed a framework (Section 2) composed of three activity contexts that can be identified for a shared common understanding. In Section 3, the establishment of an ontology, Relations for Reusing (R4R) facilitates the representation of contextual links between resources in diverse contexts. Thus, a shared context between research and cultural heritage domains not only can be identified through three activity contexts for a common understanding, but rela-tions existing in different contexts can be established and represented through the R4R ontology. In Section 4, we used R4R to represent a use case from the Digital Archives Taiwan in different scenarios to show how linking data from these two domains can enhance the semantic relationships with each other, as well as increase the potential for reusing and remixing when both are contextually linked. The above discussions are the answers to the questions raised in Section 1, and we further discussed and presented a comparison of five existing relation ontologies that distinguishes the R4R from previous works in Section 5.

The advantage of designing a new conceptual model to describe relations in a shared context is to ensure that articles, datasets, software codes, provenance and license information can be treated as first-class contextual objects. At the same time, the module-like design of RRObject and RRPolicy can be practiced in isolation, and the unifying repre-sentation of their relations is semantically clear enough but not so structurally heavy-weighted that curators or researchers would find it difficult to apply. The contextual framework and R4R ontology can be applied to representing the interlinking relations of digital collections to a semantic web format, and help standardize this process. The au-thors of this work also plan in the future to explore more use cases to test the validity and effectiveness of the framework and the R4R ontology.

In sum, the daT(S010384) is a digital object with rich metadata descriptions that are curated in the Curation context. It is published as a cultural object Y, with unique iden-tification, and is cited as a science object Z, interpreted by the citation relation for addi-tional professional interpretations. At the same time, the citing research can benefit from the implicit information embedded in the institution’s cataloging vocabularies for more domain knowledge. Through the exploration of the Shared Context and R4R represen-tation, the daT(S010384) now is capable of moving from its traditional role and acting “as a citation of active knowledge”, as outlined in [22]. Creating knowledge out of interlinked data [23] is thus one step forward by packaging provenance and license for a policy-aware Reusing context. As a result, when data sharing does not need to remove the data's initial context but rather embed it in a shared context, the difficulty to interpret the reused data [24] may be expected to be reduced through the use of the contextual framework and the R4R ontology proposed in this study.

-----------------------------------------------------------

• DOI: 10.13140/2.1.3948.9923
• PDF download/Full paper: [[Huang_Chuang-2014-SDA_paper.pdf]]
• An XML file of this article (auto-converted by pdfx, using the DoCO, the Document Components Ontology for annotation).

--------------------------------------------------------------

Reference (DOIs are auto generated by pdfx )

• 1. Zimmermann, Andreas, Andreas Lorenz, and Reinhard Oppermann. An operational definition of context. Modeling and Using Context (2007): 558-571.  [DOI]
• 2. Krafft, Dean B., et al. VIVO: Enabling national networking of scientists. Proceedings of the Web Science Conference. Vol. 2010.  [possible DOI]  [alternative DOI]
• 3. Keßler, Carsten, Mathieu d'Aquin, and Stefan Dietze. Linked data for science and education. Semantic Web 4.1 (2013): 1-2.  [possible DOI]
• 4. Haslhofer, Bernhard, and Antoine Isaac. data. europeana. eu: The europeana linked open data pilot. International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications. 2011.  [DOI]
• 5. Malmsten, Martin. Making a library catalogue part of the semantic web. Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications (2008): 146-152.  [possible DOI]  [alternative DOI]
• 6. Ford, Kevin. LC Classification as linked data. Italian Journal of Library and Information Science, 4.1 (2013): 161.  [possible DOI]  [alternative DOI]
• 7. Shotton, David. Semantic publishing: the coming revolution in scientific journal publishing. Learned Publishing 22.2 (2009): 85-94.  [DOI]
• 8. Keivanloo, Iman, et al. Towards sharing source code facts using linked data. Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Search-Driven Development: Users, Infrastructure, Tools, and Evaluation. ACM, 2011.  [DOI]
• 9. Wendl, Michael C. H-index: however ranked, citations need context. Nature 449.7161 (2007): 403-403.  [DOI]
• 10. Bechhofer, Sean, et al. Why linked data is not enough for scientists. Future Genera- tion Computer Systems 29.2 (2013): 599-611.  [DOI]
• 11. Skinner, Julia. Metadata in Archival and Cultural Heritage Settings: A Review of the Literature. Journal of Library Metadata 14.1 (2014): 52-68.  [DOI]
• 12. Courtright, Christina. Context in information behavior research. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 41.1 (2007): 273-306.  [DOI]
• 13. Peirce, Charles Sanders. “Elements of Logic”, Chapter 2: Division of Signs. In: C. Hartshorne and P. Weiss (eds.), Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (2) (Thoemmes Press, Bristol, 1998): 134–272  [DOI]
• 14. Huang, Andrea Wei-Ching, and Tyng-Ruey Chuang. Social tagging, online commu- nication, and Peircean semiotics: a conceptual framework. Journal of Information Science 35.3 (2009): 340-357.  [possible DOI]
• 15. Legg, Catherine. Peirce, meaning, and the Semantic Web. Semiotica 2013.193 (2013): 119-143.  [DOI]
• 16. Beaudoin, Joan E. Context and its role in the digital preservation of cultural objects. D-Lib Magazine 18.11 (2012): 1.  [DOI]
• 17. Seneviratne, Oshani, LalanaKagal, and Tim Berners-Lee. Policy-Aware Content Re- use on the Web. The Semantic Web - ISWC 2009 (2009): 553-568.  [DOI]
• 18. Carata, Lucian, et al. A primer on provenance. Communications of the ACM 57.5 (2014): 52-60.  [DOI]
• 19. Lagoze, Carl, et al. Fedora: an architecture for complex objects and their relationships. International Journal on Digital Libraries 6.2 (2006): 124-138.  [DOI]
• 20. Yu, Chih-Hao, and Jane Hunter. Documenting and sharing comparative analyses of 3D digital museum artifacts through semantic web annotations. Journal on Compu- ting and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH) 6.4 (2013): 18:1-20.  [DOI]
• 21. Gerber, Anna, and Jane Hunter. Authoring, editing and visualizing compound objects for literary scholarship. Journal of Digital Information 11.1 (2010).  [possible DOI]  [alternative DOI]
• 22. Srinivasan, Ramesh, et al. Digital museums and diverse cultural knowledges: Mov- ing past the traditional catalog. The Information Society 25.4 (2009): 265-278.  [DOI]
• 23. Auer, Sören, and Jens Lehmann. Creating knowledge out of interlinked data. Semantic Web 1.1 (2010): 97-104.  [possible DOI]  [alternative DOI]
• 24. Borgman, Christine L. The conundrum of sharing research data. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63.6 (2012): 1059-1078. [DOI]
• 25. Associated data publication can be accessed at http://guava.iis.sinica.edu.tw/r4r/examples  [possible DOI]  [alternative DOI]

Relations for Reusing (R4R) Ontology

Version : http://guava.iis.sinica.edu.tw/r4r/

Published : 14 July 2014 (中文:R4R/資料重複使用關聯性的知識本體/16 August 2014)

Authors : Andrea Wei-Ching Huang and Tyng-Ruey Chuang

INTRODUCTION:

R4R is a light-weight ontology for representing general relationships of resource for publication and reusing. It asserts that a certain reusing context occurred and determined by its two basic relations, namely, isPackagedWith and isCitedBy. The isPackagedWith relation declares the resource is ready to be reused by incorporating License and Provenance information. The Cites relation is an exceptional to isCitedBy which occurs only two related objects cite each other at the same time. Five resource objects including article, data, code, provenance and license are major class concepts to represent in this ontology.

資料重複使用的關聯性(R4R)是一個簡易的的知識本體，用來描述資源的發佈 (Publication) 和重複使用(再利用/Reusing) 的一般性關係。其中，isPackagedWith和isCitedBy這兩個基本關係，定義了資源處於可重複使用的情況。其中，isPackagedWith 借由資料套裝後設資料溯源資訊（provenance）與授權資訊 (license) 進行宣告資源是處於可重複使用的狀態，另外，引用(cites)則是被引用(isCitedBy)的特殊情況，用來描述兩個相關的物件彼此在同一時間相互引用。R4R中五個主要的物件概念包括文章，資料，軟體程式/代碼，後設資料溯源資訊授權資訊。

• The namespace for all R4R terms is http://guava.iis.sinica.edu.tw/r4r#.
• R4R in RDF/XML.; in ttl

• Use Cases: The Story of the Union Catalog of Digital Archives Taiwan;  a Reusing Case

• Associated publication: Andrea Wei-Ching Huang and Tyng-Ruey Chuang, Relations for Reusing (R4R) in a Shared Context: An Exploration on Research Publications and Cultural Objects,To appear in Proc. of the 4th International Workshop on Semantic Digital Archives (SDA), in conjunction with International Digital Libraries Conference (DL2014), London, 8th-12th September 2014. 

April 1st Fun with PROV, Dublin Core and some Others

2014, three months passed, and it looks like I have not started the blog yet. I guess a simple and short writing with a figure and a table could be a good start.

The figure is a mapping summary based on two W3C documents: Dublin Core to PROV Mapping (W3C Working Group Note 30 April 2013) and the direct mappings of Dublin Core to PROV mapping file.(URL: http://www.w3.org/ns/prov-dc-directmappings.ttl).

The table below is a brief view on W3C's task on Provenance Vocabulary Mappings (using SKOS mapping). This time, I only choose OPM, PREMIS, and Dubin Core, and use the direct mappings of Dublin Core to PROV mapping (owl:equivalentClass and rdfs:subPropertyOf) to relate PROV to DC.

Terms from Reference Model (OPM)	Provenance Models: Terms and Mappings
	PREMIS		Dublin Core		PROV
	Mapping	Model Term	Mapping	Model Term	Mapping(DC2PROV)	Model Term
opm:Process⃰	skos:relatedMatch	premis:Event	skos:relatedMatch	dcmitype:Event
opm:Artifact⃰			skos:narrowMatch	dct:BibliographicResource, dct:PhysicalResource	rdfs:subPropertyOf	prov:Entity
	skos:narrowMatch	premis:Object		dct:Collection, dct:MethodOfAccrual
opm:Agent⃰	skos:narrowMatch	premis:Agent	skos:exactMatch	dct:Agent	owl:equivalentClass	prov:Agent
opm:Account			skos:narrowMatch	dct:ProvenanceStatement	rdfs:subPropertyOf	prov:Collection
opm:used	skos:relatedMatch	premis:linkingObjectIdentifier⃰	skos:relatedMatch, skos:relatedMatch	dcterms:requires, dcterms:isRequiredBy
opm:wasDerivedFrom	skos:broadMatch	premis:relatedObjectIdentification	skos:narrowMatch	dct:source	rdfs:subPropertyOf	prov:wasDerivedFrom
				dct:replaces, dct:hasPart, dct:references
opm:wasGeneratedBy	skos:broadMatch	premis:relatedEventIdentification⃰	skos:broadMatch	dct:source	rdfs:subPropertyOf	prov:wasDerivedFrom
opm:wasControlledBy	skos:relatedMatch	premis:linkingAgentIdentifier⃰	skos:relatedMatch	dct:contributor	rdfs:subPropertyOf
opm:wasTriggeredBy			skos:broadMatch	dct:source	rdfs:subPropertyOf	prov:wasDerivedFrom

It's interesting to see the difference of the event concept in these vocabularies. For me, the concept of event is supposed to be the first class of the provenance. The changing character of temporal and spatial components distinguishes provenance information from pure metadata description. However, in PROV we can only have the prov:InstantaneousEvent that is a non first-class notion, and this is probably because PROV has its original proto reference, OPM, that uses opm:Process as one notion of three opmo:Node class.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------