Introduction: Linked Data and the Semantic Web

Chapter 1
Introduction
Linked Data and the Semantic Web
NIKOLAOS KONSTANTINOU
DIMITRIOS-EMMANUEL SPANOS
Materializing the Web of Linked Data

Outline
Introduction
Preliminaries
The Linked Open Data Cloud
Chapter 1 Materializing the Web of Linked Data 2

The Origin of the Semantic Web
Semantic Web
◦ Term primarily coined by Tim Berners-Lee
◦ For the Web to be understandable both by humans and software,
it should incorporate its meaning
◦ Its semantics
Linked Data implements the Semantic Web vision

Why a Semantic Web? (1)
Information management
◦ Sharing, accessing, retrieving, consuming information
◦ Increasingly tedious task
Search engines
◦ Rely on Information Retrieval techniques
◦ Keyword-based searches
◦ Do not release the information potential
◦ Large quantity of existing data on the web is not stored in HTML
◦ The Deep Web

Content meaning should be taken into account
◦ Structure to the meaningful Web page content
◦ Enable software agents to
◦ Roam from page to page
◦ Carry out sophisticated tasks for users
Semantic Web
◦ Complement, not replace current Web
◦ Transform content into an exploitable source of knowledge

Web of Data
◦ An emerging web of interconnected published datasets in the form
of Linked Data
◦ Implements the Semantic Web vision

The Need for Adding Semantics (1)
Semantics
◦ From the Greek word σημαντικός
◦ Pronounced si̱mantikós, means significant
◦ Term typically used to denote the study of meaning
◦ Using semantics
◦ Capture the interpretation of a formal or natural language
◦ Enables entailment, application of logical consequence
◦ About relationships between the statements that are expressed in this language

Syntax
◦ The study of the principles and processes by which sentences can
be formed
◦ Also of Greek origin
◦ συν and τάξις
◦ Pronounced sin and taxis
◦ Mean together and ordering, respectively

Two statements can be syntactically different but
semantically equivalent
◦ Their meaning (semantics) is the same, the syntax is different
◦ More than one ways to state an assumption

Search engines rely on keyword matches
◦ Keyword-based technologies
◦ Have come a long way since the dawn of the internet
◦ Will return accurate results
◦ Based on keyword matches
◦ Extraction and indexing of keywords contained in web pages
◦ But
◦ More complex queries with semantics still partially covered
◦ Most of the information will not be queried

Traditional search engines
Rely on keyword matches
Low precision
◦ Important results may not be fetched, or
◦ Ranked low
◦ No exact keyword matches

Keyword-based searches
Do not return usually the desired results
Despite the amounts of information
Typical user behavior
◦ Change query rather than navigate beyond the first page of the
search results

The Semantic Web (1)
Tackle these issues
◦ By offering ways to describe of Web resources
Enrich existing information
◦ Add semantics that specify the resources
◦ Understandable both by humans and computers
Information easier to discover, classify and sort
Enable semantic information integration
Increase serendipitous discovery of information
Allow inference

The Semantic Web (2)
Example
◦ A researcher would not have to visit every result page and
distinguish the relevant from the irrelevant results
◦ Instead, retrieve a list of more related, machine-processable
information
◦ Ideally containing links to more relevant information

Outline
Introduction
Preliminaries

Data-Information-Knowledge (1)
Data
Information
◦ “facts about a situation, person, event, etc.”
Smallest information particle
◦ The bit
◦ Replies with a yes or no (1 or 0)
◦ Can carry data, but in the same time, it can carry the result of a process
◦ For instance whether an experiment had a successful conclusion or not
Information, especially facts or numbers, collected to be examined
and considered and used to help decision-making, or information in
an electronic form that can be stored and used by a computer

E.g. “temperature” in a relational database could be
◦ The information produced after statistical analysis over numerous
measurements
◦ By a researcher wishing to extract the average value in a region over the
years
◦ A sensor measurement
◦ Part of the data that will contribute in drawing conclusions regarding climate
change

Knowledge
◦ Key term: “by experience or study”
◦ Implies processing of the underlying information
Understanding of or information about a subject that
you get by experience or study, either known by one
person or by people generally

No clear lines between them
◦ Term that is used depends on the respective point of view
When we process collected data in order to extract meaning, we
create new information
Addition of semantics
◦ Indispensable in generating new knowledge
◦ Semantic enrichment of the information
◦ Makes it unambiguously understood by any interested party (by people generally)
Data → Information → Knowledge

Heterogeneity
Distributed data sources
◦ Interconnected, or not
◦ Different models and schemas
◦ Differences in the vocabulary
◦ Syntactic mismatch
◦ Semantic mismatch

Interoperability (1)
Interoperable
◦ Two systems in position to successfully exchange information
3 non-mutually exclusive approaches
◦ Mapping among the concepts of each source
◦ Intermediation in order to translate queries
◦ Query-based
Protocols and standards (recommendations) are crucial
◦ E.g. SOAP, WSDL, microformats

Interoperability (2)
Key concept: Schema
◦ Word comes from the Greek word σχήμα
◦ Pronounced schíma
◦ Means the shape, the outline
◦ Can be regarded as a common agreement regarding the interchanged data
◦ Data schema
◦ Defines how the data is to be structured

Information Integration (1)
Combine information from heterogeneous systems, sources of
storage and processing
◦ Ability to process and handle it as a whole
Global-As-View
◦ Every element of the global schema is expressed as a query/view over
the schemas of the sources
◦ Preferable when the source schemas are not subject to frequent
changes

Information Integration (2)
Local-As-View
◦ Every element of the local schemas is expressed as a query/view over
the global schema
P2P
◦ Mappings among the sources exist but no common schema

Information Integration Architecture (1)
A source Π1 with schema S1
A source Π2 with a schema S2
…
A source Πν with source Sν
A global schema S in which the higher level queries are posed

Information Integration Architecture (2)
The goal in the information integration problem
◦ Submit queries to the global schema S
◦ Receive answers from S1, S2, …, Sν
◦ Without having to deal with or even being aware of the heterogeneity
in the information sources

Data Integration (1)
A data integration system
◦ A triple 𝐼 = 𝐺; 𝑆; 𝑀
◦ G is the global schema,
◦ S is the source schema and
◦ M is a set of mappings between G and S

Local-As-View
◦ Each declaration in M maps an element from the source schema S to
a query (a view) over the global schema G
Global-As-View
◦ Each declaration in M maps an element of the global schema G to a
query (a view) over the source schema S
The global schema G is a unified view over the heterogeneous
set of data sources

Same goal
◦ Unifying the data sources under the same common schema
Semantic information integration
◦ Addition of its semantics in the resulting integration scheme

Mapping
Using the definition of data integration systems, we can
define the concept of mapping
◦ A mapping m (member of M) from a schema S to a schema T
◦ A declaration of the form QS ⇝ QT
◦ QS is a query over S
◦ QT a query over T

Mapping vs. Merging
(Data) mapping
◦ A mapping is the specification of a mechanism
◦ The members of a model are transformed to members of another model
◦ The meta-model that can be the same, or different
◦ A mapping can be declared as a set of relationships, constraints, rules,
templates or parameters
◦ Defined during the mapping process, or through other forms that have not yet been defined
Merging
◦ Implies unifying the information at the implementation/storage layer

Annotation (1)
Addition of metadata to the data
Data can be encoded in any standard
Especially important in cases when data is not human-
understandable in its primary form
◦ E.g. multimedia

Annotation (2)
(Simple) annotation
◦ Uses keywords or other ad hoc serialization
◦ Impedes further processing of the metadata
Semantic annotation
◦ Describe the data using a common, established way
◦ Addition of the semantics in the annotation (i.e. the metadata)
◦ In a way that the annotation will be machine-processable
◦ In order to be able to infer additional knowledge

Problems with (Semantic) Annotation
Time-consuming
◦ Users simply do not have enough time or do not consider it important enough
in order to invest time to annotate their content
Familiarity required with both the conceptual and technical parts of
the annotation
◦ User performing the annotation must be familiar with both the technical as
well as the conceptual part
Outdated annotations
◦ A risk, especially in rapidly changing environments with lack of automation in
the annotation process

Automated Annotation
Incomplete annotation is preferable to absent
◦ E.g. in video streams
Limitations of systems performing automated annotation
◦ Limited recall and precision (lost or inaccurate annotations)

Metadata (1)
Data about data
Efficient materialization with the use of ontologies
Ontologies can be used to describe Web resources
◦ Adding descriptions about their semantics and their relations
◦ Aims to make resources machine-understandable
◦ Each (semantic) annotation can correspond to a piece of
information
◦ It is important to follow a common standard

Metadata (2)
Annotation is commonly referred to as “metadata”
Usually in a semi-structured form
◦ Semi-structured data sources
◦ Structure accompanies the metadata
◦ E.g. XML, JSON
◦ Structured data sources
◦ Structure is stored separately
◦ E.g. relational databases

Metadata (3)
Powerful languages
◦ Practically unlimited hierarchical structure
◦ Covers most of the description requirements that may occur
◦ Storage in separate files allows collaboration with communication protocols
◦ Files are independent from the environment in which they reside
◦ Resilience to technological evolutions
Negatives
◦ Expressivity of the description model
◦ Limited way of structuring the information

Metadata (4)
Inclusion of semantics
◦ Need for more expressive capabilities and terminology
Ontologies
◦ Offer a richer way of describing information
◦ E.g. defining relationships among concepts such as subclass/superclass,
mutually disjoint concepts, inverse concepts, etc.
◦ RDF can be regarded as the evolution of XML
◦ OWL enables more comprehensive, precise and consistent
description of Web Resources

Ontologies (1)
Additional description to an unclear model that aims to
further clarify it
Conceptual description model of a domain
◦ Describe its related concepts and their relationships
Can be understood both by human and computer
◦ A shared conceptualization of a given specific domain
Aim at bridging and integrating multiple and heterogeneous
digital content on a semantic level

Ontologies (2)
In Philosophy, a systematic recording of “Existence”
For a software system, something that “exists” is something
that can be represented
◦ A set of definitions that associate the names of entities in the
universe of discourse with human-readable text describing the
meaning of the names
◦ A set of formal axioms that constrain the interpretation and well-
formed use of these terms
The specification of a conceptualization (Gruber 1995)

Ontologies (3)
Can be used to model concepts regardless to how general or specific
these concepts are
According to the degree of generalization
◦ Top-level ontology
◦ Domain ontology
◦ Task ontology
◦ Application ontology
Content is made suitable for machine consumption
◦ Automated increase of the system knowledge
◦ Logical rules to infer implicitly declared facts

Reasoners (1)
Software components
Validate consistency of an ontology
◦ Perform consistency checks
◦ Concept satisfiability and classification
Infer implicitly declared knowledge
◦ Apply simple rules of deductive reasoning

Reasoners (2)
Basic reasoning procedures
◦ Consistency checking
◦ Concept satisfiablility
◦ Concept subsumption
◦ Instance checking (Realization)
Properties of special interest
◦ Termination
◦ Soundness
◦ Completeness

Reasoners (3)
Research in Reasoning
◦ Tradeoff between
◦ Expressiveness of ontology definition languages
◦ Computational complexity of the reasoning procedure
◦ Discovery of efficient reasoning algorithms
Commercial
◦ E.g. RacerPro
Free of charge
◦ E.g. Pellet, FaCT++

Knowledge Bases
Terminological Box (TBox)
◦ Concept descriptions
◦ Intensional knowledge
◦ Terminology and vocabulary
◦Assertional Box (ABox)
◦ The real data
◦ Extensional knowledge
◦ Assertions about named individuals in
terms of the TBox vocabulary
TBox
ABox
Description
Language
Reasoning
Knowledge Base
Application Programs Rules

Knowledge Bases vs. Databases (1)
A naïve approach:
◦ TBox ≡ Schema of the relational database
◦ ABox ≡ Schema instance
However, things are more complex than that

Knowledge Bases vs. Databases (2)
Relational model
◦ Supports only untyped relationships among relations
◦ Does not provide enough features to assert complex relationships among data
◦ Used in order to manipulate large and persistent models of relatively simple
data
Ontological scheme
◦ Allows more complex relationships
◦ Can provide answers about the model that have not been explicitly stated to
it, with the use of a reasoner
◦ Contains fewer but more complex data

Closed vs. Open World Assumption (1)
Closed world assumption
◦Relational databases
◦ Everything that has not been stated as true is false
◦ What is not currently known to be true is false
◦ A null value about a subject’s property denotes the non-existence
◦ A NULL value in the isCapital field of a table Cities claims that the city is not a capital
◦ The database answers with certainty
◦ A query “select cities that are capitals” will not return a city with a null value at a supposed
boolean isCapital field

Closed vs. Open World Assumption (2)
Open world assumption
◦ Knowledge Bases
◦ A query can return three types of answers
◦ True, false, cannot tell
◦ Information that is not explicitly declared as true is not necessarily false
◦ It can also be unknown
◦ Lack of knowledge does not imply falsity
◦ A question “Is Athens a capital city?” in an appropriate schema will
return “cannot tell” if the schema is not informed
◦ A database schema would return false, in the case of a null value

Monotonicity
A feature present in Knowledge Bases
A system is considered monotonic when new facts do not
discard existing ones
First version of SPARQL did not include update/delete
functionality
◦ Included in SPARQL 1.1
◦ Recommendation describes that these functions should be supported
◦ Does not describe the exact behavior

Outline
Introduction
Preliminaries

The LOD Cloud (1)
Structured data
Open format
Available for everyone to use it
Published on the Web and connected using Web
technologies
Related data that was not previously linked
◦ Or was linked using other methods

The LOD Cloud (2)
Using URIs and RDF for this is goal is very convenient
◦ Data can be interlinked
◦ Create a large pool of data
◦ Ability to search, combine and exploit
◦ Navigate between different data sources, following RDF links
◦ Browse a potentially endless Web of connected data sources

The LOD Cloud (3)
Applications in many cases out of the academia
Technology maturity
Open state/government data
◦ data.gov (US)
◦ data.gov.uk (UK)
◦ data.gov.au (Australia)
◦ opengov.se (Sweden)
Open does not necessarily mean Linked

The LOD Cloud (4)
Published datasets span several domains of human
activities
◦ Much more beyond government data
◦ Form the LOD cloud
◦ Constantly increasing in terms of volume

The LOD Cloud (5)
Evolution
Geographic
Media
Publications
User-Generated
Content
Government
Cross-Domain
Life Sciences
Social Networking
2007 2009 2014

Introduction: Linked Data and the Semantic Web

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Introduction: Linked Data and the Semantic Web

More from Nikolaos Konstantinou

Recently uploaded

Introduction: Linked Data and the Semantic Web