case studies for semantic web portal technologies

Case Studies for Semantic Web Portal

Technologies

Anna V. ZhdanovaDERI-Innsbruck,

8 March 2004

Overview

• Introduction• Case study 1 (semanticweb.org)• Case study 2 (eTourism)• Case study 3 (PeopleSearch&Compare)• Conclusions

Note: Case study is also referred as CS further

General PictureWe are here, thus applications of SW-portal technologies are needed

Why case studies and specifications are mutually useful

Case studies help specifications to become perfect

Specifications help case studies to become real

Basic FacilitiesCase Study 1: SemanticWeb.org

• “We aim to bring together research groups, research projects, software developers and user communities in the Semantic Web area.” – Mission statement

• Basic facilities should support whatever was meant

Target Domain/Our Expertise in It Case Study 1: SemanticWeb.org

• Domain is not really popular, very narrow (but deep )

• P2P• We are the experts here! No external

expertise is needed

What’s Cool?Case Study 1: SemanticWeb.org

• It will be possible to say that semanticweb.org is a Semantic Web portal

How Will It Be Achieved? Case Study 1: SemanticWeb.org

DERI-Galway will take care and do all the work with assistance of DERI-Innsbruck on common parts/technologies in

intersection-of(CS1, union-of(CS2, CS3)) .

ExtensionsCase Study 1: SemanticWeb.org

• Extensive merging into “institute” (DERI) portal

• Reuse of the same techniques in any other research community portal

Basic FacilitiesCase Study 2: eTourism

• Allow tourism businesses to advertise themselves effectively (semantic annotation)

• Allow tourist to find precisely what they want (intelligent search)

For: Satisfying specific tourist needs, e.g.

“I want a room with kitchen facilities

In a hotel in Tirol not far from

Axamer Lizum and with a boat rental

nearby.”

Target Domain/Our Expertise in It Case Study 2: eTourism

• Domain of tourism is popular, broad, especially relevant to Austria

• B2C• We are not experts in tourism => Austrian

companies working in tourism are to be involved for ontology adaptation, development and usage of portal in general

What’s Cool?Case Study 2: eTourism

• Usefulness of having a semantic annotation for a specific hotel, restaurant or other tourist businesses– WORM: Modify it once, and the changes are automatically

communicated to all systems that use this data• It can be used by services that generate/update automatically

businesses’ web-pages – isn’t it nice?

– It will be used in the eTourism portal to advertise businesses

• Businesses will get annotated easily (relatively): usage of linguistic tools is expected

• Multilingual access

How Will It Be Achieved?Case Study 2: eTourism

• DERI-Innsbruck will take care and do all the work with assistance of DERI-Galway on common parts/technologies in

intersection-of(CS1, union-of(CS2, CS3)) .

• Cooperation with Mondeca on using ITM and with VisioLab on using general ontology on tourism

• Cooperation with local Austrian tourist companies on local tourism issues

ExtensionsCase Study 2: eTourism

• Web-services: This case study is planned to be aligned with the eTourism case study in WSMO. WSMO eTourism case study will enrich eTourism SW portal case study with dynamic features such as support for making reservations for train tickets or hotels.

Basic FacilitiesCase Study 3: PeopleSearch&Compare

• Allow users to say whatever they want about themselves (semantic annotation, collaborative ontology engineering)

• Allow users to find whatever whoever said about themselves (intelligent search)

For: search of a friend, date, boss,employee, relative, ex-classmate, etc. compare anyone with others: self-assessment,

staff evaluation, etc.

Target Domain/Our Expertise in It Case Study 3: PeopleSearch&Compare

• Domain is highly popular, also the most broad domain of the existing ones

• P2P• We are not really experts… but have

understanding why people may need to search over and compare people’s profiles => external expertise is not necessary (at least in the beginning)

What’s Cool? Case Study 3: PeopleSearch&Compare

• Usefulness of having a personal semantic annotation– WORM: Modify it once, and the changes are automatically

communicated to all systems that use your personal data• It can be used by services that generate/update automatically

your web-page or CV – isn’t it nice?

– It will be used in the people’s portal to connect people

• High flexibility in what can be specified – Users do not just passively fill in

specified slots, but also collaborativelyextend an ontology that describes anyimaginable aspect of a class “Person”

How Will It Be Achieved? Case Study 3: PeopleSearch&Compare

DERI-Innsbruck will take care and do all the work with assistance of DERI-Galway on common parts/technologies in

intersection-of(CS1, union-of(CS2, CS3)) .

ExtensionsCase Study 3: PeopleSearch&Compare

• Web-services: Using Web-services to search/compare people’s profiles

• Extensive merging into “institute” (DERI) portal – in terms of representation of information about people, their skills

• Personal information exchange and personnel evaluation at an enterprise

Added value of metadata(Adapted to CS3)

Directions for Developmentin CS1, CS2, CS3 (more or less)

CS1 CS2 CS3

Web services

? at first less, later more

at first less, later more

Ontology management (collaboration support)

? less more

Linguistics (static web page annotation)

? more less

Semantic Web user interfaces

? more, but less than in CS3

more

The end (so far)