1 / 33

The challenge

The PlanetData View on Dissemination: Scalable differentiation and interweavement of Content and Communication.

halima
Download Presentation

The challenge

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The PlanetData View on Dissemination: Scalable differentiation and interweavement of Content and Communication Anja Bunnefeld, Johannes Breitfuss, Carmen Brenner, Alice Carpenter, Lyndon Nixon, Anna Fensel, Dieter Fensel, Michael Fried, Birgit Leiter, Simeona Pellkvist, Elena Simperl, and Stephan Thaler

  2. The challenge • The last two hundred years have revolutionized international transport and communication. Fax, phone, and later the internet, have radically changed our communication possibilities. • More and more communication has been freed from the geographical barriers that formerly limited their speed and expansion. • Now, it is (in principle) possible to instantly communicate with a large fraction of the entire human population. • Nevertheless, new means also generate new challenges.

  3. Assume the task of a small hotelier • How can he ensure that he is found by his potential customer? • He should have a web site with high visibility by various search engines, • he must be present in a large number of on-line booking channels, • we should find him through the web site of the town, • and obviously a facebook site is a must (why not with a booking engine link included?). • Bookings through mobile platforms are significantly increasing and you want to be found there too.

  4. Assume the task of a small hotelier • Why not add a video about the hotel on youtube, a chat channel for instant communication, fast email and fax response capabilities, • the old-fashioned telephone, and occasional tweets and emails that are clearly distinguishable from spam? • Preferably the communication should be multi-directional, i.e., the hotelier should realize when one of his posts gets commented on. • or even more importantly, he should be aware when someone talks about his hotel and how much the costumer liked it.

  5. The channel cake

  6. The solution • The core idea of our approach is to introduce a layer on top of the various internet based communication channels that is domain specific and not channel specific. • So one has: • information models (specific for certain domains), that define the information or knowledge items; • a channel model (the communication model), that describes the various channels and their target groups; • mappings of information items on channels through a weaver; and • finally a library of implemented wrappers for actual channel instances

  7. Information Model • Organization. This functional model defines the project as a structured entity composed by goals and means to achieve them. • Interact. This Communication model defines how you can interact with the project. • Events. This Process model describes the major activities of the project. • Resources. This describes the project in terms of its measurable and durable outcomes.

  8. Organization • Mission statement what, why and how the organization contributes to its solution. • A generic description of this project. It starts and ends, it has a name, a logo, an URI, etc. Therefore we expect a project description roughly reflecting what is called a project fact sheet by the European commission. To keep it readable, understandable, and accessible to a broader audience, additional press material should be provided, too.

  9. Organization • The project body that carries it is composed by partners that should be mentioned. Partners are legal entities with their own structure. • Item 1: An ontology used to describe these organizations based on schema.org is provided in the next version of this draft. • Legal entities are in the end nothing else then a structured pattern of interaction of people. Therefore, it is more than wise to list the people that carry the actual work on the project. • Item 2. An ontology used to describe people based on schema.org is provided in the next version of this draft. • Finally, the funding bodyshould be mentioned.

  10. Interact • Join PlanetData as an associate partner. • Join PlanetData as an core partner. • the closed call and • the future call. • Address: Skype id, an email address, a phone number, a fax number, a postal address, a Facebook account name, a Twitter account name, and a list of project email lists.

  11. Events • Two diemsnions to distingusih them: • past events and future events; and • internal events (i.e., project meetings) that are “owned” by PlanetData and external events that are aligned with and supported by PlanetData. • PlanetData also wants to stress a specific type of events, i.e., training events. Well, why not? However, you nearly would expect non-training events as complementary categorization.

  12. Events • Item 3: In general, the conceptualization is quite broken since we mix dimensions with subconcepts and give special prominence to one type of events. • Item 4: An Ontology for describing events derived from schema.org • Item 5: and a proper categorization of external events (conferences, workshops, etc.) must be provided. • Problem 1: Which process or incentives ensure a proper recording of aligned events?

  13. Resources • Project deliverables • PR material • Publications. • Here, we have a second problem: Which process or incentives ensure a proper recording of publications? • Item 6: An ontology used to describe publications will be provided in the next version of this draft. • Presentations. • Problem 3: Which process or incentives ensure a proper recording of presentations? • Item 7: An ontology used to describe presentations will be provided in the next version of this draft.

  14. Resources • Data sets • Tools • Videos • Event summaries. • Here, we have a fourth problem: Which process or incentives ensure a proper recording of events?

  15. The authorship table

  16. The authorship table

  17. The authorship table

  18. The authorship table

  19. The Channel Model • Web 1.0: A web site that publish mostly static information. • Web 2.0: Means for publishing streams and interacting with information prosumer • Web 3.0: Providing content for machines to read and process. • Non-web means such as email lists.

  20. Web site • should directly reflect the conceptual structure of its information model. • Future version may become optimized by accessibility issues.

  21. Web 2.0 • A wiki. • A news ticker (RSS feeds). • Twitter • Facebook • Slideshare

  22. Web 3.0 • Obviously future versions of the PlanetData web appearance must include: • RDFa and Microformat information at the web site, • an RDF dump, and • a SPARQL endpoint providing machine processable information. • This data should be described using Linked Open Data (LOD) and schema.org vocabulary. • A plan for this is urged urgently. Item 8

  23. Email lists • Email lists are a proven means to broadcast information and to have discussions going on. • However, we lack a defined list of email lists relevant for PlanetData. • Missing Item 9.

  24. Weaving Meaning with the Transport Channel • Formally a weaver is a ordered list of tuples of five elements: • An information item • A channel • A rule describing how the content is processed to fit a channel • Scheduling information • An executor performing the update of a channel.

  25. Web site

  26. Web site

  27. Web Site – dynamic/2.0 elements • Share • Like • Facebook • Twitter • News • Partner • People

  28. Web Site • The content-channel weaver is provided by sending an email with the content to the web master or by directly accessing the content management system Drupal. • A detailed table will be provided in the appendix of this document that specifies the precise URI for each content type.

  29. Web 2.0

  30. Web 2.0 • Workflow 1: First a news is published as RSS feed and then this news is tweeted referring to the URI of the news. • Facebook should receives the tweets (can be fully automated) and photos are downloaded there (executor Scientific Director). • Fileshare should receive all presentations, executor DM. • Wiki. Ised for internal project collaboration. Open visible to provide a detailed information source on the work in the project.

  31. Email lists • Missing is: • Item 9: the precise definition of email lists per item, • Item 10: Scheduling constraints that prevent spamming of these lists.

  32. Outlook and Conclusions • Implementation of the current proposal • Resolving open items and problems • Future versions of our dissemination concept may investigate the additional use of flickr, LinkedIn, blogs, sharing of bookmarks, youtube, and other means not yet mentioned. See all the buttons offered by the Seals project:

  33. Outlook and Conclusions • Quality control and monitoring are completely missing. • Location-based mobile dissemination channels are missing. • Feedback analysis and bi-directional communication is missing • Web3.0 is totally missing • On-line reputation management as a holistic approach is missing and the holy grail to go for.

More Related