COULD WE CREATE A SEMANTIC WEB DATA MODEL FOR SUBJECT CATALOGING?

1. COULD WE CREATE A SEMANTIC WEB DATA MODEL FOR SUBJECT CATALOGING?

2. BY • Martha M. Yee • Cataloging Supervisor • UCLA Film & Television Archive • myee@ucla.edu • http://myee.bol.ucla.edu

3. HOW I GOT STARTED DOING RESEARCH • MLIS, 1978-1980, UCLA Graduate School of Library and Information Science • Ph.D., 1993, UCLA Graduate School of Library and Information Science • Try to ask a research question that is of interest beyond your institution

4. INTRODUCTION • 1. The vision • 2. The experiment • 3. Definition of terms • 4. The current approach to linking two different concepts or objects in a subject relationship

5. INTRODUCTION • 5. Research questions • 6. The RDF model so far—the schema • 7. The RDF model so far—an example (instance) • 8. Potential problems with RDF

6. THE VISION • The Web as shared database instead of shared document store

7. THE VISION • Instead of records, URI’s (Uniform Resource Identifiers) for entities: • URI for work containing all work attributes

8. THE VISION • URI for subject entity (concept or object), containing all entity attributes, including preferred name, variant names, but also much more data about the concept or object than our current authority records do

9. THE VISION • URI for disciplinary approach/perspective entity (currently a classification number), containing all entity attributes, including preferred name, variant names, but also much more data about the disciplinary approach/perspective than our current authority records do

10. THE VISION • URI’s for persons, corporate bodies, places, etc. , including preferred name, variant names, but also much more data about person, corporate body, or place than our current authority records do

11. THE VISION • If any data about a particular entity needed to be changed, it would be changed once at the URI and immediately accessible to all users, libraries and library staff by means of links down to local data such as circulation, acquisitions, and binding data

12. THE EXPERIMENT • A set of cataloging rules that incorporate both descriptive and subject cataloging rules, differing from RDA in being more FRBR-ized • Today, focus is on the subject cataloging rules

13. THE EXPERIMENT • I am now in the process of trying to model my cataloging rules in the form of an RDF/RDFS/OWL/SKOS model • Today the focus is on the subject part of this model

14. THE EXPERIMENT • I don’t seriously expect anyone to adopt these rules!

15. THE EXPERIMENT • You can find these rules and the data model, (including the RDF schema, and some RDF examples) at: • http://myee.bol.ucla.edu

16. SOME DEFINITIONS • The semantic web: a way to represent knowledge; a knowledge representation language that provides ways of expressing meaning that are amenable to computation; a means of constructing maps of domains of knowledge consisting of class and property axioms with a formal semantics

17. SOME DEFINITIONS • The semantic web • The web as huge shared database • Hyperdata replacing hypertext

18. SOME DEFINITIONS • RDF (Resource Description Framework): a family of specifications for methods of modeling information that underpins the semantic web through a variety of syntax formats

19. SOME DEFINITIONS • RDF (Resource Description Framework) • Data encoded as: • the subject of a triple (New York) • the predicate of a triple (has the postal abbreviation) • the object of a triple (NY)

20. SOME DEFINITIONS • RDF (Resource Description Framework) • XML is commonly used to express RDF, but is not a necessity

21. SOME DEFINITIONS • RDF (Resource Description Framework) • RDFS or RDF Schema is an extensible knowledge representation language providing basic elements for the description of ontologies, AKA RDF vocabularies

22. SOME DEFINITIONS • RDF (Resource Description Framework) • RDFS data encoded as: • Class (= Entity); the subject of a triple (e.g., “New York”) • Class relationship (semantic linkage); the predicate of a triple (e.g., “has the postal abbreviation”) • Class property (= Attribute); the object of a triple (e.g., “NY”)

23. SOME DEFINITIONS • RDF (Resource Description Framework) • OWL (Web Ontology Language): a family of knowledge representation languages for authoring ontologies compatible with RDF

24. SOME DEFINITIONS • RDF (Resource Description Framework) • SKOS (Simple Knowledge Organisation Systems): a family of formal languages built upon RDF and designed for representation of thesauri, classification schemes, taxonomies or subject-heading systems

25. A CONTROVERSY • A controversy over what URIs identify: • 1. the name for a concept? • 2. the concept itself? • 3. a web location? • 4. or a document instance?

26. LINKING SUBJECT ENTITIES • Current approach to linking two different subject entities (concepts or objects) • 1. Compound headings • Comic books and children • African Americans on television • 2. Heading-subdivision combinations • Birds--Effect of pesticides on • Women--Employment

27. RESEARCH QUESTION 1 • 1. Is it possible to fit our subject cataloging, genre/form, and classification system data into RDF/RDFS/OWL/SKOS?

28. RESEARCH QUESTION 2 • 2. If it is, is it possible to use that data to design indexes and displays that meet the objectives of the catalog (providing an efficient instrument to allow a user to find all of the works in a given genre or form, or all of the works on a particular subject)?

29. RESEARCH QUESTION 3 • 3. Would it be possible to create and control a list of types of relationships between concepts and objects that currently make up main heading-subdivision combinations in LCSH?

30. RESEARCH QUESTION 3 • Ability, Types of (free-floating scope note, Ability testing, H1095, p. 4) • Activities, Types of (free-floating scope note, Equipment and supplies, H1095, p. 22) • Animals, Individuals (pattern heading, H1147) • Animals, Groups of (pattern heading, H1147) • Animals, Types of (free-floating scope note, Equipment and supplies, H1095, p. 22) • Archaeological sites, Individual (free-floating scope note, Catalogs, H1095, p. 12)

31. RESEARCH QUESTION 4 • 4. Would it be possible to create and control a list of types of relationships between concepts and objects that currently make up compound headings? Perhaps these types of relationships could be made more granular, e.g.

32. RESEARCH QUESTION 4 • Subject to subject relationship--Activity of entity relationship • Examples: • Child artists • Subject to subject relationship--Audience for activity • Examples: • Art therapy for children

33. RESEARCH QUESTION 4 • Subject to subject relationship--Created by • Examples: • Films by children • Subject to subject relationship--Depiction of • Examples: • Children in art

34. RESEARCH QUESTION 4 • Subject to subject relationship--Effect on • Example: • Television and children • Subject to subject relationship--Material made of • Example: • Brick chimneys

35. RESEARCH QUESTION 4 • Subject to subject relationship--Participation in • Example: • Women in television broadcasting • Subject to subject relationship--Regulation of • Example: • Railroads and state

36. RESEARCH QUESTION 5 • Would it be possible to use the same type of relationship properties to link objects/concepts to place or period more explicitly or in a more granular way than heretofore?

37. RESEARCH QUESTION 5 • For example, a geographic subdivision may refer to: • the place of origin of an object, person, corporate body, etc. • the place in which an event or activity occurred • the place in which an object, person, corporate body, etc. is now found • Current use of geographic subdivisions can be ambiguous as to which of the above meanings is intended

38. RESEARCH QUESTION 6 • Would it be possible to use RDF to encode broader and narrower hierarchical relationships such as those found in both subject heading lists and classification schemes?

39. RDF MODEL SO FAR--SCHEMA • Domain (RDFS): A global restriction on a property, used to infer a subject's membership in a class or classes. • Range (RDFS): A global restriction on a property, used to infer an object's membership in a class or classes.

40. RDF MODEL SO FAR--SCHEMA • Subclass (OWL): Used to create a hierarchy below the class level; all things in a subclass are also in its class. • Subproperty (OWL): Used to create a hierarchy below the property level; use of one subproperty implies the use of the property of which it is the subproperty.

41. RDF MODEL SO FAR--SCHEMA • Disjoint with (OWL): Used to assert that one or more classes are siblings sharing the same parent class with no overlap among siblings. An instance that is a member of one sibling class cannot also be the member of the other sibling class(es).

42. RDF MODEL SO FAR--SCHEMA • Class: Work

43. RDF MODEL SO FAR--SCHEMA • Class: Concept

44. RDF MODEL SO FAR--SCHEMA • Class: Object

45. RDF MODEL SO FAR--SCHEMA • Property: Resource to Work Subject Relationships

46. RDF MODEL SO FAR--SCHEMA • Property: Resource to Work Subject Relationship--About (Nonfiction)

47. RDF MODEL SO FAR--SCHEMA • Property: Subject to Subject Relationship--Effect on

48. THE RDF MODEL SO FAR—AN EXAMPLE (INSTANCE)? • <ycr:resworksubjabout rdf:resource="http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh85048726#concept" /> • <ycr:resworksubjabout> • <ycr:langidconc>Fishes • </ycr:langidconc> • <ycr:keyidconc>sh85048726 • </ycr:keyidconc> • </ycr:resworksubjabout>

49. THE RDF MODEL SO FAR—AN EXAMPLE (INSTANCE)? • <ycr:subjsubjeffect rdf:resource="http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh00002520#concept" /> • <ycr:subjsubjeffect>Effect of pesticides on • <ycr:keyidconc>sh00002520 • </ycr:keyidconc> • </ycr:subjsubjeffect>

50. SOME PROBLEMS? • Can we do what we need to do within the context of the semantic web?