social semantic web

42
Social Semantic Web

Upload: vlad-posea

Post on 25-May-2015

417 views

Category:

Education


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Social semantic web

Social Semantic Web

Page 2: Social semantic web

Social Web

• Term used to describe the way in which people socialize/interact on the web

Page 3: Social semantic web

Social web

• =socializing sites + content sharing sites

Page 4: Social semantic web

Social Semantic Web

• Interconnect the islands of the social web with semantic technologies

• Enhance the semantic web applications with the wealth of knowledge from user generated content

Page 5: Social semantic web

What do people do on the social web

• Create content

Page 6: Social semantic web

What do people do on the social webweb

• Tag content

Page 7: Social semantic web

What do people do on the social web

• Create or state relationships

Page 8: Social semantic web

What do people do on the social web

• Exchange messages

• Search

• Buy

Page 9: Social semantic web

Social web

• Limitations– Social platforms are isolated from one another– There is no standard for exchanging data between

them• Nobody wants to have a common standard for

exchanging data :)

– Database hugging (see TBL’s Ted talk from first course) <=> User base hugging

Page 10: Social semantic web
Page 11: Social semantic web

Social Web - content types

• Videos (youtube, vimeo, google video, …)• Bookmarks (delicious, stumbleupon, digg)• Blog articles (wordpress, blogspot, technorati)• Microblog posts (twitter, facebook statuses)• Images (flickr, picasa)

Page 12: Social semantic web

Social Web - content types

• Characteristics– Very different types– Most of them do not contain text– Bookmarks are references to the other types of

resources– Important who creates or bookmarks the web

resource– The only way to describe all these types of content

=> tags

Page 13: Social semantic web

Social web - tagging - Folksonomies

• A folksonomy is “tagging that works”• Another definition: the result of free tagging

of net objects, identified by URL’s. The set of tags and resources annotated by users constitutes the folksonomy.

Page 14: Social semantic web

Folksonomy characteristics

• No hierarchy, no is-a relations• Vocabulary reflects the ideas and vision of the

users• Terms in the folksonomy are related only

through co-occurrence• Much more dynamic than ontologies to

represent the way users categorize content

Page 15: Social semantic web

Types of folksonomies

• Broad folksonomies– Many people tag the same object. More people

can use the same tag on a resource– Ex: delicious.com

Page 16: Social semantic web

Types of folksonomies

• Narrow folksonomies– A resource is tagged by a limited number of

people (usually the author)– Used more in content sharing sites (youtube,

slideshare, flickr) for describing multimedia content

– Less information than the broad folksonomies but also relevant

Page 17: Social semantic web

Folksonomies - problems

• Different lexicalizations of words (plural, singular, synonyms)

• Words with multiple meanings• There’s no hierarchy - problems for

classification of resources

Page 18: Social semantic web

Folksonomies - representation

• Hypergraph representation• Hypergraph=a generalization of a graph where

an edge can connect any number of nodes.• a hypergraph H=(V,E) where V is a set of nodes

and E is a set of non-empty sub-sets of V. E is a subset of the power set of V.

Page 19: Social semantic web

Folksonomies - representation

• The nodes of a folksonomy hypergraph are:– The users that are tagging– The resources that are being tagged– The tags that are being used

• The edges of the hypergraph are triples of type (user, resource, tag) which represent the tagging action performed by a user using a tag on a given resource.

• This means that the edges in the hypergraph belong to a subset of the U X R X T product

Page 20: Social semantic web

Folksonomy - representation

• => a folksonomy F=(U,R,T,Y) – where Y U X R X T.

• Folksonomies can also be represented using ontologies

• The hyperedge are represented through a node of type tagging and the node is linked through properties to the user, resource and tag

Page 21: Social semantic web

Vocabularies for the Social Web

• Ontologies that describe the social web– Content (SIOC, DC)– Social relations (FOAF, Relationship, XFN)– Tagging (Tagging, SCOT, MOAT)

Page 22: Social semantic web

Social Web Vocabularies

• SIOC - Semantically Interlinked Online Communities

Page 23: Social semantic web

Social Web Vocabularies

• SIOC + FOAF + SKOS

Page 24: Social semantic web

Social Web Vocabularies

• Relationship vocabulary - http://vocab.org/relationship/.html

• Defines different kind of properties that describe the relations between two persons

• Ex: acquaintance, ancestor, apprentice, child, close friend, collaborator, knows in passing, knows by reputation

• Would be very useful in social networks where you have hundreds of “friends”

Page 25: Social semantic web

Social Web Vocabularies

• XFN - XHTML Friends Network• Simple microformat for describing

relationships

Page 26: Social semantic web

Social Web Vocabularies

• Neuman’s tagging ontology - http://www.holygoat.co.uk/projects/tags/

• Tagging - the hyperedge n-ary relation between a tag, a resource, a tagger and a date.

• Tag - class to define the tags• Doesn’t express tag meanings or

lexicalisations

Page 27: Social semantic web

Social Web Vocabularies

• SCOT ontology– Extension of SIOC and Tagging (Neuman’s)– + concepts and properties• TagCloud (set of tags used in a context)• CoOccurrence• Source - the namespace where the tagging was

performed

Page 28: Social semantic web

Social Web Vocabularies

• MOAT - meaning of a tag• it introduces the concept of TagMeaning,

linking a tag concept to a related concept in a domain ontology.

• moat-project.org/ontology

Page 29: Social semantic web

Model to represent social web activity

Page 30: Social semantic web

Social Search

• 3 types of social search– Collective social search– Friend filtered social search– Collaborative search (question-answering)

Page 31: Social semantic web

Social search

• Collective social search– Similar with wisdom of the crowds– Search could be augmented with “hot” topics– Problems with trust - does the user really trust the

results from the masses– Need to understand the user’s search process - is

the user exploring or narrowing the domain

Page 32: Social semantic web

Social search

• Friend-filtered social search– Provide data “validated” by your friends or your

peers– Add it next to traditional search results– Advantage of TRUST– See who added or recommended the piece of

content returned by the search

Page 33: Social semantic web

Social search

• Friend filtered social search - issues– Do your friends have relevant and available

content for most of your searches– Problems with the different types of social content

- most of them only characterized by tags– Difficult to understand the context around a

resource (the tagging context for example)

Page 34: Social semantic web

Social search

• Collaborative Search - question answering– A number of users work together to find the

answer to a problem– Example: yahoo answers (asynchronous)– Example: Aardvark - IM based - find the user from

your network who might know the answer and dispatches the request

Page 35: Social semantic web

Social BuyingAmazon sets the example as always Most read part of the product description -people reviewsJust imagine having reviews from someone you already know and trust

Page 36: Social semantic web

Semantic Social Web Tools

Page 37: Social semantic web

Semantic social web - our vision

• What we try to do – Provide feedback for learning using social web data– Provide friend-filtered social search– Provide relevant learning recommendations– Help the learner establish valuable network

connections– Understand the learner’s profile– Our context: European research project - Language

Technologies for Lifelong Learning

Page 38: Social semantic web

Semantic social web - our vision

• Friend filtered social search - the “friends” are the tutors and learning peers

• The tutor is (should be) well connected, the learner might get introduced to valuable persons

• The learner should TRUST the results because they come from tutors

• If the tutor invests time in adding resources to the social web - he gains time afterward because he has to answer less questions

Page 39: Social semantic web

Semantic social web - our vision

• Data sources– Delicious.com - bookmarks– Slideshare.net - presentations– Flickr.com - images– youtube.com - videos

• To be added:– Twitter– Facebook– Blogs

Page 40: Social semantic web

Semantic social web - our vision

Page 41: Social semantic web
Page 42: Social semantic web