Assessing and refining mappings to RDF to improve dataset quality

RDF dataset quality assessment is currently performed primarily after data is published. However, there is neither a systematic way to incorporate its results into the dataset nor the assessment into the publishing workflow. Adjustments are manually -but rarely- applied. Nevertheless, the root of the violations which often derive from the mappings that specify how the RDF dataset will be generated, is not identified. We suggest an incremental, iterative and uniform validation workflow for RDF datasets stemming originally from (semi-) structured data (e.g., CSV, XML, JSON). In this work, we focus on assessing and improving their mappings. We incorporate (i) a test-driven approach for assessing the mappings instead of the RDF dataset itself, as mappings reflect how the dataset will be formed when generated; and (ii) perform semi-automatic mapping refinements based on the results of the quality assessment. The proposed workflow is applied to diverse cases, e.g., large, crowdsourced datasets such as DBpedia, or newly generated, such as iLastic. Our evaluation indicates the efficiency of our workflow, as it significantly improves the overall quality of an RDF dataset in the observed cases

Semantic Federation of Musical and Music-Related Information for Establishing a Personal Music Knowledge Base

Music is perceived and described very subjectively by every individual. Nowadays, people often get lost in their steadily growing, multi-placed, digital music collection. Existing music player and management applications get in trouble when dealing with poor metadata that is predominant in personal music collections. There are several music information services available that assist users by providing tools for precisely organising their music collection, or for presenting them new insights into their own music library and listening habits. However, it is still not the case that music consumers can seamlessly interact with all these auxiliary services directly from the place where they access their music individually. To profit from the manifold music and music-related knowledge that is or can be available via various information services, this information has to be gathered up, semantically federated, and integrated into a uniform knowledge base that can personalised represent this data in an appropriate visualisation to the users. This personalised semantic aggregation of music metadata from several sources is the gist of this thesis. The outlined solution particularly concentrates on users’ needs regarding music collection management which can strongly alternate between single human beings. The author’s proposal, the personal music knowledge base (PMKB), consists of a client-server architecture with uniform communication endpoints and an ontological knowledge representation model format that is able to represent the versatile information of its use cases. The PMKB concept is appropriate to cover the complete information flow life cycle, including the processes of user account initialisation, information service choice, individual information extraction, and proactive update notification. The PMKB implementation makes use of SemanticWeb technologies. Particularly the knowledge representation part of the PMKB vision is explained in this work. Several new Semantic Web ontologies are defined or existing ones are massively modified to meet the requirements of a personalised semantic federation of music and music-related data for managing personal music collections. The outcome is, amongst others, • a new vocabulary for describing the play back domain, • another one for representing information service categorisations and quality ratings, and • one that unites the beneficial parts of the existing advanced user modelling ontologies. The introduced vocabularies can be perfectly utilised in conjunction with the existing Music Ontology framework. Some RDFizers that also make use of the outlined ontologies in their mapping definitions, illustrate the fitness in practise of these specifications. A social evaluation method is applied to carry out an examination dealing with the reutilisation, application and feedback of the vocabularies that are explained in this work. This analysis shows that it is a good practise to properly publish Semantic Web ontologies with the help of some Linked Data principles and further basic SEO techniques to easily reach the searching audience, to avoid duplicates of such KR specifications, and, last but not least, to directly establish a \"shared understanding\". Due to their project-independence, the proposed vocabularies can be deployed in every knowledge representation model that needs their knowledge representation capacities. This thesis added its value to make the vision of a personal music knowledge base come true.:1 Introduction and Background 11 1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1.2 Personal Music Collection Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 1.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 2 Music Information Management 17 2.1 Knowledge Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2.1.1 Knowledge Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 2.1.1.1 Knowledge Representation Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 2.1.1.2 Semantic Graphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 2.1.1.3 Ontologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 2.1.1.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 2.1.2 Knowledge Management Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 2.1.2.1 Information Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 2.1.2.2 Ontology-based Distributed Knowledge Management Systems . . 20 2.1.2.3 Knowledge Management System Design Guideline . . . . . . . . 21 2.1.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 2.2 Semantic Web Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 2.2.1 The Evolution of the World Wide Web . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Personal Music Knowledge Base Contents 2.2.1.1 The Hypertext Web . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 2.2.1.2 The Normative Principles of Web Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . 23 2.2.1.3 The Semantic Web . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 2.2.2 Common Semantic Web Knowledge Representation Languages . . . . . . 25 2.2.3 Resource Description Levels and their Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 2.2.4 Semantic Web Knowledge Representation Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 2.2.4.1 Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 2.2.4.2 Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 2.2.4.3 Context Modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 2.2.4.4 Storing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 2.2.4.5 Providing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 2.2.4.6 Consuming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 2.2.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 2.3 Music Content and Context Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 2.3.1 Categories of Musical Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 2.3.2 Music Metadata Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 2.3.3 Music Metadata Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 2.3.3.1 Audio Signal Carrier Indexing Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 2.3.3.2 Music Recommendation and Discovery Services . . . . . . . . . . 42 2.3.3.3 Music Content and Context Analysis Services . . . . . . . . . . . 43 2.3.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 2.4 Personalisation and Environmental Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 2.4.1 User Modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 2.4.2 Context Modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 2.4.3 Stereotype Modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 2.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 3 The Personal Music Knowledge Base 48 3.1 Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 3.1.1 Knowledge Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 3.1.2 Knowledge Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 3.2 Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 3.3 Workflow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 3.3.1 User Account Initialisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 3.3.2 Individual Information Extraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 3.3.3 Information Service Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 3.3.4 Proactive Update Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 3.3.5 Information Exploration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 3.3.6 Personal Associations and Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 3.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 4 A Personal Music Knowledge Base 57 4.1 Knowledge Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 4.1.1 The Info Service Ontology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 4.1.2 The Play Back Ontology and related Ontologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 4.1.2.1 The Ordered List Ontology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 4.1.2.2 The Counter Ontology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 4.1.2.3 The Association Ontology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 4.1.2.4 The Play Back Ontology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 4.1.3 The Recommendation Ontology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 4.1.4 The Cognitive Characteristics Ontology and related Vocabularies . . . . . . 72 4.1.4.1 The Weighting Ontology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 4.1.4.2 The Cognitive Characteristics Ontology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 4.1.4.3 The Property Reification Vocabulary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 4.1.5 The Media Types Taxonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 4.1.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 4.2 Knowledge Management System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 4.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 5 Personal Music Knowledge Base in Practice 87 5.1 Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 5.1.1 AudioScrobbler RDF Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 5.1.2 PMKB ID3 Tag Extractor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 5.2 Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 5.2.1 Reutilisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 5.2.2 Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 5.2.3 Reviews and Mentions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 5.2.4 Indexing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 5.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 6 Conclusion and Future Work 93 6.1 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 6.2 Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Enhancing Humanities Research Productivity in a Collaborative Data Sharing Environment

This project represents a multi-organizational, interdisciplinary effort to enhance collaborative research in cultural heritage fields by exploring user experience with Web-based technologies. The objective of this project is to document user needs around online systems for sharing primary data and documentation of cultural heritage collections. To this end, we will draw upon the experience and insights of representatives from different stakeholder groups in three broad arenas: academic researchers, heritage managers, and specialist communities. Investigations undertaken in this study will result in best-practice guidelines to guide humanities computing efforts on how to best meet the diverse user needs in future online data sharing systems. Using an iterative cycle of development, deployment, and evaluation, this project will enhance Open Context, a collaborative, open-access data sharing system already in use for archaeology and related disciplines

Proceedings ICPW'07: 2nd International Conference on the Pragmatic Web, 22-23 Oct. 2007, Tilburg: NL

Proceedings ICPW'07: 2nd International Conference on the Pragmatic Web, 22-23 Oct. 2007, Tilburg: N

Engineering Agile Big-Data Systems

To be effective, data-intensive systems require extensive ongoing customisation to reflect changing user requirements, organisational policies, and the structure and interpretation of the data they hold. Manual customisation is expensive, time-consuming, and error-prone. In large complex systems, the value of the data can be such that exhaustive testing is necessary before any new feature can be added to the existing design. In most cases, the precise details of requirements, policies and data will change during the lifetime of the system, forcing a choice between expensive modification and continued operation with an inefficient design.Engineering Agile Big-Data Systems outlines an approach to dealing with these problems in software and data engineering, describing a methodology for aligning these processes throughout product lifecycles. It discusses tools which can be used to achieve these goals, and, in a number of case studies, shows how the tools and methodology have been used to improve a variety of academic and business systems

Validation Framework for RDF-based Constraint Languages

In this thesis, a validation framework is introduced that enables to consistently execute RDF-based constraint languages on RDF data and to formulate constraints of any type. The framework reduces the representation of constraints to the absolute minimum, is based on formal logics, consists of a small lightweight vocabulary, and ensures consistency regarding validation results and enables constraint transformations for each constraint type across RDF-based constraint languages

EXPRESS: Resource-oriented and RESTful Semantic Web services

This thesis investigates an approach that simplifies the development of Semantic Web services (SWS) by removing the need for additional semantic descriptions.The most actively researched approaches to Semantic Web services introduce explicit semantic descriptions of services that are in addition to the existing semantic descriptions of the service domains. This increases their complexity and design overhead. The need for semantically describing the services in such approaches stems from their foundations in service-oriented computing, i.e. the extension of already existing service descriptions. This thesis demonstrates that adopting a resource-oriented approach based on REST will, in contrast to service-oriented approaches, eliminate the need for explicit semantic service descriptions and service vocabularies. This reduces the development efforts while retaining the significant functional capabilities.The approach proposed in this thesis, called EXPRESS (Expressing RESTful Semantic Services), utilises the similarities between REST and the Semantic Web, such as resource realisation, self-describing representations, and uniform interfaces. The semantics of a service is elicited from a resource’s semantic description in the domain ontology and the semantics of the uniform interface, hence eliminating the need for additional semantic descriptions. Moreover, stub-generation is a by-product of the mapping between entities in the domain ontology and resources.EXPRESS was developed to test the feasibility of eliminating explicit service descriptions and service vocabularies or ontologies, to explore the restrictions placed on domain ontologies as a result, to investigate the impact on the semantic quality of the description, and explore the benefits and costs to developers. To achieve this, an online demonstrator that allows users to generate stubs has been developed. In addition, a matchmaking experiment was conducted to show that the descriptions of the services are comparable to OWL-S in terms of their ability to be discovered, while improving the efficiency of discovery. Finally, an expert review was undertaken which provided evidence of EXPRESS’s simplicity and practicality when developing SWS from scratch