1. Semantic Web Portal: A Platform for Better Browsing and Visualizing Semantic Data Ying Ding et al. Jin Guang Zheng, Tetherless World Constellation

2. Outline Background Information –What is Semantic Web Portal Paper Presentation –Introduction –Architecture + Portal Ontology –Use Cases –Evaluation –Conclusion Why Interested Paper Critique –Pros, Cons

3. Background Information Semantic Web Portal: –Web site that collects information for a group of users –For a community to share & exchange information –Based on Semantic Web Technologies

4. Semantic Web Portal: A Platform for Better Browsing and Visualizing Semantic Data

5. Introduction Research Question: –“One of the main shortcomings of Semantic Web technologies is that there are few user-friendly ways for displaying, browsing and querying semantic data.” –How can we design a system which provides user- friendly ways for displaying, browsing and querying semantic data? Existing SWPs: –SEAL, Semantic Mediawiki based portals, Museum Finland, Health Finland, etc. –Most of these portals are too complicated to be replicated by non-specialists

6. SWP Architecture Data Ingestion: conversion of input data to RDF (D2R) Ontology Management: enable online ontology creation, editing, mapping, etc. Faceted Browsing: enable users to explore complex RDF triples in a user-friendly and meaningful manner Semantic Visualization: displays RDF data in tile, Google map, timeline or table format Semantic Search: enables a type-based search that can categorize federated RDF triples into different groups based on ontologies.

7. Portal Ontology Domain specific, user need to create his own ontology –Should reflect the database schema of its original datasets –Main concepts or relationships from commonly used queries –Enable interoperability –Obey Linked Open Data rules HTTP URIs, URIs dereferencable

8. Use Cases

9. Research Group Portal Information Visualizatin Lab – Indiana University Bloomington Relational tables -> RDF triples based on VIVO ontology(Model research network) The portal –enables faceted browsing. List view of information about each group member: Publications, presentations, interests, projects –semantic visualization Timeline view: Presentation at different time slots Google Map view: Grouped entities base on location

10. Health Center Portal Indiana University health Center Doctors can pull out the related information about a group of patients The portal –Groups together all information related to one patient, e.g. medication, diagnosis –Provides faceted browser allows users to select different criteria by which to view data.

11. eGov Portal Ozone and Visibility data from the EPA’s Castnet project and convert them into RDF triples. Mashup with geo location information from another dataset The portal –Provides Geo Map view for Castnet information –Provides faceted browser allows user to filter results of Castnet sites.

12. Linked Open Data Portal Chem2bio2rdf –Integrating bio2rdf and Linking Open Drug Data to allow links between compounds, protein, genes, etc. –Contains 18 datasets, 5 categories: chemical, chemogenomics, biological systems, phenotype, literature User friendly SWP and Sparql endpoint

13. Evaluation 14 users evaluates SWP’s usability –Positive feedback: 78% –58% agreed faceted browser shortens the time they required to find desired information –Positive about visualization –Some users feel that too much information is integreated

14. Paper Conclusion The paper proposes a SWP platform which enables –Faceted browsing –Semantic visualization –Semantic search functions of RDF triples The system can be deploy to any domain Future improvements: –Online ontology management –Dynamic SPARQL Queries –Semantic Search

15. Why Interested User-friendly interfaces to display, browse, and query data is important usability issue on Semantic Web Interested to Water Portal Project –Build a easy-to-deploy semantic web portal

16. Paper Critique Pros: –Easy to read and understand the type of issue the paper try to address –Use Cases Examples showed functionalities the system provides and domains the system can be deploy to

17. Paper Critique Cons: –Paper doesn’t provide detailed explanation on system implementation –Where is the semantic search functinality –Comparison between portal and various semantic tools Tabular, Exhibit, etc.

18. References Maedche, A., Staab, S., Stojanovic, N., Studer, R., and Sure, Y.: SEAL - A Framework for Developing SEmantic Web PortALs. In Proceedings of the 18th British National Conference on Databases: Advances in Databases, pp. 1--22 (2001) Krötzsch, M.: Semantic Media Wiki. http://semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/Semantic_MediaWiki (2010) Hyvönen, E., Junnila, M., Kettula, S., Mäkelä, E., Saarela, S., Salminen, M., Syreeni, A., Valo, A. and Viljanen, K.: Publishing Museum Collections on the Semantic Web: The Museumfinland Portal. Proceedings of the 13th international World Wide Web conference on Alternate track papers & posters, pp. 418--419. ACM Press, New York (2004) Suominen, O., Hyvönen, E., Viljanen, K. and Hukka, E.: HealthFinland-A National Semantic Publishing Network and Portal for Health Information. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 7(4), pp. 287--297 (2009) Lausen,H., Ding, Y., Stollberg, M., Fensel, D., Hernandez, R., and Han,S.: Semantic web portals: state-of-the-art survey. Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 9(5), pp. 40--49 (2005)

19. Questions Thank you for your attention!

20. Evaluation