Archive for structured web
November 2, 2008 at 1:39 pm · Filed under Semantic web, social semantic web, social software, social web, structured web, Web 2.0 ·Tagged demo, iswc2008, StYLiD
I am back from Karlsruhe, Germany after presenting StYLiD at the poster and demo session of ISWC 2008. My paper titled “Consolidating User-defined Concepts with StYLiD” was published in the proceedings CEUR-WS Volume 401. I have also uploaded the paper and the poster.
I prepared some screencast videos to demostrate StYLiD. I will try to post them online soon. Making screencasts proved to be a good idea as the internet connection at the venue was so intermittent 😉
It was a good opportunity for me to attend such an important conference. Prof. Martin Hepp came along and watched my demo in detail and took a picture of the entire poster – an honor for me. He also asked me specific questions and thanks for his comments. He had rightly noted that I have been referring to and citing his works like myOntology and FolksOntology 🙂
There were also other people interested in StYLiD. Luckily my stall was located next to other interesting demos like LENA (a linked data browser) and Thinkbase (a graphical interface to Freebase). However, I could not show my demo in detail to everyone, I realized that it takes time.
I will have more time to explain my work at ASWC 2008, Bangkok where I will present StYLiD as a full research paper.
Permalink
September 1, 2008 at 10:21 am · Filed under social semantic web, social web, structured web, Web 2.0 ·Tagged enticing, incentive, social web, user contribution
MediaShift Idea Lab . Ensuring Content in User Driven Conversations
A user-driven system does not have value unless users contribute contents. It is good news that 80-20 rule is observed in this case (it is enough to have 20% of the users as active contributors and rest 80% can be passive readers). However, it is very difficult to entice this 20% users. It is not enough to have an easy-to-use interface to ensure that users will contribute – users simply don’t care. The blog post mentions some important tactics to deal with this.
It is even more difficult to entice users into contributing structured data. The associated cost is higher than that for unstructured contents. So the benefit also has to be much greater. We need more tactics for enticing users to contribute structured data.
Permalink
June 3, 2008 at 2:46 pm · Filed under freebase, Information sharing, Semantic web, social semantic web, social software, structured web, web 3.0, wikipedia ·Tagged freebase, StYLiD
Freebase: Dispelling The Skepticism – ReadWriteWeb
Freebase is definitely a nice and powerful application. It is different from Wikipedia though it is based on wikis because it maintains structured data. However, the Freebase interface seems to be quite overwhelming for the casual users. Wikipedia looks rather simple and easy to use. StYLiD is also based on similar idea as Freebase – enabling the users to create structured data. However, StYLiD is a lightweight application towards structured information sharing and not at all intended to be another world’s database (surely I cannot handle that). StYLiD is more like a blog for dynamic information sharing rather than a wiki. Moreover, StYLiD tries to consolidate multiple definitions by different users for the same type and produce richer and evolving conceptualizations. Freebase is cool and it will be interesting to see how people structure information. I am also trying to analyze user-defined types in Freebase and how they can be combined. Thanks to the Freebase API 😉
Permalink
May 4, 2008 at 12:53 pm · Filed under Collaboration, Information sharing, linked data, My Projects, ontology evolution, RDFa, Semantic web, social semantic web, social software, social web, structured web, Web 2.0 ·Tagged Collaboration, concept consolidation, Information sharing, linked data, RDFa, social semantic web, Structured data
StYLiD: Social Information Sharing with Free Creation of Structured Linked Data
I presented this paper about StYLiD in the Social Web and Knowledge Management Workshop (SWKM 2008), April 22nd, co-located at the 17th World Wide Web Conference WWW2008, Beijing, China. It was a half-day workshop with only 6 selected papers. The session was interesting and very relevant to my area of research. This was my first time to attend the WWW conference. Quite an honor to be in such a great conference 😉
Here is my paper and here are my slides.
Permalink
April 6, 2008 at 2:36 am · Filed under Information sharing, linked data, My Projects, RDFa, Semantic web, social semantic web, social software, social web, structured web, Web 2.0, web 3.0 ·Tagged Collaboration, concept consolidation, Information sharing, linked data, RDFa, social semantic web, Structured data
I just came back from Seattle, USA after doing a poster presentation of StYLiD (Structure Your own Linked Data) in the second International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM 2008). Seattle is a great place to be 😉
You may download the poster here. This is the poster paper. The system is online. You may register your account for free and start using it!
Permalink
October 22, 2007 at 7:29 am · Filed under Collaboration, Information sharing, metadata, Projects, Semantic web, structured web, Web 2.0
The New Era of Semantic Apps
3 great semantic applications were presented at the recently held Web 2.0 summit, Semantic Edge session – Freebase, Powerset and Twine. I have been recently working on ideas similar to Freebase, sharing structured information based on collaboratively shared concepts and schema.
Permalink
September 20, 2007 at 4:52 am · Filed under Folksonomy, structured web, tagging
Linkexplorer.net – experimental structured tagging
The Linkexplorer organizes tagging by defining various relations between tags. This is similar to the approach used by BibSonomy. But there are different types of named relations (eg part-of, related-to, etc). This greatly helps to organize tags. However, I think tagging is quite uncontrolled and it will be difficult to have usable visualizations of relations between huge amounts of tags. Further, I am not sure if it should be called structured tagging. Some people use the term “structured tagging” to refer to structured metadata.
Permalink
Aman\'s Blog 