Formalizing Enrichment Mechanisms for Bibliographic Ontologies in the Semantic Web

Abstract

This paper presents an analysis of current limitations to the reuse of bibliographic data in the Semantic Web and a research proposal towards solutions to overcome them. The limitations identified derive from the insufficient convergence between existing bibliographic ontologies and the principles and techniques of linked open data (LOD); lack of a common conceptual framework for a diversity of standards often used together; reduced use of links to external vocabularies and absence of Semantic Web mechanisms to formalize relationships between vocabularies, as well as limitations of Semantic Web languages for the requirements of bibliographic data interoperability. A proposal is advanced to investigate the hypothesis of creating a reference model and specifying a superontology to overcome the misalignments found, as well as the use of SHACL (Shapes Constraint Language) to solve current limitations of RDF languages.

REDI: Towards knowledge graph-powered scholarly information management and research networking

“…Furthermore, researchers in the bibliographic field have also worked with these technologies, especially in ontology-related topics that have led to the creation of ontologies/vocabularies (e.g. Dublin Core and BIBO), and discussions about their applicability in the Semantic Web [10].…”

From the web of bibliographic data to the web of bibliographic meaning: structuring, interlinking and validating ontologies on the semantic web

“…The following sections summarize the bibliographic ontologies interoperability problems already reviewed in …. Patrício, Cordeiro and Ramos (2019), adding quality evaluations of general linked data implementations undertaken by Hogan (2012), Schmachtenberg (2014) and Feeney et al (2018). And, specific to the library domain, the evaluation by Papadakis, et al (2015) of linked datasets from 7 national libraries; the analysis by Jett et al (2016) regarding linked data representations of normative bibliographic ontologies; the Talleras (2018) comparative evaluation of bibliographic datasets published as linked data by France (BNF), Germany (DNB), UK (BL-BNB) and Spain (BNE) national libraries.…”

“…In fact, FRBR model is based on requirements defined for legacy systems such as card catalogues or MARC (Machine Readable Cataloging) formats, resulting in the creation of entities, attributes and relationships from pre-existing standards. Besides, as explained in Patrício, Cordeiro and Ramos (2019), FRBR entities are not data structures designed to be connected, making it difficult for RDF descriptions to co-exist with data from other communities (Murray, 2008). Patrício, Cordeiro and Ramos (2019) summarised the most relevant misalignments of RDF representations of FRBR (such as FRBRer, FRBR Core and FRBRoo ontologies) with the techniques of linked data, as reported by several authors (Murray and Tillet, 2011;Peponakis, 2012;Baker et al, 2014;Martin and Mundle, 2014;Coyle, 2015;Godby et al, 2015;Coyle, 2016;Zapoudinou et al, 2016).…”

“…Besides, as explained in Patrício, Cordeiro and Ramos (2019), FRBR entities are not data structures designed to be connected, making it difficult for RDF descriptions to co-exist with data from other communities (Murray, 2008). Patrício, Cordeiro and Ramos (2019) summarised the most relevant misalignments of RDF representations of FRBR (such as FRBRer, FRBR Core and FRBRoo ontologies) with the techniques of linked data, as reported by several authors (Murray and Tillet, 2011;Peponakis, 2012;Baker et al, 2014;Martin and Mundle, 2014;Coyle, 2015;Godby et al, 2015;Coyle, 2016;Zapoudinou et al, 2016). First aspect to note is the inability to express class hierarchy, thus not enabling transitivity and basic mechanisms of inference.…”

“…In section 2 -"Data quality in the Semantic Web" the major background concepts related to metadata sharing and data quality are reviewed, in order to establish a framework for linked data quality evaluation. Subsequently, in section 3 -"Bibliographic ontologies evaluation", this paper updates the literature review about the major interoperability limitations of bibliographic ontologies undertaken by Patrício, Cordeiro and Ramos (2019) and published in MTSR 2019 Proceedings (Garoufallou et al, 2019), both at the top-down level of bibliographic standard vocabularies and at the bottom-up level of linked data library implementations. A research project is presented in Chapter 4 -"A reference model and a SHACL-based superontology as solutions" to investigate solutions involving the creation of a reference model that could conceptually frame the heterogeneous initiatives of bibliographic data transformation and the development of a superontology, that could function for high level semantic interlinking and data validating, using SHACL, thus differing from traditional bibliographic control systems and XML/database mapping solutions such as crosswalks and application profiles.…”