Linked open data portals: functionalities and user experience in semantic catalogues

Abstract

PurposeThis study seeks to understand the current state of the development of linked open data (LOD) bibliographic portals to discuss their functionalities, contributions, value-adds and user experience.Design/methodology/approachA set of evaluative aspects grouped into three analysis dimensions was established: collections, tools—technologies and standards used—and web user interface. As the object of the study, four projects of diverse nature and volume were selected to help provide a better understanding of the trends in the solutions provided for the end user when accessing linked data collections.FindingsPublishing LOD through visual interfaces maximises information enrichment, contextualisation and discovery, in addition to improving user experience, because of both increased navigation capabilities and interrelationships between data. These more flexible environments have metamorphosised the visualisation of bibliographic information. However, aspects that needed improvement were observed, primarily relating to (1) a more intuitive interaction, (2) possibilities of greater personalisation, (3) enhanced communication with the user to favour user engagement and (4) experimental spaces of data reuse.Research limitations/implicationsFurther quantitative and qualitative studies should be conducted to improve these portals, assess their adaptation to the behaviour of the user and their influence on the use of library collections.Originality/valueThis article investigates the potential of semantic technologies in bibliographic data portals, proposes a methodological model for their evaluation and advances conclusions about the usability and user experience that these platforms provide, compared to classic catalogues.

An investigation of linked data catalogue features in libraries, archives, and museums: a checklist approach

“…First, Share-VDE and SNAC have a preference to provide a similar form of authority entry, including name with date of birth and death, name-title and so forth. Moreover, SNAC further provides person’s title and relationships between CFPs (refer to the section “Keyword recommendation” in the Results) derived from contextual links in harmony with the suggestion proposed by Alvite-Díez (2021), Hyvönen (2012) and Niu (2016). Secondly, PIAAF provides recommended keywords with LD source to distinguish where the information is from, whereas BnF uses entity type defined by LRM to indicate the type of LD.…”

“…Therefore, no matter whether an URI is designated with subject, predicate or object, all URIs are given clear semantic meanings. All relationships between entities expressed by predicates can be regarded explicitly as “semantic links” (Ali and Warraich, 2018; Alvite-Díez, 2021; Douglas et al ., 2018; Gonzales, 2014; Hawkins, 2021; Klic et al ., 2018; Niu, 2016; Oomen et al ., 2012; Styles et al ., 2008) and can be discoverable (Ali and Warraich, 2018; Niu, 2016). In addition to SPARQL query, all meaningful relationships can be used to facilitate semantic guidance, navigation and limitation during users’ querying and browsing LD traversing over disparate sources.…”

“…(2013) suggested that VIAF can be used as a keyword recommender for various terms to facilitate re-queries during user search. Based on LD aggregated contextual links, Alvite-Díez (2021), Hyvönen (2012) and Niu (2016) reported that the LD catalogue can offer term suggestions when users type the letters of search keywords. In other words, LD catalogues can use the contextual links embedded between LDs as a semantic recommendation for keyword search.…”

“…However, LD catalogues also offer a similar faceted function with a different approach. In the LD environment, URIs are used as a basis to offer either faceted limitations in filtering the search results (Alvite-Díez, 2021; Eyharabide et al ., 2019) or faceted browsing to retrieve LD through semantic structure defined by ontology (Hyvönen, 2012).…”

Using online English learning resources: utilitarian and hedonic perspectives

“…Thus, our study offers a more nuanced depiction of the relationship between value and intention, which enables researchers to include these two lines of factors (hedonic and utilitarian) in building future research models along these two lines of factors. Furthermore, other online information evaluation criteria or schemes (e.g., Alvite-Díez, 2021; Pour et al. , 2020) can be summarized or grouped along these two lines of factors (utilitarian value and hedonic value) to examine their impacts on user evaluation and perceptions, which can better reflect what users perceive they can gain from using online information systems.…”