Fall 2009

S604: Metadata & Semantics (preliminary version)

Course Information

Course Time: Thursday 1:00-3:45pm
Instructor: Ying Ding
Office Hours: Thursday 10:00-12:30pm or by appointment
Contact: Email: dingying@indiana.edu; Tel: 812-855-5388

Course Description

The standard organizations such as the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) and Dublin Core Initiatives have directed major efforts at specifying, developing, and deploying standards for metadata. These efforts certainly march a crucial step to promote wide spread deployment to enhance data functionality and interoperability, for example, FOAF (metadata for friends), SKOS (metadata for taxonomies), DOAP (metadata for project), RSS or ATOM (metadata for news), SIOC (metadata for social networks), Dublin Core (metadata for documents), GEO (metadata for geographic coordinates), GeneOnt (metadata for human genes), microformat (metadata for Social Web) and so on.

This course aims to provide an introduction to metadata from the semantic web point of view. It emphasizes the semantic perspectives of metadata with the focus on data integration and mediation. This course contains three parts: Part 1 is the introduction of the basic semantic web technologies which include ontology, RDF and OWL. Part 2 provides the detailed analysis of the selected metadata, such as FOAF, SKOS, RSS (ATOM) and so on. Part 3 introduces some popular domain ontologies, such as bibliographical ontologies, multimedia ontologies, geo location ontologies and general ontologies (e.g., Linked Open Data ontology (YAGO) and Wikipedia Ontology).

Upon completion of this course, you should be able to:

  • Be familiar with important metadata schema and be able to deploy them into real life applications
  • Be familiar with popular domain ontologies and be able to use them to represent data and semantics
  • Develop an understanding of the semantic web technologies


This course does not require textbook. Most of the materials are available online. Related readings will provide the background information for each lecture.

Course Schedule

Date Topic Lab Assignment
Sept 3 Introduction Syllabus, Reading Discussion
Sept 10 Ontology Reading Discussion, Announce Assignment 1
Sept 17 RDF, XML Reading Discussion, Protege, Announce Assignment 2
Sept 24 OWL Reading Discussion, Protege Assignment 1 due
Oct 1 FOAF Reading Discussion, Protege
Oct 8 SKOS, SKOS-W3C Reading Discussion, Protege, Announce Assignment 3
Oct 15 SIOC, SWRC Reading Discussion, Protege Assignment 2 due
Oct 22 RSS and ATOM Reading Discussion, Protege
Oct 29 Linked Open Data Reading Discussion, Project, Announce Assignment 4
Nov 5 Bibliographic ontologies (BibTex, BIBO, DC, CiTO), TopicMaps Reading Discussion, Project Assignment 3 due
Nov 12 Multimedia Ontologies (Music Ontology) Reading Discussion, Project
Nov 19 Geo and bio ontologies (present your geo or bio ontologies) Reading Discussion, Project, Announce Assignment 4 and 5
Nov 26 Thanksgiving Break
Dec 3 General Ontologies (WordNet, YAGO, Cyc) Reading Discussion, Project Assignment 4 due
Dec 10 Wrap up Student Project Presentation Assignment 5 due

Homework and Class Exercise

There are five assignments, final project presentation and participation of class activities.

Individual Assignments

Description: In this course, you will conduct an individual project to apply the learned technologies. The final result of your individual project will be a project report which is divided into 5 assignments. In the end, these individual assignments can be assembled as a project report.

Your individual Project: Please select one category of the ontologies (Categories to list but not limited to: bibliographic ontologies, multimedia ontologies, geo ontologies, etc. Note: you can propose your own interesting category):

  • Conduct a literature review on the existing important ontologies within the selected category.
  • Select one ontology
  • Find related data from the web or other resources
  • Represent the data based on the selected ontology using Protege

Project Report: It contains the following information:

  • The introduction of your interested category and the state of the arts on using semantics to model and represent data in this category (Assignment 1 (one page))
  • The literature review of existing ontologies within the selected category (Assignment 2 (2 pages))
  • The introduction of the selected ontology and why (Assignment 3 (1-2 pages))
  • Your data source, and steps or methods of representing your data source based on the selected ontology (Assignment 4 (1-2 pages))
  • Conclusion and future work, and lessons-learned and suggestions for the project and the course (Assignment 5 (1-2 pages))
  • One example

Final Project Presentation

By the end of the course, you are requested to present your project during the class. It should be around 10 Power Point Slides (20mins presentation) to include the following points:

  • Introduction of your project
  • Methods and results of your project
  • Lessons learned
  • Future work

Class Activities

You will be asked to present one reading and lead the discussion during the class.

Course Deliverables and Grading

Your grade will be based on five individual assignments, participation in class activities and the final project presentation:

Five individual assignments: 15% each
Class participation, classroom activities and reading discussion: 15%
Oral presentation of the individual project: 10%
Feedback and suggestions to improve this course: extra credit

Weekly Readings

Week 1: Introduction

  • Hendler, J., Shadbolt, N., Hall, W., Berners-Lee, T., & Weitzner, T. (2008). Web Science: An interdisciplinary approach to understanding the web. Communication of the ACM, 51(7), 60-69.
  • Hendler, J., & Golbeck, J. (2008). Metcalfe's Law Applies to Web 2.0 and the Semantic Web. Journal of Web Semantics.
  • Benjamins, R. V. (2008). Near-term prospects for semantic technologies. IEEE Intelligent Systems, January/February, 76-88.

  • Optional Readings
  • Francine, B. (2008). Got data? A guide to data preservation in the information age. Communications of the ACM, 51(12), 50-56.

Week 2: Ontology

  • Gruber, T. R. (1994). Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. IJHCS, 43(5/6), 907-928.
  • Mizoguchi, R. Tutorial on Ontological Engineering
  • Noy, N. F., McGuinness, D.L. Ontology Development 101: A guide to creating your first Ontology

  • Optional Readings
  • Grüninger, M., & Fox, M. S. (1995). Methodology for the Design and Evaluation of Ontologies. IJCAI Workshop on Basic Ontological Issues in Knowledge Sharing, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
  • Gómez-Pérez, A., Fernández, M., & de Vicente, A. (1996). Towards a Method to Conceptualize Domain Ontologies. Workshop on Ontological Engineering, ECAI’96, 41-52.
  • Mika, P. (2007). Ontologies are us: A unified model of social networks and semantics. Journal of Web Semantics, 5(1), 5-15.
  • Hendler, J. (2008). Web 3.0: Semantic Web chicken farms. IEEE Computer, 41(1).

Week 3: RDF

  • Wilde, E., & Glushko, R. J. (2008). XML Fever. Communication of the ACM, 51(7), 40-46.
  • Miller, E. (1998). An introduction to the resource description framework. D-Lib Magazine, May 1998.
  • Ding, L., & Finin, T. (2006). Characterizing the Semantic Web on the Web. Proceedings of the 5th International Semantic Web Conference, Galway, Ireland.

  • Optional Readings
  • Antoniou, G., Franconi, E., & Harmelen, F. V. (2005). Introduction to Semantic Web Ontology Languages

Week 4: OWL

  • Horrocks, I. (2008). Ontologies and the Semantic Web. Communications of the ACM, 51(12), 58-67.
  • Shadbolt, N., Berners-Lee, T., & Hall, W. (2006). The Semantic Web Revisited. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21(3), 96-101.
  • Hendler, J. (2005). Knowledge is Power: A view from the Semantic Web. AI Magazine, 26(4), 76-84

  • Optional Readings
  • Wang, T. D., Parsia, B., & Hendler, J. (2006). A survey of the Web Ontology Landscape.
  • Amies, A. (2006). Introduction to OWL Web Ontology Language for Medical and Biosciences Applications.

Week 5: FOAF

  • Mika, P. (2004). Social networks and the semantic web: An experiment in Online Social Network analysis. Proceedings of the IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence (WI2004), IEEE CS Press, 285-291.
  • Staab, S. (2005). Social Network Applied. IEEE Intelligent Systems, January/February, 80-93
  • Golbeck, J., & Rothstein, M. (2008). Linking Social Networks on the Web with FOAF: A Semantic Web Case Study. Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'08)

  • Optional Readings
  • Newman, M. (2004). Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. PNAS, 101(1), 5200-5205
  • Shibata, N., Kajikawa, Y., & Matsushima, K. (2007). Topological analysis of citation networks to discover the future core articles. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(6), 872-882.
  • Whitfield, J. (2008). Group theory: what makes a successful team?. Nature, 455(9), 720-723.
  • Kleninberg, J. (2008). The convergence of social and technological networks. Communication of the ACM, 51(11), 66-72.

Week 6: SKOS

  • Assem, M. V., Malaise, V., Miles, A., & Schreiber, G. (2006). A method to convert Thesauri to SKOS. Springer, Lecture notes in computer science.
  • Miles, A., Matthews, B., Wilson, M., & Brickley, D. (2005). SKOS Core: Simple Knowledge Organization for the Web. Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core.
  • Sanchez-Alonso, S., & Garcia-Barriocanal, E. (2006). Making use of upper ontologies to foster interoperability between SKOS concept schemes. Online Information Review.

Week 7: SIOC, SWRC

  • Bojars, U., Passant, A., Cyganiak, R., & Breslin, J. (2008). Weaving SIOC into the Web of Linked Data. LOD Workshop at WWW2008, April 2008, Beijing, China.
  • Sure, Y., Bloehdorn, S., Haase, P., Hartmann, J., & Oberle, D. (2005). The SWRC Ontology – Semantic Web for Research Communities. In Proceedings of the 12th Portuguese Conference on Artificial Intelligence (EPIA 2005), Springer, Covilha, Portugal, December 2005.
  • Breslin, J. G., Bojars, U., Harth, A., & Decker, S. (2005). Towards Semantically-Interlinked Online Communities. In. Proceedings of the 2nd European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC '05), LNCS vol. 3532, pp. 500-514, Heraklion, Greece, 2005.

  • Optional Readings
  • Golbeck, J. (2007). The Dynamics of Web-based Social Networks: Membership, Relationships, and Change. First Monday, 12(11).
  • Bloehdorn, S., Haase, P., Hefke, M., Sure, Y., & Tempich, C. (2005). Intelligent community lifecycle support. In. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Knowledge Management (I-KNOW 05).
  • Moller, K., Bojars, U., & Breslin, J. G. (2006). Using Semantics to Enhance the Blogging Experience. Springer, Lecture notes in Computer Science.
  • Passant, A. (2007). Using Ontologies to strengthen folksonomies and enrich Information Retrieval in Weblogs. International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media.

Week 8: RSS and ATOM

  • Greaves, M. (2007). Semantic web 2.0. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 22(2), 94-96.
  • Gruber, T. (2007). Ontology of Folksonomy: A Mash-up of Apples and Oranges. International Journal on Semantic Web & Information Systems, 3(2), 2007.
  • Harrsch, M. (2003). RSS: The next killer app for education. The Technology Source.

  • Optional Readings
  • Barabasi, A. (2001). The physics of the web. Physicsworld.com.
  • Gill, K. E. (2005). Blogging, RSS and the information landscape: A look at online news. WWW 2005 Workshop on the Weblogging Ecosystem.
  • Hammond, T., Hannay, T., & Lund, B. (2004). The role of RSS in Science Publishing. D-Lib Magazine.
  • Wusteman, J. (2004). RSS: the latest feed. Library HI Tech.
  • Java, A., Finin, T., & Nirenburg, S. (2006). SemNews: A Semantic News Framework. Proceedings of the Twenty-First National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-06)

Week 9: Linked Open Data

  • Suchanek, M. F., Kasneci, G., & Weikum, G. (2007). YAGO – A Core of Semantic Knowledge. 16th international World Wide Web conference WWW 2007.
  • Bizer, C., Cyganiak, R., & Heath, T. (2007). How to Publish Linked Data on the Web.
  • Miller, P., Styles, R., & Heath, T. (2008). Open Data Commons, a License for Open Data. LOD Workshop at WWW 2008, April 2008, Beijing, China.

  • Optional Readings
  • Passant, A., & Laublet, P. (2008). Meaning of a Tag: A collaborative approach to bridge the gap between tagging and linked data. LOD Workshop at WWW 2008, April 2008, Beijing, China.

Week 10: Bibliographic ontologies

  • Rodriguez, M. A., Bollen, J. & Sompel, H. V. D. (2007). A practical ontology for the large scale modeling of scholarly artifacts and their usage. Joint Conference on Digital Liobraries, June 18-23, Vancouver, Canada.
  • Tillett, B. B. (2005). FRBR and cataloging for the future. Cataloging and Classification Quarterly.
  • Greenberg, J. (2007). Advancing Semantic Web via Library Functions. Cataloging and Classification Quarterly.

  • Optional Readings
  • Martha M. Yee (2009). Can bibliographical data be put directly onto the Semantic Web. Information Technology and Libraries, 28(2), 55-80. Preprint available at http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7722&context=postprints
  • Marko. A Rodriguez, Johan Bollen and Herbert Van de Sompel. A Practical Ontology for the Large-Scale Modeling of Scholarly Artifacts and their Usage, In Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, Vancouver, June 2007.
  • Johan Bollen, Marko A. Rodriguez and Herbert Van de Sompel. MESUR: usage-based metrics of scholarly impact, 2007.
  • Shotton, D. (2009). CiTO, the Citation Typing Ontology, and its use for annotation of reference lists and visualization of citation networks. Bio-Ontologies 2009, a Special Interest Group meeting at ISMB 2009. Stockholm. Preprint available at http://imageweb.zoo.ox.ac.uk/pub/2008/publications/Shotton_ISMB_BioOntology_CiTO_final_postprint.pdf.
  • Shotton, D. (2009). Semantic Publishing: The coming revolution in scientific journal publishing. Learned Publishing 22: 85-94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1087/2009202. Preprint available at http://purl.org/net/semanticpublication/Shotton_Semantic_publishing_evaluation.pdf., Our semantically enhanced version of Reis et al. (2008) Impact of Environment and Social Gradient on Leptospira Infection in Urban Slums PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 2: e228, is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0000228.x001.
  • Lagoze, C., & Hunter, J. (2001). The ABC Ontology and Model. Journal of Digital Information, 2.
  • Styles, R., Ayers, D., & Shabir, N. (2008). Semantic Marc, MARC 21 and The Semantic Web. LOD Workshop at WWW 2008, April 2008, Beijing, China.
  • Hillmann, D. I. (2008). Facing Forward: The Challenges Facing Cataloging and Catalogers. dspace.library.cornell.edu.
  • Svensson, L. G. (2007). National Web Library 2.0: Are national libraries ready for the new version?. Information Services and Use, 2007 - IOS Press
  • Doerr, M., & LeBoeuf, P. (2007). Modelling Intellectual Processes: The FRBR-CRM Harmonization. Springer, Lecture notes in Computer Science.

Week 11: Multimedia ontologies

  • Hunter, J. (2001). Adding Multimedia to the Semantic Web - Building an MPEG-7 Ontology. In International Semantic Web Working Symposium (SWWS)
  • Raimond, Y., Sutton, C., & Sandler, M. (2008). Automatic Interlinking of Music Datasets on the Semantic Web. LOD Workshop at WWW 2008, April 2008, Beijing, China.
  • Raimond, Y., Abdallah, S., Sandler, M., & Giasson, F. (2007). The music ontology. Proceedings of the International Conference on Music.

  • Optional Readings
  • Athanasiadis, T., Tzouvaras, V., & Petridis, F. K. (2005). Using a Multimedia Ontology Infrastructure for Semantic Annotation of Multimedia Content. In Proc. of 5th International Workshop on Knowledge Markup and Semantic Annotation.
  • Bagdanov, A. D., Bertini, M., Bimbo, A. D., Serra, G., & Torniai, C. (2007). Semantic annotation and retrieval of video events using multimedia ontologies. Proceedings of the International Conference on Semantic Computing, 713-720.
  • Arndt, R., Troncy, R., Staab, S., Hardman, L., & Vacura, M. (2007). COMM: Designing a Well-Founded Multimedia Ontology for the Web. Springer, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.
  • Simou, N., Saathoff, C., Dasiopoulou, S., Spyrou, E. (2006). An Ontology Infrastructure for Multimedia Reasoning. Springer, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.
  • Troncy, R., Celma, O., Little, S., Garcia, R., & Tsinaraki, C. (2007). MPEG-7 based Multimedia Ontologies: Interoperability Support for Interoperability Issue. 1st Workshop on Multimedia Annotation and Retrieval enabled.

Week 12: Geo and Bio ontologies

  • Henriksson, R., Kauppinen, T., & Hyvönen, E. (2008). Core geographical concepts: case Finnish geo-ontology. Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Location and the Web (LocWeb 2008), Beijing, China, April 2008, 57-60.
  • Fu, G., Jones, C. B., & Abdelmoty, A. I. (2005). Building a Geographical Ontological for Intelligent Spatial Search on the Web. Proceedings of IASTED International Conference on Databases.
  • Bodenreider, O., & Stevens, R. (2006). Bio-ontologies: current trends and future directions. Briefings in Bioinformatics.
  • Neumann, E. (2005). A life science semantic web: Are we there yet?. Sci STKE 2005, pe22.

  • Optional Readings
  • Camon, E., Magrane, M, & Barrell, D., Lee, V., Dimmer, E., Maslen, J., Binns, D., Harte, N., Lopez, R. & Apweiler, R. (2004). The Gene Ontology Annotation (GOA) Database: sharing knowledge in Uniprot with Gene Ontology. Nucleic Acids Research, 32, D262-D266.
  • Lambrix, P., Tan, H., Jakoniene, V., & Stromback, L. (2007). Biological ontologies. Semantic Web Revolutionizing Knowledge Discovery in the Life Sciences. 85-99.
  • Smart, P. D., Abdelmoty, A. I., El-Geresy, B. A., & Jones, C. B. (2007). A Framework for Combining Rules and Geo-Ontologies. Springer, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.
  • Galton, A. (2003). Desiderata for a Spatio-temporal Geo-ontology. Springer, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.
  • Jones, C. B., Abdelmoty, A. I., Finch, D., Fu, G., & Vaid, S. (2004). The SPIRIT Spatial Search Engine: Architecture, Ontologies and Spatial Indexing. Springer, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.
  • Abdelmoty, A. I., Smart, P. D., Jones, C. B., Fu, G., & Finch, D. (2005). A critical evaluation of ontology languages for geographic information retrieval on the Internet. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing.

Week 13: Generic ontologies

  • Suchanek, F. M., Kasneci, G., & Weikum, G. (2007). YAGO – A Core of Semantic Knowledge. 16th international World Wide Web conference (WWW 2007)
  • Pedersen, T., Patwardhan, S., & Michelizzi, J. (2004). WordNet::Similarity-Measuring the Relatedness of Concepts. Proceedings of the Nineteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-04).
  • Curtis, J., Matthews, G., & Baxter, D. (2005). On the effective use of cyc in a question answering system. In Proceedings of the Knowledge and Reasoning for Answering Questions Workshop, IJCAI 2005

  • Optional Readings
  • Noy, N. F. (2004). Semantic integration: A survey of ontology-based approaches. ACM SIGMOD Record.
  • Surjan, G., Szilagyi, E., & Kovats, T. (2006). A pilot ontological model of public health indicators. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 36(7), 802-816.
  • Matuszek, C., Cabral, J., Witbrock, M. & DeOliveira, J. (2006). An introduction to the syntax and content of Cyc. Proceedings of the 2006 AAAI Spring Symposium on Formalizing and Compiling Background Knowledge and Its Applications to Knowledge Representation and Question Answering.
  • Cristani, M., & Cuel, R. (2005). A Survey on Ontology Creation Methodologies. International Journal on Semantic Web & Information Systems, 1(2), 49-69

SLIS Grading Policy

The following definitions of letter grades have been defined by student and faculty members of the Curriculum Steering Committee and have been approved by the faculty as an aid in evaluation of academic performance and to assist students by giving them an understanding of the grading standards of the School of Library and Information Science.

A 4.0 Outstanding achievement. Student performance demonstrates full command of the course materials and evinces a high level of originality and/or creativity that far surpasses course expectations.
A- 3.7 Excellent achievement. Student performance demonstrates thorough knowledge of the course materials and exceeds course expectations by completing all requirements in a superior manner.
B+ 3.3 Very good work. Student performance demonstrates above-average comprehension of the course materials and exceeds course expectations on all tasks as defined in the course syllabus.
B 3.0 Student performance meets designated course expectations and demonstrates understanding of the course materials at an acceptable level.
B- 2.7 Marginal work. Student performance demonstrates incomplete understanding of course materials.
C+ 2.3 Unsatisfactory work. Student performance demonstrates incomplete and inadequate understanding of course materials.
C 2.0
C- 1.7 Unacceptable work. Coursework performed at this level will not count toward the MLS or MIS degree. For the course to count toward the degree, the student must repeat the course with a passing grade.
D+ 1.3
D 1.0
D- 0.7  
F 0.0 Failing. Student may continue in program only with permission of the Dean.

To receive a passing grade in this course, you must turn in all of the assignments and the term project and complete all the presentations. You cannot pass this course without doing all of the assigned work (which includes the final presentation), however, turning in all of the work is not a guarantee that you will pass the course.

Final Report

sMusiq: Semantic Music Search Portal presentation CiTO: the Citation Typing Ontology presentation

Science Fiction Ontology presentation BBC Peel session Dataset presentation

Bibliographic Ontologies: CiTo, The Citation Typing Ontology presentation Representing Instruments and Musicians with the Music Ontology presentation

Sacred Paper Figures of Mesoamerica presentation