Curs 11-12 - Web Semantic Ontologii - Slides

45
5/11/2009 5/11/2009 I. Pop Spring 2009 I. Pop Spring 2009 1 1 Web 2.0 Semantic Web Ontologii Conf. Dr. I. Pop - 2009

description

Tehnologii web

Transcript of Curs 11-12 - Web Semantic Ontologii - Slides

Page 1: Curs 11-12 - Web Semantic Ontologii - Slides

5/11/20095/11/2009 I. Pop Spring 2009I. Pop Spring 2009 11

Web 2.0Semantic Web

Ontologii

Conf. Dr. I. Pop - 2009

Page 2: Curs 11-12 - Web Semantic Ontologii - Slides

5/11/20095/11/2009 I. Pop Spring 2009I. Pop Spring 2009 22

Web 1.0Web 1.0 ca portal de informaţii:• Exclusivitatea informaţiei, mai la început pentru conţinutul propriu;• Divizarea WWW în directori utilizabili;• Fiecare beneficiar are propriul colţ mic în spaţiul Web;• Lipsuri:

o Contexto Interacţiune o scalabilitate

Page 3: Curs 11-12 - Web Semantic Ontologii - Slides

5/11/20095/11/2009 I. Pop Spring 2009I. Pop Spring 2009 33

Web 2.0: Evoluţie spre oplatformă Read/Write

Web 1.0(1993-2003)

pagini HTML văzute printr-un browser

Web 2.0(2003- beyond)

pagini Web, plus un lot de altfel de “conţinut” partajat pe web, cu mai multă interactivitate; mai mult decât o aplicaţie pe o

“pagină”

“Read” Formă “Write” & Contribuţie

“Pagină” Unit Primară de conţinut

“Post / record”

“static” Stare “dinamic”

Web browser Văzut prin… Browsers, RSS Readers, altele

“Client Server” Arhitectură “Web Services”

Web Coderi Crearea Conţinutuluide…

Oricine

“specialiştilor” Domeniul al… “amatorizare de masă”

Page 4: Curs 11-12 - Web Semantic Ontologii - Slides

5/11/20095/11/2009 I. Pop Spring 2009I. Pop Spring 2009 44

Web 2.0 – ca platformaWeb Services / API’s“Folksonomies” / Content tagging“AJAX”RSS

TehnologiiEmergente

Aplicaţiicunoscute

FlickrHi5Google MapsBlogging & Content SyndicationCraigslistLinkedin, Tribes, Ryze, Friendster

Unele aplicaţiimai puţin necunoscute

Del.icio.usUpcoming.org43Things.com

Majoritarretaileri

Amazon API’sGoogle Adsense APIYahoo APIEbay API

Page 5: Curs 11-12 - Web Semantic Ontologii - Slides

5/11/20095/11/2009 I. Pop Spring 2009I. Pop Spring 2009 55

Flickr este o reţea socială pentrudistribuire fotografii.

Flickr shows me photos from my network

My contacts “tags” are available to me

Flickr combină o reţea socială cu conţinut generat de utilizator. Utilizatorii pot lucra colaborativ pe proiecte foto şi poate fiecare să caute şi să găsească noi fotografii. Flickr are un API pentru servicii web pentru a integra colecţii foto cu bloguri şi alte aplicaţii.

Page 6: Curs 11-12 - Web Semantic Ontologii - Slides

5/11/20095/11/2009 I. Pop Spring 2009I. Pop Spring 2009 66

Del.icio.us este un exemplu de site care utilizează“Folksonomy” pentru a organiza Bookmarkuri

Tags: Cuvinte descriptive aplicate de useri pt. linkuri. Ele suntcercetabile

My Tags: Cuvinte care seutilizează pt. a descrielinkuri într-un mod în care au sens pt. cel ce descrie.

Un “folksonomy” este o lucrare spontană şicolaborativă pentru a categorisi linkuri ale uneicomunităţi de useri. Userii fac control şi organizare de conţinut împreună.

Page 7: Curs 11-12 - Web Semantic Ontologii - Slides

5/11/20095/11/2009 I. Pop Spring 2009I. Pop Spring 2009 77

Wikipedia este un Dicţionar Colaborativ putând fi editat in timp real de oricine

Page 8: Curs 11-12 - Web Semantic Ontologii - Slides

5/11/20095/11/2009 I. Pop Spring 2009I. Pop Spring 2009 88

Blogging este cel mai recunoscutexemplu de Web 2.0

Page 9: Curs 11-12 - Web Semantic Ontologii - Slides

5/11/20095/11/2009 I. Pop Spring 2009I. Pop Spring 2009 99

Chicago Crimes – Date de crime zilnicepe Google Maps, trimise ţie prin RSS

Page 10: Curs 11-12 - Web Semantic Ontologii - Slides

5/11/20095/11/2009 I. Pop Spring 2009I. Pop Spring 2009 1010

Chicago Crime - continuare

Page 11: Curs 11-12 - Web Semantic Ontologii - Slides

5/11/20095/11/2009 I. Pop Spring 2009I. Pop Spring 2009 1111

Reţelele Sociale conectează useri într-ocomunitate de trust (sau de interese)

Page 12: Curs 11-12 - Web Semantic Ontologii - Slides

5/11/20095/11/2009 I. Pop Spring 2009I. Pop Spring 2009 1212

RSS Adoption este mai recent, dar ar putea fi uninstrument atractiv pentru marketerii de nişă

RSS (Really Simple Syndication) este o tehnologie emergentă care permiteuserilor să se alimenteze “feeds” cu date din conţinuturile publicate via browsersau instrument special newsreader. Articolele vin la user fără spam, pe cerere, şiintr-un format uşor de digerat.

Feeds contain news items/stories

Items have a brief summary included in the feed

Users can read the full content of some stories within their browser or desktop app without going to orgincating website

Page 13: Curs 11-12 - Web Semantic Ontologii - Slides

5/11/20095/11/2009 I. Pop Spring 2009I. Pop Spring 2009 1313

O modalitate nouă de a recepţiona conţinut…

Page 14: Curs 11-12 - Web Semantic Ontologii - Slides

5/11/20095/11/2009 I. Pop Spring 2009I. Pop Spring 2009 1414

Cum lucrează: Exemplu CNN Interactiv

Page 15: Curs 11-12 - Web Semantic Ontologii - Slides

5/11/20095/11/2009 I. Pop Spring 2009I. Pop Spring 2009 1515

Exemple de RSS Reader

Page 16: Curs 11-12 - Web Semantic Ontologii - Slides

5/11/20095/11/2009 I. Pop Spring 2009I. Pop Spring 2009 1616

Exemple RSS

Page 17: Curs 11-12 - Web Semantic Ontologii - Slides

5/11/20095/11/2009 I. Pop Spring 2009I. Pop Spring 2009 1717

RSS Examples

Page 18: Curs 11-12 - Web Semantic Ontologii - Slides

5/11/20095/11/2009 I. Pop Spring 2009I. Pop Spring 2009 1818

Useri care utilizează aplicaţii Web 2.0 sunt puternic angajaţi, activi şi atractivi pentru Marketeri

Bloggingul este un proxy bun pentru activităţi web 2.0.

Blog readers consume a LOT of media

Page 19: Curs 11-12 - Web Semantic Ontologii - Slides

5/11/20095/11/2009 I. Pop Spring 2009I. Pop Spring 2009 1919

Userii găsesc ajutor în conţinutul de Blog şi sunt receptivi la Online Ads

Page 20: Curs 11-12 - Web Semantic Ontologii - Slides

5/11/20095/11/2009 I. Pop Spring 2009I. Pop Spring 2009 2020

Oportunităţi tactice pentru adoptivii timpurii & marketeri

Blogging / Blogs RSS / Feeds

Drive Traffic to the Site

Improves placement and relevance in search enginesCould generate repeat

visits to siteGenerates interest in

deeper engagement

Generate “reminder” traffic“Push” key product or

promotion out to audience, to drive traffic back to your site

Broaden reach through syndication, driving more traffic back to your site

Improve Customer Experience

Helps explain products, service, approachProvides “support”

through direct customer Q & A

Generate deeper insite into user attitudes and behaviors

Feeds make it easier to stay connected and aware, driving convenience

More information = more competence = more control

Drive Conversions

Generate “trial” usageBlogs and post drive

deeper engagement and helps overcome objections

Drives frequency, which may lower the barrier to awareness and trial

Watch & Wait Act Now

Web Services

Tags & Folksonomies

Social Networks

RSS Blogging

Page 21: Curs 11-12 - Web Semantic Ontologii - Slides

5/11/20095/11/2009 I. Pop Spring 2009I. Pop Spring 2009 2121

Web 2.0 va fi mijlocul decomunicare pentru marketeri

More users are connecting to each other and content through networked, peer-driven activities & content

• Linkedin now has service referrals as part of their package

API’s and Content syndication will lead to more machine generated connections

• “Non-compliant” content won’t fit into the flow as readily

Web 2.0 is truly two-way• Marketers need to be very willing to

“listen” and receive more than broadcast

User-generated content may be more valuable to users than yours

Page 22: Curs 11-12 - Web Semantic Ontologii - Slides

5/11/20095/11/2009 I. Pop Spring 2009I. Pop Spring 2009 2222

Probleme deschise / Implicaţii

What expectations does this set?Who owns the message?How can marketers use this to their advantage?Are “massses” better than “experts”

Agrearea Web-lui 2.0 este legată denatura aplicaţiilor / instrumetelor

•Direct•Transparent•Controlabil

Page 23: Curs 11-12 - Web Semantic Ontologii - Slides

5/11/20095/11/2009 I. Pop Spring 2009I. Pop Spring 2009 2323

Aplicaţii, Infrastructură, TehnologiiWeb Services, Grids şi Web 2.0 (Enterprise 2.0) suntTehnologiiAceste tehnologii se combină şi se competează pentru a construi infrastructurile electronice numite e-infrastructure sau Cyberinfrastructuree-moreorlessanything este o aplicaţie apărută în aria de largă importanţă care se bazează pe infrastructurile e-infrastructure or Cyberinfrastructure

Page 24: Curs 11-12 - Web Semantic Ontologii - Slides

5/11/20095/11/2009 I. Pop Spring 2009I. Pop Spring 2009 24242424

“Best Web 2.0 Sites” -- 2006Extracted from http://web2.wsj2.com/Social Networking

Start Pages

Social Bookmarking

Peer Production News

Social Media Sharing

Online Storage (Computing)

Page 25: Curs 11-12 - Web Semantic Ontologii - Slides

5/11/20095/11/2009 I. Pop Spring 2009I. Pop Spring 2009 2525

Sistemele Web 2.0 sunt Portaluri, Servicii, ResurseCaptează dezvelotări incredibile ale site-urilor Web interactive care permit crearea şi colaborarea

Page 26: Curs 11-12 - Web Semantic Ontologii - Slides

5/11/20095/11/2009 I. Pop Spring 2009I. Pop Spring 2009 26262626

Mashups vs. WorkflowMashup Tools are reviewed at http://blogs.zdnet.com/Hinchcliffe/?p=63Workflow Tools are reviewed by Gannon and Fox http://grids.ucs.indiana.edu/ptliupages/publications/Workflow-overview.pdfBoth include scripting in PHP, Python, sh etc. as both implement distributed programming at level of servicesMashups use all types of service interfaces and do not have the potential robustness (security) of Grid service approachTypically “pure”HTTP (REST)

Page 27: Curs 11-12 - Web Semantic Ontologii - Slides

5/11/20095/11/2009 I. Pop Spring 2009I. Pop Spring 2009 27272727

Grid Workflow Datamining in Earth ScienceWork with Scripps InstituteGrid services controlled by workflow process real time data from ~70 GPS Sensors in Southern California

Streaming DataSupport

TransformationsData Checking

Hidden MarkovDatamining (JPL)

Display (GIS)

NASA GPS

Earthquake

Real Time

Archival

Page 28: Curs 11-12 - Web Semantic Ontologii - Slides

5/11/20095/11/2009 I. Pop Spring 2009I. Pop Spring 2009 28282828

Web 2.0 uses all types of ServicesHere a Gadget Mashup uses a 3 service workflow with a JavaScript Gadget Client

Page 29: Curs 11-12 - Web Semantic Ontologii - Slides

Web 2.0 APIshttp://www.programmableweb.com/apis has (May 14 2007) 431 Web 2.0 APIs with GoogleMaps the most often used in MashupsThis site acts as a “UDDI”for Web 2.0

Page 30: Curs 11-12 - Web Semantic Ontologii - Slides

The List of Web 2.0 API’s

Each site has API and its featuresDivided into broad categoriesOnly a few used a lot (42 API’s used in more than 10 mashups)RSS feed of new APIsAmazon S3 growing in popularity

Page 31: Curs 11-12 - Web Semantic Ontologii - Slides

5/11/20095/11/2009 I. Pop Spring 2009I. Pop Spring 2009 3131

APIs/Mashups per Protocol Distribution

REST SOAP XML-RPC REST,XML RPC

REST,XML RPC

REST,SOAP

JS Other

google google mapsmaps

netvibesnetvibes

live.comlive.com

virtual virtual earthearth

google google searchsearch

amazon S3amazon S3

amazon amazon ECSECS

flickrflickrebayebay

youtubeyoutube

411sync411syncdel.icio.usdel.icio.us

yahoo! searchyahoo! searchyahoo! geocodingyahoo! geocoding

technoratitechnorati

yahoo! imagesyahoo! imagestrynttrynt

yahoo! localyahoo! local

Number ofMashups

Number ofAPIs

Page 32: Curs 11-12 - Web Semantic Ontologii - Slides

4 more Mashups each day

For a total of 1906April 17 2007 (4.0 a day over last month)Note ClearForestruns Semantic Web Services Mashupcompetitions (not workflow competitions)Some Mashuptypes: aggregators, search aggregators, visualizers, mobile, maps, gamesGrowing number of commercial Mashup Tools

Page 33: Curs 11-12 - Web Semantic Ontologii - Slides

5/11/2009 I. Pop Spring 2009 3333

Mash Planet

Web 2.0 Architectur

ehttp://www.imagine-it.org/mashplanetDisplay too large to be a Gadget

Page 34: Curs 11-12 - Web Semantic Ontologii - Slides

5/11/2009 I. Pop Spring 2009 3434

Searched on Transit/TransportationSearched on Transit/Transportation

Page 35: Curs 11-12 - Web Semantic Ontologii - Slides

5/11/2009 I. Pop Spring 2009 3535

Browser +Google Map

API

Cass County Map Server(OGC Web Map Server)

Hamilton County Map

Server(AutoDesk)

Marion County Map Server

(ESRI ArcIMS)

Browser client fetches image tiles for the bounding box using Google Map API.

Tile Server

Cache Server

Adapter Adapter Adapter

Tile Server requests map tiles at all zoom levels with all layers. These are converted to uniform projection, indexed, and stored. Overlapping images are combined.

Must provide adapters for each Map Server type .

The cache server fulfills Google map calls with cached tiles at the requested bounding box that fill the bounding box.

Google Maps Server

A “Grid” Workflow(built in Java!)

Uses Google Maps clients and server and non Google map APIs

Page 36: Curs 11-12 - Web Semantic Ontologii - Slides

5/11/2009 I. Pop Spring 2009 3636

GIS Grid of “Indiana Map” and ~10 Indiana counties with accessible Map (Feature) Servers from different vendors. Grids federate different data repositories (cf Astronomy VO federating different observatory collections)

Indiana Map Grid Workflow/Mashup

Page 37: Curs 11-12 - Web Semantic Ontologii - Slides

5/11/20095/11/2009 I. Pop Spring 2009I. Pop Spring 2009 3737

Now to Portals3737

Grid-style portal as used in Earthquake GridThe Portal is built from portlets

– providing user interface fragments for each service that are composed into the full interface – uses OGCE technology as does planetary science VLAB portal with University of Minnesota

Page 38: Curs 11-12 - Web Semantic Ontologii - Slides

5/11/20095/11/2009 I. Pop Spring 2009I. Pop Spring 2009 38383838

Portlets v. Google GadgetsPortals for Grid Systems are built using portlets with software like GridSphere integrating these on the server-side into a single web-pageGoogle (at least) offers the Google sidebar and Google home page which support Web 2.0 services and do not use a server side aggregatorGoogle is more user friendly!The many Web 2.0 competitions is an interesting model for promoting development in the world-wide distributed collection of Web 2.0 developersI guess Web 2.0 model will win!

Note the many competitions powering Web 2.0 Mashup Development

Page 39: Curs 11-12 - Web Semantic Ontologii - Slides

Typical Google Gadget Structure

… Lots of HTML and JavaScript </Content> </Module>Portlets build User Interfaces by combining fragments in a standalone Java ServerGoogle Gadgets build User Interfaces by combining fragments with JavaScript on the client

Google Gadgets are an example of Start Page technologySee http://blogs.zdnet.com/Hinchcliffe/?p=8

Page 40: Curs 11-12 - Web Semantic Ontologii - Slides

5/11/20095/11/2009 I. Pop Spring 2009I. Pop Spring 2009 4040

Web 2.0 v Narrow Grid IWeb 2.0 and Grids are addressing a similar application classalthough Web 2.0 has focused on user interactions• So technology has similar requirements

Web 2.0 chooses simplicity (REST rather than SOAP) to lower barrier to everyone participatingWeb 2.0 and Parallel Computing tend to use traditional (possibly visual) (scripting) languages for equivalent of workflow whereas Grids use visual interface backend recorded in BPELWeb 2.0 and Grids both use SOA Service Oriented Architectures“System of Systems”: Grids and Web 2.0 are likely to build systems hierarchically out of smaller systems• We need to support Grids of Grids, Webs of Grids, Grids of

Services etc. i.e. systems of systems of all sorts

4040

Page 41: Curs 11-12 - Web Semantic Ontologii - Slides

Web 2.0 v Narrow Grid IIWeb 2.0 has a set of major services like GoogleMaps or Flickr but the world is composing Mashups that make new composite services• End-point standards are set by end-point owners• Many different protocols covering a variety of de-facto standards

Narrow Grids have a set of major software systems like Condor and Globus and a different world is extending with custom services and linking with workflowPopular Web 2.0 Tehnologii are PHP, JavaScript, JSON, AJAXand REST with “Start Page” e.g. (Google Gadgets) interfacesPopular Narrow Grid Tehnologii are Apache Axis, BPEL WSDL and SOAP with portlet interfacesRobustness of Grids demanded by the Enterprise?Not so clear that Web 2.0 won’t eventually dominate other application areas and with Enterprise 2.0 it’s invading Grids

The world does itself in large numbers!

Page 42: Curs 11-12 - Web Semantic Ontologii - Slides

5/11/20095/11/2009 I. Pop Spring 2009I. Pop Spring 2009 4242

Web 2.0 v Narrow Grid IIINarrow Grids have a strong emphasis on standards and structure; Web 2.0 lets a 1000 flowers (protocols) and a million developers bloom and focuses on functionality, broad usability and simplicity• Semantic Web/Grid has structure to allow reasoning• Annotation in sites like del.icio.us and uploading to

MySpace/YouTube is unstructured and free text search replaces structured ontologies

Portals are likely to feature both Web and “desktop client” technology although it is possible that Web approach will be adopted more or less uniformlyWeb 2.0 has a very active portal activity which has similar architecture to Grids • A page has multiple user interface fragments

Web 2.0 user interface integration is typically Client side using Gadgets AJAX and JavaScript while• Grids are in a special JSR168 portal server side using Portlets WSRP and

Java4242

Page 43: Curs 11-12 - Web Semantic Ontologii - Slides

5/11/20095/11/2009 I. Pop Spring 2009I. Pop Spring 2009 4343

The Ten areas covered by the 60 core WS-* Specifications

WS-* Specification Area Typical Grid/Web Service Examples1: Core Service Model XML, WSDL, SOAP

2: Service Internet WS-Addressing, WS-MessageDelivery; Reliable Messaging WSRM; Efficient Messaging MOTM

3: Notification WS-Notification, WS-Eventing (Publish-Subscribe)

4: Workflow and Transactions BPEL, WS-Choreography, WS-Coordination

5: Security WS-Security, WS-Trust, WS-Federation, SAML, WS-SecureConversation

6: Service Discovery UDDI, WS-Discovery

7: System Metadata and State WSRF, WS-MetadataExchange, WS-Context

8: Management WSDM, WS-Management, WS-Transfer

9: Policy and Agreements WS-Policy, WS-Agreement

10: Portals and User Interfaces WSRP (Remote Portlets)

Page 44: Curs 11-12 - Web Semantic Ontologii - Slides

5/11/20095/11/2009 I. Pop Spring 2009I. Pop Spring 2009 4444

WS-* Areas and Web 2.0WS-* Specification Area Web 2.0 Approach

1: Core Service Model XML becomes optional but still usefulSOAP becomes JSON RSS ATOM WSDL becomes REST with API as GET PUT etc.Axis becomes XmlHttpRequest

2: Service Internet No special QoS. Use JMS or equivalent?3: Notification Hard with HTTP without polling– JMS perhaps?

4: Workflow and Transactions (no Transactions in Web 2.0)

Mashups, Google MapReduceScripting with PHP JavaScript ….

5: Security SSL, HTTP Authentication/Authorization, OpenID is Web 2.0 Single Sign on

6: Service Discovery http://www.programmableweb.com

7: System Metadata and State Processed by application – no system state –Microformats are a universal metadata approach

8: Management==Interaction WS-Transfer style Protocols GET PUT etc.

9: Policy and Agreements Service dependent. Processed by application

10: Portals and User Interfaces Start Pages, AJAX and Widgets(Netvibes) Gadgets

Page 45: Curs 11-12 - Web Semantic Ontologii - Slides

5/11/20095/11/2009 I. Pop Spring 2009I. Pop Spring 2009 4545

Drivers for FutureWeb 2.0 has momentum as it is driven by success of social web sites and the user friendly protocols attracting many developers of mashupsGrids momentum driven by the success of eScience and the commercial web service thrusts largely aimed at EnterpriseWe expect Aplicaţii such as business and DoD where predictability and robustness important to be built on a Web Service (Narrow Grid) core with Web 2.0 functionality enhancementsSimplicity, supporting many developers are forces pressuring Grids!Robustness and coping with unstructured blooming of a 1000 flowers are forces pressuring Web 2.0