ISSN 2229-5984

The Concept of Semantic Web in Library Services

Saikat Goswami*, Payel Biswas**

*Assistant Librarian ABSTRACT

Eastern Institute for Integrated This article explores the applicability primary library functions (collection
Learning in Management,
Kolkata development, cataloging, reference, and circulation) to the Semantic Web.
The article defines the Semantic Web, identifies similarities between the
library institution and the Semantic Web and presents research questions
guiding the inquiry. The article addresses each library function and
** Semi Professional Assistant, demonstrates the applicability of each function's polices to Semantic Web
CIET, NCERT,
development. Results indicate that library functions are applicable to
New Delhi
Semantic Web with "collection development" translating to "Semantic
Web selection;" "cataloging" translating to "Semantic Web 'semantic'
representation;" "reference" translating to "Semantic Web service," and
circulation translating to "Semantic Web resource use." The last part of this
article includes a discussion about the lack of embrace between the library
and the Semantic Web community's recommendations for reducing this
gap and conclusions.

Correspondence Author: KEY WORDS: Semantic Web, Library Functions, Collection Development,
Saikat Goswami Cataloging, Reference, Library Outreach, Circulation, Planning and
goswami0408saikat@gmail.com Policies.

Received : 20.06.2011; Revised : 27.07.2011; Accepted : 18.08.2011

INTRODUCTION readable information and automated services that extend far

The World Wide Web contains huge amount of information
which can be easily accessed by specifying URI (Uniform
Resource Identifier) addresses, search engines and following
links to find other related resources. This simplicity of usage
has made the web so popular but such simplicity comes with a
price. The enormous amount of data has made it increasingly
difficult to find, access, present and maintain the information
required by a wide variety of users. It is very easy to get lost or
discover irrelevant and unrelated information because
information content is presented in natural language. Search
engines cannot promise precision since the indexing is based
on quantity with no clue to the context in which the terms
occur. [13] For this problem, a support is essential for bringing
the web to its full potential. Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of
the World Wide Web, put forward the concept of meaningful
Web or semantic web. He referred to the future of the current
web as the semantic web an extended web of machine-
beyond current capabilities. [12]
SEMANTIC WEB CONCEPTS
The word semantic' stands for the meaning of 'or, word web
defines it as of or relating to meaning or the study of meaning.
In the term semantic web also indicates that the meaning of
data on the web can be discovered not just by people also by
computers. According to Tim Berners-Lee (1998) [2] the word
semantic means 'machine-possible'. Tim Berners-Lee et al.
(2001) describe the semantic web as: “an extension of the
current web in which information is given well-defined
meaning, better enabling computers and people to work in
cooperation.” The key enabler of the semantic web is the need
of many communities to put machine - understandable data on
the web which can be shared and processed by automated tools
as well as by people. Tim Berners-Lee [2] has clearly stated the
main goal of the semantic web in his statement, if html and the
web made all the online documents look like one huge book,

165 International Journal of Information Dissemination and Technology | July - September 2011 | Vol. - 1 | Issue - 3
RDF; schema and inference language will make all the data in
the world look like one huge database. Semantic web aims to
develop such technologies that make the information more
meaningful for the machines to process which in turn makes
search and retrieval of information more effective. In the
semantic web data itself becomes a part of the web and is able
to be processed independently of application, platform, or
domain. The semantic web on the other hand is about having
data as well as documents on the web so that machines can
process, transform, assemble and even act on the data in more
useful and meaningful ways.[3],[14]
IMPORTANT FEATURES OF SEMANTIC
WEB
•The semantic web comprises the standards and tools of
XML (Extensible Markup Language), XML Schema,
RDF (Resource Description Framework), RDF Schema
and OWL (Web Ontology Language).
•Two important technologies for developing the semantic
web are already in place: Extensible Markup Language
(XML) and the Resource Description Framework (RDF).
•XML lets everyone create their own tags hidden labels
such as <zip code> or <alma mater> that annotates web
pages or sections of text on a page.
•Meaning is expressed by RDF which encodes it in sets of
triples each triple being rather like the subject verb and
object of an elementary sentence. These triples can be
written using XML tags.
•In RDF, a document makes assertions that particular
things (people, web pages or whatever) have properties
(such as "is a sister of," "is the author of") with certain
values (another person, another web page). This structure
turns out to be a natural way to describe the vast majority
of the data processed by machines.
•Subject and object are each identified by a Universal
Resource Identifier (URI), just as used in a link on a web
page. (URLs, Uniform Resource Locators are the most
common type of URI.) The verbs are also identified by
URIs which enables anyone to define a new concept, a
new verb, just by defining a URI for it somewhere on the
web. [24], [1]
XML (Extensible Markup Language)
The basic building block of semantic technology is the
use of Extensible Markup Language (XML) which permits the
use of tags to describe objects [24]. It is a markup language much
like html and was designed to carry data not to display data.
XML tags are not predefined so one can define or create
International Journal of Information Dissemination and Technology | July - September 2011 | Vol. - 1 | Issue - 3
his/her own tags hidden labels such as or that explain web
pages of sections of text on a page, but it says nothing about
what the structures mean. XML is particularly suitable for
sending documents across the web. [8], [1]
RDF (Resource Description Framework)
RDF is a framework for describing resources on the web.
It describes a resource the resources properties and the values
of those properties, often referred to as triples that consist of a
subject, predicate, and object. It is particularly intended for
representing metadata about the resources, such as title,
author and modification date of a web page, copyright and
licensing information about a web document (or information
resource published on the web), or the availability schedule
for some shared resources. RDF presents the syntactic
structure whereby we can express information about the
resource in form of XML statements. For example we want to
say that the title of the webpage http://www.caluniv.ac.in is
University of Calcutta Homepage. This will be expressed in
RDF as: http://www.caluniv.ac.in has title whose value is
University of Calcutta Homepage.
The RDF statement comprises of three parts:
•Subject
•Predicate
•Object
Subject
By subject we mean the web resource that has described.
In the above example the subject of the RDF statement is http:
//www.caluniv.ac.in. In RDF the subject has to be always
represented in the form of URI (Uniform Resource Identifier)
which is the identifier by which the web resource can be
identified in the web. URIs is of two types: URL (Uniform
Resource Locator) and URN (Uniform Resource Number).
URLs can locate and retrieve the resource on the web, whereas
URN works to identify the web resources which may not be
retrievable. For example: the ISBN of the book is 0-223-
59871-7. This will be represented in URN as urn: ISBN: 0-
223-59871-7. Hence the subject of the RDF statement is
always presented as an URI. [22], [25]
Predicate
This denotes the specific property of the resource. For
example, title is the property of the webpage. Predicate can be
any other property of the resource such as creator, language,
date of creation, etc.
Object
This is the actual value of the property. For example, in the
166
above case University of Calcutta Homepage is the value of
the predicate (property) of the resource. [12], [1]
Subject Predicate Object
Figure 1 : An Example of an RDF Directed Graph
ONTOLOGY WEB LANGUAGES (OWL)
The term ontology has its origin in philosophy, and has
been applied in many different ways. Ontology is a formal
representation of knowledge as a set of concepts within a
domain and the relationships between those concepts. It is
used to reason about the entities within that domain and may be
used to describe the domain ontology are the structural
frameworks for organizing information and are used in
artificial intelligence, the semantic web, systems engineering,
software engineering, library science, enterprise book
marking and information architecture as a form of knowledge
representation about the world or some part of it. The creation
of domain anthologies is also basic to the definition and use of
an enterprise architecture framework. [17], [1]
Libraries and Information Science (LIS) and Computer
Science (CS) Join Forces How Librarians and Computer
Scientists Complement and Contrast:
Some of the librarians work with knowledge that computer
scientists are looking for when trying to envision the semantic
web the two disciplines does have unique differences.
•While computer science is concerned with how software
and associated machines interact with ontology, LIS is
more concerned with how their users retrieve information
and as a way to facilitate certain types of information-
seeking behavior with the aid of taxonomies.
•As computer science professionals perceive hierarchies
as logical structures that help machines make decisions,
while LIS professionals view these information
structures in terms of mapping out a topic for the benefit
of patrons.
•Computer Science is concerned with how software and
associated machines interact with ontology; in contrast,
librarians are concerned with how patrons retrieve
information with the aid of taxonomies. Despite these
apparent differences, they are essentially different sides
of the same coin. [17], [4]
Nonetheless, there is collaboration to be made between LIS
and Computer science, particularly when mapping concepts,
skills and jargon between computer scientists and librarians
encourages collaboration. Computer Science and LIS are
working to solve problems of information retrieval and the
exchange of knowledge between user groups. Whether they
are doing it together or doing it separately, ontology and
taxonomies will be extremely important to a number of
167 International Journal of Information Dissemination and Technology | July - September 2011 | Vol. - 1 | Issue - 3
computer scientists by facilitating the sharing and reuse of
digital information. [4], [23]
Ontology and Taxonomies in the Semantic Web: How LIS
and Computer Science need to join forces to make this
happen
LIS and cataloguing professionals are not only familiar
with these concepts, as they often form the core of their work
and part of the educational curricula. The traditional skills of
librarianship - thesaurus construction, metadata design and
information organization - are deeply important in the creation
of this next stage of web development. Ontology Web
Languages (OWL) facilitates greater machine interoperability
of web content than that supported by XML, RDF and RDFS
by providing additional vocabulary along with a formal
semantics. It can be used to explicitly represent the meaning of
terms in vocabularies and the relationships between those
terms. OWL adds more vocabulary for describing properties
and classes: among others, relations between classes (e.g.,
disjointness), cardinality (e.g., exactly one), equality, richer
typing of properties and characteristics of properties (e.g.
symmetry), and enumerated classes. Thus semantic web
ontology consists of taxonomy and a set of inference rules
from which machines can make logical conclusions. [16], [23]
SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE
LIBRARY AND THE SEMANTIC WEB
The “Internet [Web] has been described as a library with all the
books tossed on the floor” [21] or “the Web is like a virtual
library” the latter statement marshals little support when
considering the full scope and anarchy of the web. The
semantic web part of the larger web is however quite similar to
the library for the following reasons:
•The library and the semantic web have mission statements
grounded in service, information access, and knowledge
discovery.
•The library and the semantic web have advanced as result
of international and national standards.
Missions grounded in service, information access and
knowledge discovery
The library's definitive goal is to support knowledge discovery
for advancement of citizens and society. The semantic web's
homepage provides a succinct definition of the semantic web
that is characteristic of a mission statement. The semantic web
provides a common framework that allows data to be shared
and reused across application, enterprise, and community
boundaries. [19] The statement highlights such components as a
common framework, shared data (information) and
collaboration and it parallels the library's standardization and
sharing of bibliographic data, resource circulation and
collaborative activities. The semantic web's overriding goal to
imbue computer and human agents with intelligence which is
very similar to the library's goal of advancing knowledge.
Advancement via International and National Standards
The library community's response to the increased amount of
information has also led to development of cataloging codes
formalized classificatory and verbal systems; and encoding
communication standards (International Bibliographic
Description (ISBD) and Machine Readable Cataloging
(MARC). The web and digital library growth has also
motivated rethinking and revision of cataloging standards,
models, and codes, as evidenced by the development of the
many metadata schemes, Functional Requirements for
Bibliographic Records (1998) [11], and Resource Description
and Access (RDA). The Semantic web has followed a similar
path as evidenced by a collection of information standards:
extensible Markup Language (XML), RDF, OWL, Friend of A
Friend (FOAF) and Simple Knowledge Organizations System
(SKOS). [18]
APPLICABILITY OF LIBRARY FUNCTIONS
TO THE SEMANTIC WEB
This section discusses the goals and objectives of the four
primary functions underlying the modern library. The
discussion also explores the applicability of each function to
the semantic web based on the above analysis of library and
semantic web similarities.
Collection development in the library
The collection development is it to build and maintain a
various collection that services a designated constant patron
population. The activities of collection development policy
that viewed as a contract between the library and users.
Collection development policies document the library's intent
to grow the collection, identify collection strengths and
limitations, and guide library staff, particularly
bibliographers, in their collection development work.
Guidelines also include selection criteria about preferred
subjects and formats. Collection development policies are not
permanent, rather they need to be reviewed and revised, as
user populations' change and present new demands. Finally,
collection development can help libraries with administrative
activities by including procedures for acquisitions, gifts,
weeding, replacing lost items and collection evaluation. [12], [13]
Semantic Web selection
The semantic web initiative, as a whole, does not identify
a specific type of user, although semantic web selection
policies will require review and revision for the following key
reasons:
•the development of new and related projects—some of
which may be competitors;
•the identification of new user agents (computer and
human); and
•the development of new technologies and machine
capabilities.
International Journal of Information Dissemination and Technology | July - September 2011 | Vol. - 1 | Issue - 3
Based on knowledge about the library community's
experience developing library collection development
policies, it is likely that semantic web selection policy
development will require time and patience, particularly given
the absence of examples specific to the semantic web. The
wide availability of library collection development guidelines
and resources, such as Guidelines for Writing Collection
Development Policies provide a useful framework for
developing Semantic Web selection polices. [8]
Library cataloging
The purpose of cataloging is to make library collection
materials findable and discoverable so they can be used.
Charles A. Cutter's (1904) [7] objectives for a library catalog,
printed in the 4th edition of his Rules for a Dictionary Catalog,
are among the most influential statements impacting
cataloging. Cutter's objectives state that a library should:
1. Enable a person to find a book when the author, title, or
subject is known;
2. Show what the library has by author, subject, and
literature genre; and
Written a century before the development of the web, Cutter's
objectives are still applicable to library operations today, and
thus influence current cataloging activities. [15]
Jumping a century beyond Cutter to today, digital resource
cataloging (metadata creation) is being guided by principles
and objectives documented in a variety of metadata schemes
[12]
. Under development is the Rules for Description and Access
(RDA), which includes a draft statement of objectives (RDA,
2005). For example, descriptive data (metadata) created using
RDA should enable a user to “identify the resource described”
and select appropriate resources “with respect to content,
format, etc.” Additional objectives address access points,
representation of entities identified in Functional
Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) (1998) [9],
and cataloging quality criteria (e.g. data flexibility,
sufficiency, and accuracy). [20], [11]
Semantic Web “semantic” representation
Similarities between library cataloging and producing
metadata for the semantic web, both are deal with
representation. In fact, the boundary between the employ of
representation standards in these two environments (libraries
and the semantic web) is artificial. Rather the representation
activity takes place along a continuum, with simple
bibliographic representation for search and retrieval on one
end, and the implementation of formal ontology and machine
supported deductive reasoning on the other. [17] Similar to the
library's community extensive MARC documentation the
semantic web provides comprehensive documentation for
working with enabling technologies, such as XML, RDF, and
OWL. However, the semantic web community falls short,
currently, in providing documentation to guide the use of
168
metadata standards and ontology. Plans, guidelines and
policies are needed stating principles and objectives for
semantic web representation to ensure good quality
“semantics” (e.g., coherent, consistent, accurate semantic
representation). A semantic representation policy would help
secure a robust framework for effective semantic web
operations. [5], [10]
Reference and outreach
The goal of reference is to provide the library community
with effective information services. Reference services
include personal interaction and dissemination of information.
The library has a compulsion “to provide information service
to support the educational, recreational, personal and
economic endeavors of the members of their respective
communities” (RUSA Access to Information Committee,
2000). [20]
An extension of reference service is outreach. Libraries plan
services that are of value to their users. Whereas conducting
outreach to highlight collection resources that help with
finding a first professional job. Outreach extends to
community outreach, generally in public through the offering
of classes and other services (e.g., English as a second
language classes, story time for youngsters, reader advisory
services, even cooking and art classes). These items extend
beyond reference but deal with overall access and use of the
library facility and often promote collection use.
Semantic Web service
The attachment is with “reference service”— the central
pillar of semantic web. The semantic web depends on
standardized structured metadata and semantic web
algorithms capable of reading and manipulating such data but
the overriding goal is to provide service to free humans from
routine tasks that computers can perform—and can perform
effectively. Current semantic web services facilitate
knowledge and service discovery and more sophisticated
forecasted activities include automatic purchasing of an airline
ticket—even an airline ticket from your preferred. [17]
A GAP BETWEEN SEMANTIC WEB AND
LIBRARY
The semantic web and library communities are far from being
healthfully integrated. On one side of this gap, the members of
the semantic web community are not fully aware of the skills,
talent, and knowledge that librarians (primarily catalogers)
have, and which can help advance the semantic web. This is
evident by the absence of a metadata representation working
group within the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), and the
severely limited participation of professional librarians on
various W3C working groups. Granted, the W3C's semantic
web activity has focused more on the development of enabling
technologies, rather than processes or activities. On the library
side of the gap, librarians have been slow to embrace the
169 International Journal of Information Dissemination and Technology | July - September 2011 | Vol. - 1 | Issue - 3
semantic web and work with semantic web enabling
technologies and standards in comparison to the way in which
computer scientists, engineers, and oncologists. Now a day's
real time and instant processes like blogs, email, websites and
instant massaging are placed to disseminating of information
via web in library. [12], [13]
CONCLUSION
The library and the semantic web are cultures devoted to
increasing information access and knowledge discovery, it
makes sense to explore the foundations of the library and
consider what primary functions may help advance the
semantic web initiative. The library has been society's chief
information custodian for the last several hundred years; and if
the semantic web is to evolve into a chief and trusted
information network, affording services and performing tasks
for both humans and machines and it need to examine the
applicability of the library's primary functions to the semantic
web.
This paper explored the applicability primary library functions
to the semantic web. The inquiry was a discussion based on
rudimentary deduction and was supported by an analysis of
various library guidelines and policies. An exploration of
similarities between the library institution and the semantic
web served as a base. All four of the primary library functions
proved applicable to the semantic web. Each library function
translates to a semantic web function.
REFERENCES
1. Berners-Lee, T. (1999). Weaving the Web: the original
design and ultimate destiny of the World Wide Web by its
inventor. Harper: San Francisco.
2. Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J. & Lassila, O. (2001). The
semantic web. Scientific American, 284, 34-
43.(http://www.sciam.com/ article.cfm?article
ID=00048144-10D2-1C70-84A9809EC588EF21).
(Accessed March 28, 2011).
3. Brooks, T. A. (2002). The Semantic Web, Universalist
Ambition and Some Lessons from Librarianship.
Information Research, 7,78-85.
4. Burke, M. (2009). The semantic web and the digital
library. Aslib Proceeding New Information Perspectives,
61, 316-322.
5. Cutter, C. A. (1904). Rules for a Dictionary Catalog (4th
Ed.) Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
6. Dutta, B. (2006). Semantic Web technology:Towards
meaningful retrieval. SRELS Journal of Information
Management, 52, 149-154.
7. München, K. G. S. (1998). Functional Requirements for
Bibliographic Records: Final Report.
(http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.htm). (Accessed
on March 28, 2011).
8. Graves, M., Constabaris, A. & Brickley, D. (2007).
FOAF: Connecting people on the Semantic Web.
Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 43, 191–202.
9. München, K. G. S. (1998) Functional Requirements for
Bibliographic Records: Final Report. (http://www.
ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.htm). (Accessed on March 28,
2011).
10. Malmsten, M. (2008, September). Making a library
catalogue part of the Semantic Web. In the Proceedings of
the International Conference on Dublin Core and
Metadata Applications: Metadata for semantic and social
applications, Berlin, pp.45-74.
11. McGuinness, D. L. (2003). Ontologies Come of Age. In
Dieter Fensel, Jim Hendler, Henry Lieberman, and
Wolfgang Wahlster, (Ed.). Spinning the Semantic Web:
Bringing the World Wide Web to its Full Potential.
Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 171-194.
12. McGuinness, D. L. & Harmelen, F.V. (2004) OWL Web
Ontology Language Overview, W3C Recommendation.
(http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owlfeatures-
20040210/, retrieved on 20/03/2008).
13. Prasad, A.R.D. (2007). Semantic Web technologies for
meaningful information mapping and retrieval, IASLIC
Bulletin, 52, 25-34.
14. Radovanonic, D. (2003). Semantic Web and electronics
information resources. Infotheca Journal, 4, 157 – 163.
International Journal of Information Dissemination and Technology | July - September 2011 | Vol. - 1 | Issue - 3
15. RUSA Access to Information Committee. Information
Services for Information Consumers: Guidelines for
Providers. Prepared by the Standards and Guidelines
Committee, Reference and User Services
Association200. Approved by the RUSA Board of
Directors. (http://www.ala.org/ala/rusa/rusaprotools
/referenceguide/guidelinesinformation.htm). (Accessed
March 28, 2011).
16. Sadeh, T. & Walker, F. (2003). Library portals: toward the
semantic web. New Library World, 104, 11-19.
17. Warren, P. & Alsmeyer, D. (2005). Applying semantic
technology to a digital library: a case study, Library
Management, 26, 196–205.
18. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology
(Information_Science) (Accessed on March 28, 2011).
19. http://www.suite101.com/content/ontologies-and-
taxonomies-in-the-semantic-web-a122095 (Accessed
March 28, 2011).
20. http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?
code=h4u1531242678175&size=large (Accessed March
28, 2011).
21. The FOAF project. (http://www.foaf-project.org/)
(Accessed March 28, 2011).
170