The Human Semantic Web - Further Reflection

The web is a useful environment for enabling people to add their knowledge in both a less structured Web 2.0 way (development of less structured but interactive web tools/programs), and a more structured Semantic Web way. The greater interaction in the Web 2.0 approach at least makes it more likely that Semantic disagreements will be spotted, but it takes the structuring in the Semantic Web approach to then show the meaning of terms more clearly and unambiguously so that agreement or disagreement about and mapping of terms can be reached. This then makes possible Naeve’s (2005) ‘Semantic Collaboration’ through and also defining the ‘Human Semantic Web’ that Naeve advocates. This then enables moving on from the Web being an environment only for simple tasks to one where sophisticated programs and models could be run that enable calculation and decision support.

This combination in approaches of enabling greater human interaction, and more definition of semantics can be illustrated by adapting the table displayed in my previous post.

Table - Language and Tool Mapping - Further Development



















Thus Increased Semantic Structuring and Collaboration from right to left, combined with Increased Human Interaction from bottom to top makes it more possible to undertake modelling and programming because the information is then well mapped and structured, and made available for visualisation and human interaction. On reflection AJAX/Web 2.0 technology spans more than one part of this diagram depending on the emphasis of whether to structure it and/or enable greater interaction. To reach the top left of the diagram requires layered use of technology as per the diagram developed by Berners-Lee (2000) and also McGuinness (2003). This layering of technology is needed in order to translate from the computer centred representations in the bottom right to the human centred representations and modelling in the top left. Human centred representations are too abstract for computers and computer centred representations are too abstract for humans. Therefore the technologies in the top left are not superior to those below and to the right as they need to be built on those technologies. Further there is more than one way to reach the top left, e.g. along the diagonal arrow from Naeve’s (2005) Semantic Isolation through Semantic Coexistence to Semantic Collaboration, or by moving up then left, or left then up. Following the diagonal arrow based on Naeve’s analysis is best for planning and building such a project from the start, but the other forms of navigation might be the best way to build on an existing project that has already been moving in a particular direction, that is not on this diagonal arrow.

References

Berners-Lee, T., (2000) Semantic Web on XML – Slide 10 - http://www.w3.org/2000/Talks/1206-xml2k-tbl/slide10-0.html

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. MIT Press, 2003.

Naeve, A., 2005, The Human Semantic Web – Shifting from Knowledge Push to Knowledge Pull. International Journal of Semantic Web and Information Systems (IJSWIS), Vol 1(3) (July-September 2005) pp 1-30.

Naeve - http://kmr.nada.kth.se/wiki/Amb/HomePage

Semantic Web Advantages

I think the main advantages of the Semantic Web are structuring of information, leading to adaptability of systems to changes and flexibility for a fast paced fast changing world. This also helps with extensibility of the system and/or of its use by increased numbers and range of types of user/contributor.

Research Development

It is important to enable changes to the design of the information source and its structure as necessary, even when it contains information. This makes possible continuous improvement of the information and its representation together. Clear visualisation of the structure makes out of date and duplicate information obvious, so it can be changed by the end-users of the information. This provides for maintenance of information quality without necessitating end-users to understand relational database design; though relational databases can still be used for information where the frequency of structural change is less.

The diagrams below shows the way iterative development is used both in this research and in the implementation to ensure that changes can be made systematically as necessary and without disrupting the project.

Research and Development for Thesis

Information about my Research is at - http://www.cems.uwe.ac.uk/~phale/.

Improving the structuring and collaboration capabilities of spreadsheets

Users can specify a calculation in mathematical terms using a formula. The spreadsheet then calculates the result of the formula. Users can change the formula if it is incorrect without any need to write code or re-compile. This accounts for the popularity of spreadsheets. So it is necessary to create collaborative tools that allow users to develop software in a way they will be familiar with from their use of spreadsheets.

Burnett et al (2007) state "end-users are using various languages and programming systems to create software in forms such as spreadsheets, dynamic web applications, and scientific simulations. This software needs to be sufficiently dependable, but substantial evidence suggests that it is not." Crapo et al (2002) argue that many users of spreadsheet software can model problems accurately if they are provided with visualisation capabilities to help them build, track, and understand the information relationships, and therefore the problem modelled. Crapo explains that visualisation helps users maintain a hierarchy of sub models at different stages of development and to navigate effectively between them. The way spreadsheets are defined by formulae can aid in allowing editing and tracking of information in models provided that the relationships between formulae are adequately represented. Hanna (2005) explains that a spreadsheet program is defined by formulae and has purely declarative semantics with the order of evaluation determined purely by the dependencies between cells. However, he criticises the impoverished semantics of spreadsheets that severely limit "the ability of programmers (even expert ones) to construct reliable, correct, maintainable programs with well known consequences". There is an alternative solution of research to automatically generating correct spreadsheets, and solve errors of meaning (semantic errors) (Erwig et al, 2006). This thesis concentrates on visualisation in order to make the meaning clearer to the human modellers. Therefore, it is necessary to improve the information structuring, and visualisation capabilities of spreadsheets in order to encourage more reliable modelling and collaboration.

Burnett, M. M., Engels, G, Myers, B. A., Rothermel, G., 2007. End-User Software Engineering Dagstuhl Seminar - http://www.dagstuhl.de/en/program/calendar/semhp/?semnr=2007081.

Crapo, A. W., Waisel, L. B., Wallace, W. A., Willemain, T. R., 2002. Visualization and Modelling for Intelligent Systems. In: C. T. Leondes, ed. Intelligent Systems: Technology and Applications, Volume I Implementation Techniques, 2002 pp 53-85.

Erwig, M., Abraham, R., Cooperstein, I., Kollmansberger S., 2006. Automatic Generation and Maintenance of Correct Spreadsheets?. In: Proceedings of the 27th international conference on Software engineering, St. Louis, MO, USA pp 136-145 - http://web.engr.oregonstate.edu/~erwig/papers/Gencel_ICSE05.pdf.

Hanna, K., 2005. A document-centered environment for Haskell. In: 17th International Workshop on Implementation and Application of Functional Languages IFL 2005 Dublin, Ireland - September 19-21 2005.