Elsevier

Advances in Computers

Volume 76, 2009, Pages 121-175
Advances in Computers

Chapter 4 The Future of Social Web Sites: Sharing Data and Trusted Applications with Semantics

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2458(09)01004-3Get rights and content

Abstract

In recent years, there has been an explosion in the number of Social Web sites which allow the creation of knowledge through simplified user contributions via blogs, wikis, and the deployment of online social networks. As more Social Web sites form around the connections between people and their objects of interest, and as these “object‐centered networks” grow bigger and more diverse, more intuitive methods are needed for representing and navigating the objects in these sites: both within and across Social Web sites. Also, to better enable user access to multiple sites, interoperability among Social Web sites is required in terms of both the expressed data (content objects, person‐to‐person networks, etc.) and the social applications in use (e.g., widgets) on each site. This requires representation mechanisms for data and applications on the Social Web in an interoperable and extensible way. The Semantic Web provides such representation mechanisms: it can be used to link people and objects by representing the heterogeneous ties that bind us all to each other (either directly or indirectly). In this chapter, we will describe methods that build on agreed‐upon Semantic Web formats to describe people, content objects, the connections that bind them together explicitly or implicitly, and embeddable application widgets on Social Web sites, thereby enabling these sites to interoperate by appealing to some common semantics. We will also focus on how a social aspect can be added to data such as software project and widgets descriptions, so that one can combine social networking, trust, and relationship aspects with those representation models. We will also look at how developers can use the Semantic Web to augment the ways in which they create, reuse, and link content on social networking sites and Social Web sites. In particular, we will see how both data and applications can be shared on the Web, thanks to these semantics.

Introduction

Since it was founded, the Web has been used to facilitate communication not only between computers but also between people. Usenet mailing lists and Web forums allowed people to connect with each other and enabled communities to form, often around topics of interest. The social networks formed via these technologies were not explicitly stated, but were implicitly defined by the interactions of the people involved. Later, technologies such as IRC (Internet Relay Chat), instant messaging and blogging continued the trend of using the Internet to build communities.

Social networking sites (SNSs) such as Friendster (an early SNS previously popular in the US, now widely used in Asia), Orkut (Google's SNS), LinkedIn (an SNS for professional relationships), and MySpace (a music‐ and youth‐oriented service)—where explicitly stated networks of friendship form a core part of the Web site—have become part of the daily lives of millions of users, and generated huge amounts of investment since they began to appear around 2002. Since then, the popularity of these sites has grown hugely and continues to do so. Boyd and Ellison [10] recently described the history of SNSs, and suggested that in the early days of SNSs, when only the SixDegrees service existed, there simply were not enough users: “While people were already flocking to the Internet, most did not have extended networks of friends who were online.” A graph from Internet World Stats1 shows the growth in the number of Internet users over time. Between 2000 (when SixDegrees shut down) and 2003 (when Friendster became the first successful SNS), the number of Internet users had doubled.

Content‐sharing sites with social networking functionality such as YouTube (a video‐sharing site), Flickr (for sharing images), and last.fm (a radio and music community site) have enjoyed similar popularity. The basic features of an SNS are profiles, friend's listings and commenting, often along with other features such as private messaging, discussion forums, blogging, and media uploading and sharing. Many content‐sharing sites such as Flickr and YouTube also include some social networking functionality. In addition to SNSs, other forms of Social Web sites include wikis, forums, and blogs. Some of these publish content in structured formats enabling them to be aggregated together. The Social Web or “Web 2.0” has enabled community‐based knowledge acquisition with efforts like the Wikipedia demonstrating the “wisdom of the crowds” in creating the world's largest online encyclopedia. Although it is difficult to define the exact boundaries of what structures or abstractions belong to the Social Web, a common property of such sites is that they facilitate collaboration and sharing between users with low technical barriers, although usually on single sites.

A limitation of current Social Web sites is that they are isolated from one another like islands in a sea. For example, different online discussions may contain complementary knowledge and topics, segmented parts of an answer that a person may be looking for, but people participating in one discussion do not have ready access to information about related discussions elsewhere. As more and more Social Web sites, communities, and services come online, the lack of interoperation among them becomes obvious: a set of single data silos or “stovepipes” has been created, that is, there are many sites, communities, and services that cannot interoperate with each other, where synergies are expensive to exploit, and where reuse and interlinking of data is difficult and cumbersome. The main reason for this lack of interoperation is that for the most part in the Social Web, there are still no common standards for knowledge and information exchange and interoperation available. RSS (Really Simple Syndication), a format for publishing recently updated Web content such as blog entries, could be a first solution for interoperability among Social Web sites, but it has various limitations that make it difficult to be used efficiently in such a context, as we will see later.

However, the Semantic Web effort aims to provide the tools that are necessary to define extensible and flexible standards for information exchange and interoperability. The Scientific American article from Berners‐Lee et al. [4] defined 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 last couple of years have seen large efforts going into the definition of the foundational standards supporting data interchange and interoperation, and currently a well‐defined Semantic Web technology stack exists, enabling the creation of defining metadata and associated vocabularies. The Semantic Web effort is in an ideal position to make Social Web sites interoperable. The application of the Semantic Web to the Social Web can lead to a “Social Semantic Web” (Fig. 1), creating a network of interlinked and semantically rich knowledge. This vision of the Web will consist of interlinked documents, data, and even applications created by the end users themselves as the result of various social interactions, and it is modeled using machine‐readable formats, so that it can be used for purposes that the current state of the Social Web cannot achieve without difficulty.

A semantic data “food chain” (see Fig. 2), that is, producers, collectors, and consumers of semantic data from social networks and Social Web sites, can lead to something greater than the sum of its parts: a social Semantic Web where the islands of the Social Web can be interconnected with semantic technologies, and Semantic Web applications are enhanced with the wealth of knowledge inherent in user‐generated content.

Applying semantic technologies to Social Web sites can greatly enhance the value and functionality of these sites. The information within these sites is forming vast and diverse networks which can benefit from Semantic Web technologies for representation and navigation. Additionally, to easily enable navigation and data portability across sites, mechanisms are required to represent data in an interoperable and extensible way. These are termed semantic data producers.

An intermediary step which may or may not be required is for the collection of semantic data. In very large sites, this may not be an issue as the information in the site may be sufficiently linked internally to warrant direct consumption after production, but in general, may users make small contributions across a range of services which can benefit from an aggregate view through some collection service. Collection services can include aggregation and consolidation systems, semantic search engines, or data lookup indexes.

The final step involves consumers of semantic data. Social networking technologies enable people to articulate their social network via friend connections. A social network can be viewed as a graph where the nodes represent individuals and the edges represent relations. Methods from graph theory can be used to study these networks, and we will describe how social network analysis (SNA) can consume semantic data from the food chain.

Also, representing social data in RDF (Resource Description Framework), a language for describing Web resources in a structured way, enables us to perform queries on a network to locate information relating to a person or people. Interlinking social data from multiple sources may give an enhanced view of information in distributed communities, and we will describe applications to consume this interlinked data.

In this chapter, we will begin by describing various social networking sites and Social Web sites, along with some of their limitations and initial approaches to leverage semantics in social networks, blogs, wikis, tagging, and software descriptions. We will discuss the representation methods that can be used by semantic producers to represent data (user profiles, feeds, content) and applications (widgets) for porting and sharing amongst users and sites. We will then describe the collection stage in a “semantic data food chain,” giving examples of queries that can be used to consolidate aggregates of data from Social Web sites. We will also discuss how trust mechanisms in consuming applications can be leveraged via the distributed social graph, so that users can decide who to accept any new data or applications from. Finally, we will give our conclusions and ideas for future work.

Section snippets

Social Networks

The “friend‐of‐a‐friend effect” often occurs when someone tells someone something and they then tell you—linked to the theory that anybody is connected to everybody else (on average) by no more than six degrees of separation. This number of six degrees came from a sociologist called Stanley Milgram who conducted an experiment in the late 1960s. Random people from Nebraska and Kansas were told to send a letter (via intermediaries) to a stock broker in Boston. However, they could only give the

Producers of Social Semantic Data

Applying Semantic Web technologies to online social spaces allows for the expression of different types of relationships between people, objects and concepts. By using common, machine‐readable ways of expressing individuals, profiles, social connections, and content, they provide a way to interconnect people and objects on the Web in an interoperable, extensible way.

On the conventional Web, navigation of social data across sites can be a major challenge. Communities are often dispersed across

Collectors of Social Semantic Data

The semantic social data available on the Web are distributed across numerous sources and are stored in many different formats. In some cases, these data may be published in such a way that it can be consumed directly by applications, for example, in an RDF store with a SPARQL (Simple Protocol and RDF Query Language) endpoint. Alternatively, it may be necessary to first gather and process the data, for example, when it is stored in documents which need to be crawled and indexed. In the

Consumers of Social Semantic Data

Once data have been collected and aggregated, or made directly accessible through a SPARQL endpoint, it can be studied or used in applications. As the information is in a structured format, it can easily be converted into the formats required by popular social network analysis and visualization tools. RDF data can also be queried directly to return some set of items that fit certain criteria that a user is interested in. In the following, we describe these two ways of using semantic social data.

Leveraging Semantics in Multimedia‐Enabled Social Web Sites

A key feature of the new Social Web is the change in the role of user from just a consumer of content, to an active participant in the creation of content. For example, Wikipedia articles are written and edited by volunteers; Amazon.com uses information about what users view and purchase to recommend products to other users; Slashdot moderation is performed by the readers. One area of future work in relation to social networks on the Semantic Web is the application of semantic techniques to

Conclusions

In this chapter, we have described the significance of community‐oriented and content‐sharing sites on the Web, the shortcomings of many of these sites as they are now, and the benefits that semantic technologies can bring to social networks and Social Web sites. Online social spaces encouraging content creation and sharing have resulted in the formation of massive and intricate networks of people and associated content. However, the lack of integration between sites means that these networks

Acknowledgment

This work was supported by Science Foundation Ireland under Grant No. SFI/02/CE1/I131.

References (46)

  • U. Bojārs et al.

    Using the semantic Web for linking and reusing data across Web 2.0 communities

    Special Issue on the Semantic Web and Web 2.0. The Journal of Web Semantics

    (2008)
  • P. Mika

    Flink: Semantic Web technology for the extraction and analysis of social networks

    Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web

    (2005)
  • B. Aleman‐Meza et al.

    Semantic analytics on social networks: Experiences in addressing the problem of conflict of interest detection

  • B. Aleman‐Meza et al.

    Combining RDF vocabularies for expert finding

  • V. Batagelj et al.

    Pajek—Program for large network analysis

    Connections

    (1998)
  • T. Berners‐Lee et al.

    The semantic Web

    Scientific American

    (May 2001)
  • U. Bojārs et al.

    A prototype to explore content and context on social community sites

  • U. Bojamacr;rs et al.

    An architecture to discover and query decentralised RDF data

  • U. Bojārs et al.

    Social network and data portability using semantic Web technologies

  • S.P. Borgatti et al.
  • D.M. Boyd et al.

    Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship

    Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication

    (2007)
  • J.G. Breslin et al.

    The future of social networks on the Internet: The need for semantics

    IEEE Internet Computing

    (November/December 2007)
  • J.G. Breslin et al.

    Towards Semantically‐Interlinked Online Communities

  • J.J. Carroll et al.

    Named graphs, provenance and trust

  • H.C. Choi et al.

    Trust models for community aware identity management

  • S. Decker et al.

    The social semantic desktop

  • L. Ding et al.

    How the semantic Web is being used: An analysis of FOAF documents

  • S. Fernandez et al.

    Mailing lists meet the semantic Web

  • D. Fisher et al.

    Using social sorting to enhance email management

  • L.C. Freeman

    Visualizing social networks

    Journal of Social Structure

    (2000)
  • S. Ghita et al.

    Semantically rich recommendations in social networks for sharing, exchanging and ranking semantic context

  • M. Girvan et al.

    Community structure in social and biological networks

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

    (2002)
  • J. Golbeck et al.

    Reputation network analysis for email filtering

  • Cited by (11)

    • Interests diffusion in social networks

      2015, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications
      Citation Excerpt :

      However there is a growing interest in studying topics diffusion in social networks [13], social dynamics [14,15] or even non consensus dynamics [16]. Merging the topological and semantic analysis of social networks represents a new and potentially fruitful research field which is providing promising results [17–21]. Our work shares the use of a semantic conceptual representation of a Domain of Interest [22] in the social network context with the formers.

    • NLP Techniques and Challenges to Process Social Media Data

      2023, Advanced Applications of NLP and Deep Learning in Social Media Data
    • Web 2.0 and beyond: Principles and technologies

      2016, Web 2.0 and Beyond: Principles and Technologies
    • Efficient metaheuristic approaches for exploration of online social networks

      2013, Big Data Management, Technologies, and Applications
    • DISMON: Using social web and semantic technologies to monitor diseases in limited environments

      2013, Interdisciplinary Advances in Information Technology Research
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text