UNIT -1

FUNDAMENTALS OF SOCIAL NETWORKING

Introduction to Semantic Web, Limitations of current Web, Development of Semantic Web, Emergence of the Social Web,
Social Network analysis, Development of Social Network Analysis, Key concepts and measures in network analysis, Historical
overview of privacy and security, Major paradigms, for understanding privacy and security

Introduction to Semantic Web

 The Semantic Web is the application of advanced knowledge technologies to the Web and distributed systems in general.
 Information that is missing or hard to access for our machines can be made accessible using ontologies. Ontologies are formal,
which allows a computer to emulate human ways of reasoning with knowledge.
 Ontologies carry a social commitment toward using a set of concepts and relationships in an agreed way.
 The Semantic Web adds another layer on the Web architecture that requires agreementsto ensure interoperability.

Limitations of current Web

 finding relevant information

 extracting relevant information
 combining and reusing information

aptation to our primary interface to the vast information that constitutes the
Web: the search engine.

satisfaction or not at all.

What’s wrong with the Web?

The questions below are specific. They represent very general categories of search tasks. In each
of these cases semantic technology would drastically improve the computer’s ability to give
more appropriate answers.
  To answer such a question using the Web one would go to the search engine and enter the
most logical keyword: SIT1610 Social network analysis. The results returned by Google
are shown in Figure 1
 From the top ten results only three are related to the social network analysis notes we are
interested in. The word SIT1610 means a number of things. It’s show the set of images,
notes and general topics about Social network analysis.
 Two of the hits related to notes, three related to syllabus of social network analysis and
other related to general concepts of social networking analysis.
 The problem is thus that the keyword SIT1610 is polysemous
 The reason is search engines know that users are not likely to look at more than the topten
results. Search engines are thus programmed in such a way that the first page shows a
diversity of the most relevant links related to the keyword.
 This allows the user to quickly realize the ambiguity of the query and to make it more
Specific.
Fig.1 Search results for the keyword SIT1610 Social network analysis using Google

2. Show me photo of Paris

Typing “Paris photos” in search engine returned the result in google image as below. The search
engine fails to discriminate two categories of images: i. related to the city of Paris and ii. showing
Paris Hilton While the search engine does a good job with retrieving documents, the results of
image searches in general are disappointing. For the keyword Paris most of us would expect
photos of places in Paris or maps of the city. In reality only about half of the photos onthe first
page, a quarter of the photos on the second page and a fifth on the third page are directly related
to our concept of Paris. The rest are about clouds, people, signs, diagrams etc
Problems:
 Associating photos with keywords is a much more difficult task than simply looking for
keywords in the texts of documents.
 Automatic image recognition is currently a largely unsolved research problem.
 Search engines attempt to understand the meaning of the image solely from its context
Find new music that I (might) like This is a difficult query. From the perspective of
automation, music retrieval is just as problematic as image search. search engines do not exist
for different reasons: most music on the internet is shared illegally through peer-to-peer systems
that are completely out of reach for search engines. Music is also a fast moving good; search
engines typically index the Web once a month and therefore too slow for the fast moving world
of music releases. On the other hand, our musical taste might change in which case this query
would need to change its form. A description of our musical taste is something that we
might list on our homepage but it is not something that we would like to keep typing in
again for accessing different music-related services on the internet.

Tell me about music players with a capacity of at least 4GB

This is a typical e-commerce query: looking for a product with certain characteristics.
One of the immediate concerns is that translating this query from natural language to the boolean
language of search engines is (almost) impossible.

The search engine will not know that 4GB is the capacity of the music player.
Problem is that general purpose search engines do not know anything about music players or
their properties and how to compare such properties.
Another bigger problem in our machines is trying to collect and aggregate product information
from the Web. The information extraction methods used for this purpose have a very difficult
task and it is easy to see why if we consider how a typical product description page looks like to
the eyes of the computer.
Even if an algorithm can determine that the page describes a music player, information about the
product is very difficult to spot.
Further, what one vendor calls “capacity” and another may call “memory”. In order to compare
music players from different shops we need to determine that these two properties are actually
the same and we can directly compare their values.

Google Scholar and CiteSeer are the two most well-known examples.

They suffer from the typical weaknesses of information extraction, e.g. when searching York
Sure, the name of a Semantic Web researcher, Scholar returns also publications that are
published in New York, but have otherwise nothing to do with the researcher in question. The
cost of such errors is very low, however: most of us just ignore the incorrect results.
In the first case, the search is limited to the stores known by the system. On the other hand, the
second method is limited by the human effort required for maintaining product categories as well
as locating websites and implementing methods of information extraction. As a result, these
comparison sites feature only a selected number of vendors, product types and attributes.
How to improve current Web?
 Increasing automatic linking among data
 Increasing recall and precision in search
 Increasing automation in data integration
 Increasing automation in the service life
cycle Adding semantics to data and services is the
solution!

DEVELOPMENT OF SEMANTIC WEB

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND STANDARDIZATION

The vision of extending the current human-focused Web with machine process able descriptions
of web content has been first formulated in 1996 by Tim Berners-Lee, the original inventor of
the Web.
Semantic Web has been actively promoted by the World Wide Web Consortium. The
organization is chiefly responsible for setting technical standards on the Web.
agencies on both
sides of the Atlantic, reshaping much of the AI research agenda in a relatively short period of
time.

acquiring knowledge from the World Wide Web.

precisely delineate the boundaries of this network. For research on the Semantic Web
community, researchers have submitted publications or held an organizing role at any of the past
International Semantic Web Conferences.

academia (79%) and to a lesser degree from industry (21%). Geographically, the community
covers much of the United States, Europe, with some activity in Japan and Australia.
-based languages for knowledge
representation and reasoning has been developed in the research field of Artificial Intelligence.
the potential for connecting information sources on a Web-scale emerged, the languages
that have been used in the past to describe the content of the knowledge bases of stand-alone
expert systems have been adapted to the open, distributed environment of the Web.

Since the exchange of knowledge in standard languages is crucial for the interoperability of tools
and services on the Semantic Web, these languages have been standardized by the W3C.

Technology adoption
The Semantic Web was originally conceptualized as an extension of the current Web, i.e. as the
application of metadata for describing Web content. In this vision, the content that is already on
the Web.

t the Semantic Web will first break through behind the

scenes and not with the ordinary users, but among large providers of data and services.
“web of data” operated
by data and service providers.

Semantic Web.

Difficulties:

The problem is that as a technology for developers, users of the Web never experiences the
Semantic Web directly, which makes it difficult to convey Semantic Web technology to
stakeholders. Further, most of the times the gains for developers are achieved over the long term,
i.e. when data and services need to reused and re-purposed. The semantic web suffers from Fax-
effect.

When the first fax machines were introduced, they came with a very hefty price tag. Yet they
were almost useless. The usefulness of a fax comes from being able to communicate with other
fax users. In this sense every fax unit sold increases the value of all fax machines in use.

Semantic Web the beginning the price of technological investment is very high. One
has to adapt the new technology which requires an investment in learning. The technology
needs time to become more reliable.
 required a certain kind of agreement to get the system working on a global scale: all fax
machines needed to adopt the same protocol for communicating over the telephone line. This is
similar to the case of the Web where global interoperability is guaranteed by the standard
protocol for communication (HTTP).

some primitive symbols, i.e. on what is communicated through the network.

Our machines can also help in this task to the extent that some of the meaning can be describedin
formal rules (e.g. if A is true, B should follow). But formal knowledge typically captures
onlythe smaller part of the intended meaning and thus there needs to be a common grounding in
an external reality that is shared by those at separate ends of the line.

the Web, have executed a set of temporal queries using the search engine Altavista.
ssary.
Each query measured the number of documents with the given term(s) at the given point in time.

The below figure shows the number of documents with the terms basketball, Computer Science,
and XML. The flat curve for the term basketball validates this strategy: the popularity of
basketball to be roughly stable over this time period. Computer Science takes less and less share
of the Web as the Web shifts from scientific use to everyday use. The share of XML, a popular
pre-semantic web technology seems to grow and stabilize as it becomes a regular part of the
toolkit of Web developers.

Fig2. Number of webpage with the terms basketball, Computer Science, and XML over time
and as a fraction of the number of pages with the term web.

Against this general backdrop there was a look at the share of Semantic Web related terms
and formats, in particular the terms RDF, OWL and the number of ontologies (Semantic Web
Documents) in RDF or OWL. As Figure 1.3.b shows most of the curves have flattened out
after January, 2004. It is not known at this point whether the dip in the share of Semantic
 Web is significant. While the use of RDF has settled at a relatively high level, OWL has yet
to break out from a very low trajectory.

Fig3. Number of WebPages with the terms RDF, OWL and the number of ontologies in RDF or
OWL over time. Again, the number is relative to the number of pages with the term web.

The share of the mentioning of Semantic Web formats versus the actual number of Semantic Web
documents using that format. The resulting talking vs. doing curve shows the phenomenon of
technology hype in both the case of XML, RDF and OWL. this is the point where the technology
“makes the press” and after which its becoming increasingly used on the Web.

Fig.4 The hype cycle of Semantic Web related technologies as shown by the number of web
pages about a given technology relative to its usage

The five-stage hype cycle of Gartner Research is defined as follows: The first phase of a Hype
Cycle is the “technology trigger” or breakthrough, product launch or other event that generates
significant press and interest. In the next phase, a frenzy of publicity typically generates over-
enthusiasm and unrealistic expectations. There may be some successful applications
of a technology, but there are typically more failures. Technologies enter the “trough
of disillusionment” because they fail to meet expectations and quickly become
unfashionable. Although the press may have stopped covering the technology, some
businesses continue through the “slope of enlightenment” and experiment to
understand the benefits and practical application of the technology. A technology
reaches the “plateau of productivity” as the benefits of it become widely
demonstrated and accepted. The technology becomes increasingly stable andevolves
in second and third generations. The final height of the plateau varies according to
whether the technology is broadly applicable or benefits only a niche market.

tions, hype is
unavoidable for the adoption of network technologies such as the Semantic Web.

not reaching yet the mainstream user and developer community of the Web.

In particular, the adoption of RDF is lagging behind XML, even though it

provides a better alternative and thus many hoped it would replace XML over
time.

inspire even more confidence in the corporate world. This could lead an earlier
realization of the vision of the Se mantic Web as a “web of data”, which could
ultimately result in a resurgence of general interest on the Web.