Integrated Collaborative
Information Systems
Thesis Proposal
Ahmet E. Topcu
Outline
p
Introduction
p
Motivation
p
Research Issues
Introduction
p
Efforts for collaboration and sharing between users and
communities.
n Grid
p Virtual Organizations
n Sakai
p Collaboration and Learning Environment for Education
n Web 2.0
p Represents new web-based services.
p Provides rich and lightweight online tools p Provides reusable services and data
p Updates software and data often very rapidly p Provides interactive user interfaces
p Provides an architecture for easy user contribution
Web 2.0 Examples
p
Blogs (blogger.com, GoogleBlog)
pWikis(Wikipedia, WikiWikiWeb)
p
Social Networking Tools(MySpace ,LinkedIn)
pSocial Bookmarking Tools(del.icio.us ,YouTube)
p
Domain of scientific research (CiteULike , Connotea , and
Bibsonomy)
p
Domain specific academic search tools(CiteSeer, Google
Motivation
p
Need for exploiting large set of data sources
n
Google Scholar (GS), Windows Live Academic (WLA)
may have different scope
p
Utilizing best capabilities of the tools
n
GS has number of cited publications.
Motivation
q
Integration
q Necessities for integration
q Need for common data format
q
Completeness
No easy way to find all publications
q Example: A search in Google Scholar for the publications of our
research lab (Community Grids Lab) will return only about 20% of the total GS search content.
q Wealth of information contained in numerous field remains largely
Research Issues
p
Integration
n A model to integrate community tools.
n A model to collect related documents of data naturally
p
Performance
n The cost of integration of the systems
n Overhead for extracting information and uploading them to the tools
p
Flexibility and Extensibility
n Easy to add and remove service mechanism
Architecture Principles
p Community-centric platform of services
p Integration of dynamic publication, search tools into
Cyberinfrastructure
based scholarly research.p Integration such scientific research defining metadata and using various url,
and map them.
p Services that aggregate information from a variety of sources (i.e.,
“mash-up” tools) and provide added value to communities of researchers
p Do not build a new tool. Reuse the tools.
p Easier to link together all relating information common Digital Entity (DE)
Mash-up:A Web page or application that integrates complementary elements from two or more sources.
Summary: Architecture
p
Build integration architecture
p
We do not reinvent existing tools
p
Use existing features of tools
p
Supports microformats and universal tagging services
p
Provides common metadata
p
Allows to use consistent data
p
Provides common resolution of filters
Usage of Integration Model
p
We have used/tested Semantic Research Grid (SRG)
(a prototype model) for published scientific research
publications in Community Grids Lab in which has
20 students ,and post-docs and faculty members
Security Model
p Security in web 2.0 is inadequate. Provide security for inconsistent/in
existed security model in web 2.0 domain.
p There exists a number of security methods:
n Access control matrix (ACL) n Transport Layer Security (TLS) n Role-based access control (RBAC) n Task-based access control (TBCA)
p We used an access-control matrix model to provide security for our
information system
n Supports multiple groups and multiple users for each object. n Similar to UNIX file system
p The Unix RWX bits corresponds toRead, Write, and Execute operation for each
file and directory.
n In proposed system, DE (Digital Entity) correspond to the file element and
folder corresponds to the directory element.
n For each DE and folder, there are three types of access rights defined in the
systems: Read, Write, and Delete.
Security Model II
p
We have a security model that supports
n
Level of Authorization
p Roles are defined as Super Administrator (SA) and Group
Administrator (GA), User (U)
p The system allows having more than one SA.
p An existing SA can add other SAs to the system.
p SA can assign any U to become GA, and remove GA from group.
p Each group should at least one GA. GA add/remove U from group
n
User profile
Contribution
p Integration
n We have successfully integrated Google Scholar and Windows Live Academic
search tools and CiteUlike, Delicious annotation tools which provide a system that allow dynamic publication.
n We will integrate CiteeSeer search tools to investigate our proposed
architecture.
p
Performance
n We will investigate the cost of integration of the new tools into the systems n Overhead for extracting information and uploading them to the tools
p
Flexibility and Extensibility
n We provides flexibility allowing integration of different tools having common
metadata.
n Easy to add and extend service mechanism
End
Applications I : Search Tools
p
They have two main roles in the usage scenarios
of our system:
n They will be used to seed the creation of a community
(e.g., the papers of a research group, the papers on a chemical compound, etc.).
n These seeds will then be expanded and refined by our
community-building tools and linked with the annotation
tools. They will be used to extract the citation count of
scientific papers.
Applications II : Search Tools
p
Extract information from Search Domain.
n Example: Using heuristic method for Google Scholar.
p
Extract Metadata to build DEs having search key.
p
This model can be used for various search tools
n Collect metadata for scholarly published papers.
n Build communities implied by the co-authors of papers.
