Journal on Data Semantics

, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp 107–139 | Cite as

A Model for Digital Libraries and its Translation to RDF

  • Carlo MeghiniEmail author
  • Nicolas Spyratos
  • Tsuyoshi Sugibuchi
  • Jitao Yang
Original Article


With the advent of the Web, the traditional concept of library has undergone a profound change: from a collection of physical information resources (mostly books) to a collection of digital resources. In addition, the notion of digital resource includes not only texts in digital form, but also, in general, any kind of multimedia resources. In a traditional library, physical information resources are managed through well-understood manual procedures, whereas in a digital library digital resources are organized according to a data model, discovered through a query language and managed in a highly automated way. In this paper, we present a data model and query language for digital libraries supporting identification, structuring, metadata support, re-use and discovery of digital resources. The model that we propose is inspired by the Web and it is formalized as a first-order theory, certain models of which correspond to the notion of digital library. Additionally, we provide a full translation of the model in RDF and of the query language in SPARQL.


Digital libraries Conceptual modelling Datalog  Web architecture RDF 



This work was partially supported by the following sources: (1) EU project ASSETS (“Advanced Service Search and Enhancing Technological Solutions for the European Digital Librar”, CIP-ICT PSP-2009-3, Grant Agreement n. 250527), and (2) CNRS International Collaboration Project (PICS 5220). We also thank Europeana for building the ideal forum for discussing the making of a digital library.


  1. 1.
    Greenstone digital library software.
  2. 2.
    Baader F, Calvanese D, McGuinness DL, Nardi D, Patel-Schneider PF (eds) (2003) The description logic handbook: theory, implementation, and applications, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berners-Lee T, Fielding R, Masinter L (2005) Uniform resource identifiers (URI): generic syntax. RFC 3986, The Internet Engineering Task Force, Network Working Group.
  4. 4.
    Berners-Lee T, Hendler J, Lassila O (2001) The semantic web. Scientific American MagazineGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brickley D, Guha RV (2004) RDF vocabulary description language 1.0: RDF schema. W3C Recommendation, WWW Consortium.
  6. 6.
    Candela L, Castelli D, Ferro N, Koutrika G, Meghini C, Ioannidis Y, Pagano P, Ross S, Soergel D, Agosti M, Dobreva M, Katifori V, Schuldt H (2007) The DELOS Digital Library Reference Model–foundations for digital libraries. DELOS Network of Excellence on Digital Libraries. ISBN 2-912337-37-XGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Candela L, Castelli D, Ioannidis Y, Koutrika G, Pagano P, Ross S, Schek H-J, Schuldt H (2007) Setting the foundations of digital libraries the delos manifesto. D-Lib Mag 13(3/4)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Castagna G (1995) Covariance and contravariance: conflict without a cause. ACM Trans Program Lang Syst 17(3):431–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cohen E (1997) Size-estimation framework with applications to transitive closure and reachability. J Comput Syst Sci 55:441–453CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dantsin E, Eiter TH, Gottlob G, Voronkov A (2001) Complexity and expressive power of logic programming. ACM Comput Surv 33(3):374–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Van de Sompel H, Bekaert J, Liu X, Balakireva L, Schwander T (2005) aDORe: a modular, standards-based digital object repository. Comput J 48(5):514–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Doerr M (2003) The CIDOC conceptual reference model: an ontological approach to semantic interoperability of metadata. AI Magazine 24(3):75–92MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goncalves MA, Fox EA, Watson LT, Kipp NA (2004) Streams, structures, spaces, scenarios, societies (5s): a formal model for digital libraries. ACM Trans Inf Syst 22(2):270–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Halpin H, Valentina P (2009) An ontology of resources for linked data. In Proceedings of LDOW 2009, linked data on the web, WWW2009 workshop, Madrid, Spain.
  15. 15.
    Harris S, Seaborne A (2011) SPARQL 1.1 Query Language. W3c working draft.
  16. 16.
    Hayes P (2006) In defense of ambiguity. In Proceedings of IRW2006, the identity, reference, and the web, WWW2006 workshop, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
  17. 17.
    Hayes P (2004) RDF semantics. W3C recommendation, WWW consortium.
  18. 18.
    Heath T, Bizer C (2011) Linked data. Evolving the web into a global data space. Morgan & Claypool, San Rafael Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (2008) Dublin core metadata initiative dublin core metadata element set, version 1.1.
  20. 20.
    Jacobs I, Walsh N (2004) Architecture of the World Wide Web, vol 1. W3C Recommendation, WWW Consortium.
  21. 21.
    Klyne G, Carroll JJ (2004) Resource description framework (RDF): concepts and abstract syntax. W3C Recommendation, WWW Consortium.
  22. 22.
    Lagoze C, Payette S, Shin E, Wilper C (2006) Fedora: an architecture for complex objects and their relationships. Int J Digit Lib 6:124–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lloyd JW (1987) Foundations of logic programming. Springer, BerlinCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Manola F, Miller E (2004) RDF Primer. W3C Recommendation, WWW Consortium.
  25. 25.
    Meghini C, Doerr M, Spyratos N (2009) Managing co-reference knowledge for data integration. In: Kiyoki Y, Tokuda T, Jaakkola H, Chen X, Yoshida N (eds) Information modelling and knowledge bases XX. In: Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications, vol 190. IOS Press, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Meghini C, Sebastiani F, Straccia U, Thanos C (1993) A model of information retrieval based on a terminological logic. In Proceedings of the 16th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval (SIGIR 1993)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Munoz-Venegas S, Perez J, Gutierrez C (2009) Simple and efficient minimal RDFS. J Web Seman 7:220–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Perez J, Arenas M, Gutierrez C (2009) Semantics and complexity of SPARQL. ACM Trans Database Syst (TODS) 34(3)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Prud’hommeaux E, Seaborne A (2008) Sparql query language for RDF. W3C Recommendation.
  30. 30.
    Rigaux P, Spyratos N (2004) Metadata inference for document retrieval in a distributed repository. In Proceedings of ASIAN’04, The 9th Asian computing science conference. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 3321. Chiang-Mai, Thailand. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Smith M, Barton M, Bass M, Branschofsky M, McClellan G, Stuve D, Tansley R, Walker JH (2003) Dspace an open source dynamic digital repository. D-Lib Mag 9(1)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    ter Horst HJ (2005) Completeness, decidability and complexity of entailment for rdf schema and a semantic extension involving the OWL vocabulary. J Web Seman 3:79–115CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Presutti V, Gangemi A (2008) Identity of resources and entities on the web. Int J Semant Web Inf Syst 4(2)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Yang J (2012) A data model for digital libraries. PhD thesis, École doctorale: Informatique de Paris-Sud. Spécialité: InformatiqueGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carlo Meghini
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nicolas Spyratos
    • 2
  • Tsuyoshi Sugibuchi
    • 2
  • Jitao Yang
    • 2
  1. 1.Consiglio Nazionale delle RicercheIstituto di Scienza e Tecnologie della InformazionePisaItaly
  2. 2.Laboratoire de Recherche en InformatiqueUniversité Paris-SudOrsay CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations