Anupriya Ankolekar
ABSTRACT
A common perception is that there are two competing visions for the future evolution of the Web: the Semantic Web and Web 2.0. A closer look, though, reveals that the core technologies and concerns of these two approaches are complementary and that each field can and must draw from the other's strengths. We believe that future web applications will retain the Web 2.0 focus on community and usability, while drawing on Semantic Web infrastructure to facilitate mashup-like information sharing. However, there are several open issues that must be addressed before such applications can become commonplace. In this paper, we outline a semantic weblogs scenario that illustrates the potential for combining Web 2.0 and Semantic Web technologies, while highlighting the unresolved issues that impede its realization. Nevertheless, we believe that the scenario can be realized in the short-term. We point to recent progress made in resolving each of the issues as well as future research directions for each of the communities.
- A. Ankolekar and D. Vrandečić. Personalizing Web surfing with semantically enriched peronal profiles. In M. Bouzid and N. Henze, editors, Proc. Semantic Web Personalization Workshop, Budva, Montenegro, June 2006.Google Scholar
- M. Arenas, J. A. Perez, and C. Gutierrez. Semantics and complexity of sparql. In I. Cruz and S. Decker, editors, Proc. 5th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC06), pages 30--43, Athens, GA, USA, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- F. Baader, S. Brandt, and C. Lutz. Pushing the EL envelope. In Proc. 19th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'05), Edinburgh, UK, 2005. Morgan-Kaufmann Publishers. Google ScholarDigital Library
- F. Baader, D. Calvanese, D. McGuinness, D. Nardi, and P. Patel-Schneider, editors. The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications. Cambridge University Press, 2003. Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. Beged-Dov, D. Brickley, R. Dornfest, I. Davis, L. Dodds, J. Eisenzopf, D. Galbraith, R. Guha, K. MacLeod, E. Miller, A. Swartz, and E. van der Vlist. RDF Site Summary 1.0, 9 December 2000. Available at http://web.resource.org/rss/1.0/spec.Google Scholar
- T. Berners-Lee, J. Hendler, and O. Lassila. The Semantic Web. Scientific American, 5, 2001.Google Scholar
- A. Bernstein, E. Kaufmann, A. Göhring, and C. Kiefer. Querying ontologies: A controlled english interface for end-users. In Proc. 4th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC05), pages 112--126, November 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Bizer and A. Seaborne. D2RQ - treating non-RDF databases as virtual RDF graphs. In Proc. 3rd International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC04), 2004.Google Scholar
- S. Braun, A. Schmidt, and V. Zacharias. Ontology maturing with lightweight collaborative ontology editing tools. In Proc. Workshop on Productive Knowledge Work: Management and Technological Challenges (ProKW), 2007.Google Scholar
- T. Bray, J. Paoli, and C. M. Sperberg-McQueen. Extensible markup language (XML) 1.0 (second edition). W3C Recommendation REC-xml-20001006, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Oct. 2000. Available at http://www.w3.org/XML/.Google Scholar
- J. G. Breslin, A. Harth, U. Boãjrs, and S. Decker. Towards semantically-interlinked online communities. In Proc. 2nd European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC05), Heraklion, Greece, Proceedings, LNCS 3532, pages 500--514, 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Brickley and R. V. Guha. RDF Vocabulary Description Language 1.0: RDF Schema. W3C Recommendation, 10 February 2004. Available at http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/.Google Scholar
- D. Brickley and L. Miller. FOAF vocabulary specification, revision, 2003. Available at http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/.Google Scholar
- A. Cali and M. Kifer. Containment of conjunctive object meta-queries. In Proc. 32nd Int. Conf. on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB06), pages 942--952. VLDB Endowment, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Cayzer. Semantic blogging and decentralized knowledge management. Communications of the ACM, 47(12):47--52, Dec. 2004. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Cayzer. What next for semantic blogging? Technical Report HPL-2006-149, Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Bristol, UK, Oct. 2006.Google Scholar
- Creative Commons. "Some Rights Reserved": Building a layer of reasonable copyright. http://creativecommons.org.Google Scholar
- F. Dawson and T. Howes. vcard mime directory profile. RFC 2426, Internet Engineering Task Force, Sept. 1998. Google ScholarDigital Library
- F. Dawson and D. Stenerson. Internet calendaring and scheduling core object specification (icalendar). RFC 2445, Internet Engineering Task Force, Nov. 1998. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Ding, T. Finin, A. Joshi, R. Pan, R. S. Cost, Y. Peng, P. Reddivari, V. Doshi, and J. Sachs. Swoogle: A search and metadata engine for the Semantic Web. In Proc. 13th ACM Conf. on Information and Knowledge Management, pages 58--61, 2004. Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. C. G. (ed.). OWL 1.1 web ontology language, November 2006. Available at http://owl1_1.cs.manchester.ac.uk/.Google Scholar
- T. C. (ed.). hReview 0.3, 22 February 2006. Available at http://microformats.org/wiki/hreview.Google Scholar
- M. Ehrig and S. Staab. QOM - Quick ontology mapping. In Proc. 3rd International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC04), pages 683--697. Springer, 2004.Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Ehrig and Y. Sure. Ontology mapping - an integrated approach. In Proc. 1st European Semantic Web Symposium, volume 3053, pages 76--91. Springer, 2004.Google ScholarCross Ref
- N. Friedland, P. Allen, G. Matthews, M. Witbrock, D. Baxter, J. Curtis, B. Shepard, P. Miraglia, J. Angele, S. Staab, E. Mönch, H. Oppermann, D. Wenke, B. Porter, K. Barker, J. Fan, S. Y. Chaw, P. Yeh, D. Tecuci, and P. Clark. Project Halo: Towards a digital Aristotle. AI Magazine, 2004.Google Scholar
- J. Golbeck and J. Hendler. FilmTrust: movie recommendations using trust in web-based social networks. In Proc. IEEE Consumer Communications and Networking Conference, 2006.Google ScholarCross Ref
- T. Heath and E. Motta. Reviews and ratings on the semantic web. In Poster Track, 5th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC2006), Athens, Georgia, USA, 2006.Google Scholar
- J. Heflin and J. Z. Pan. A model theoretic semantics for ontology versioning. In Third International Semantic Web Conference, pages 62--76, Hiroshima, Japan, 2004. Springer.Google ScholarDigital Library
- U. Hustadt, B. Motik, and U. Sattler. Reducing SHIQ- description logic to disjunctive datalog programs. In Proc. of KR2004, pages 152--162. AAAI Press, 2004.Google Scholar
- A. Kalyanpur, B. Parsia, E. Sirin, and J. Hendler. Debugging unsatisfiable classes in OWL ontologies. Journal of Web Semantics, 3, 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. R. Karger and D. Quan. What would it mean to blog on the semantic web? In S. A. McIlraith, D. Plexousakis, and F. van Harmelen, editors, Proc. 3rd International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC04), Hiroshima, Japan, pages 214--228. Springer, November 2004.Google Scholar
- H. Knublauch, R. W. Fergerson, N. F. Noy, and M. A. Musen. The Protégé OWL plugin: An open development environment for Semantic Web applications. In Proc. 3rd International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC04. Springer, 2004.Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Krötzsch, D. Vrandecic, and M. Völkel. Semantic mediawiki. In I. Cruz and S. Decker, editors, Proc. 5th international Semantic Web Conference (ISWC06), pages 935--942, Athens, GA, USA, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Lam, J. Z. Pan, D. Sleeman, and W. Vasconcelos. A fine-grained approach to resolving unsatisfiable ontologies. In Proc. of the 2006 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence (WI-2006), 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- O. Lassila. Identity crisis and serendipity, May 2006. Available at http://www.lassila.org/publications/2006/IdentityCrisisAndSerendipity.pdf.Google Scholar
- A. Maedche, B. Motik, and L. Stojanovic. Managing multiple and distributed ontologies in the Semantic Web. VLDB Journal, 12(4):286--302, 2003. Google ScholarDigital Library
- F. Manola and E. Miller. Resource Description Framework (RDF) primer. W3C Recommendation, 10 February 2004. Available at http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/.Google Scholar
- C. Marlow, M. Naaman, d. boyd, and M. Davis. HT06, tagging paper, taxonomy, flickr, academic article, to read. In Proc. 17th Conf. on Hypertext and Hypermedia (HYPERTEXT'06), pages 31--40, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Mika. Ontologies are us: A unified model of social networks and semantics. In Proc. 4th International Semantic Web Conferences (ISWC05), pages 522--536, 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. Motik, I. Horrocks, and U. Sattler. Integrating description logics and relational databases, Dec 6, 2006. Technical Report, University of Manchester, UK.Google Scholar
- M. Nottingham and R. Sayre. The atom syndication format. RFC 4287, Internet Engineering Task Force, Dec. 2005.Google Scholar
- T. O'Reilly. What is Web 2.0 - design patterns and business models for the next generation of software, 2005. Available at http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html.Google Scholar
- E. Oren, R. Delbru, and S. Decker. Extending faceted navigation for rdf data. In I. Cruz and S. Decker, editors, Proc. 5th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC06), pages 559--572, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Pan, Z. Ding, Y. Yu, and Y. Peng. A Bayesian network approach to ontology mapping. In Proc. 4th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC05), 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Seaborne and E. Prud'hommeaux. SPARQL query language for RDF. Technical Report http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-rdf-sparql-query-20060406/,W3C, April 2006.Google Scholar
- J. Seidenberg and A. Rector. Web ontology segmentation: Analysis, classification and use. In Proc. 15th Int. Conf. on World Wide Web (WWW 2006), Edinburgh, Scotland, May 23-26, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. K. Smith, C. Welty, and D. McGuinness. OWL Web Ontology Language Guide, 2004. W3C Recommendation 10 February 2004, available at http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/.Google Scholar
- Y. Sure, S. Staab, and R. Studer. On-to-knowledge methodology. In S. Staab and R. S. (eds.), editors, Handbook on Ontologies, Series on Handbooks in Information Systems, chapter 6, pages 117--132. Springer, 2003.Google Scholar
- C. Tempich, H. S. Pinto, Y. Sure, and S. Staab. An argumentation ontology for distributed, loosely-controlled and evolving engineering processes of ontologies (DILIGENT). In Proc. 2nd European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC05), LNCS 3532, pages 241--256. Springer, 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Vrandecic and M. Krötzsch. Reusing ontological background knowledge in semantic wikis. In Proceedings of 1st Workshop "From Wiki to Semantics" (SemWiki'06), 2006.Google Scholar
- D. Vrandecic, H. S. Pinto, Y. Sure, and C. Tempich. The DILIGENT knowledge processes. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(5):85--96, Oct 2005.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Völkel, M. Krötzsch, D. Vrandecic, H. Haller, and R. Studer. Semantic Wikipedia. In Proc. 15th Int. Conf. on World Wide Web (WWW 2006), Edinburgh, Scotland, May 23-26, 2006. Available at http://www.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/WBS/hha/papers/SemanticWikipedia.pdf. Google ScholarDigital Library
- K. Wolstencroft, P. Lord, L. Tabernero, A. Brass, and R. Stevens. Using ontology reasoning to classify protein phosphatases. 8th Annual Bio-Ontologies Meeting 2005, 24, 2005.Google Scholar
- V. Zacharias and M. Sibler. Semantic announcement sharing. In Proc. Fachgruppentreffen Wissensmanagement, 2004.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- The two cultures: mashing up web 2.0 and the semantic web
Recommendations
The two cultures: Mashing up Web 2.0 and the Semantic Web
A common perception is that there are two competing visions for the future evolution of the Web: the Semantic Web and Web 2.0. A closer look, though, reveals that the core technologies and concerns of these two approaches are complementary and that each ...
Using the Semantic Web for linking and reusing data across Web 2.0 communities
Large volumes of content (bookmarks, reviews, videos, etc.) are currently being created on the ''Social Web'', i.e. on Web 2.0 community sites, and this content is being annotated and commented upon. The ability to view an individual's entire ...
The W3C's Semantic Web Activity: An Update
Eric discusses the W3C's Semantic Web Activity's progress, including approving approval of two key Semantic Web technologies: the revised RDF and OWL. The group also chartered two new working groups: the Semantic Web Best Practices and Deployment ...
Comments