Semantic web

Subscribe (Full Service)


	Search: The ACM Digital Library The Guide

	Feedback

Semantic web: the story so far

Full text

Pdf (338 KB)

Source

ACM International Conference Proceeding Series; Vol. 225 archive
Proceedings of the 2007 international cross-disciplinary conference on Web accessibility (W4A) table of contents

Banff, Canada

SESSION: Accessibility and guidelines table of contents

Pages: 120 - 125

Year of Publication: 2007

ISBN:1-59593-590-X

Author

Ian Horrocks

University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

Sponsors

: Mozilla Foundation
HA&AC : IBM Human Ability and Accessibility Center
SIGWEB: ACM Special Interest Group on Hypertext, Hypermedia, and Web
: Zakon Group
SIGACCESS: ACM Special Interest Group on Accessible Computing

Publisher

ACM New York, NY, USA

Bibliometrics

Downloads (6 Weeks): 76, Downloads (12 Months): 412, Citation Count: 0

Additional Information:

abstract references index terms collaborative colleagues

Tools and Actions:	Review this Article Save this Article to a Binder Display Formats: BibTex EndNote ACM Ref

DOI Bookmark:	Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1243441.1243469 What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

The goal of Semantic Web research is to transform the Web from a linked document repository into a distributed knowledge base and application platform, thus allowing the vast range of available information and services to be more effectively exploited. As a first step in this transformation, languages such as OWL have been developed; these languages are designed to capture the knowledge that will enable applications to better understand Web accessible resources, and to use them more intelligently. Although fully realising the Semantic Web still seems some way off, OWL has already been very successful, and has rapidly become a de facto standard for ontology development in fields as diverse as geography, geology, astronomy, agriculture, defence and the life sciences. An important factor in this success has been the availability of sophisticated tools with built in reasoning support. The use of OWL in large scale applications has brought with it new challenges, both with respect to expressive power and scalability, but recent research has also shown how the OWL language and OWL tools can be extended and adapted to meet these challenges.

REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

	1	F. Baader, D. Calvanese, D. McGuinness, D. Nardi, and P. F. Patel-Schneider, editors. The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications. Cambridge University Press, 2003.
	2	S. Bechhofer, I. Horrocks, and D. Turi. The OWL instance store: System description. In Proc. of the 20th Int. Conf. on Automated Deduction (CADE-20), Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 177--181. Springer, 2005.
	3	T. Berners-Lee. Semantic web road map, Sept. 1998. Available at <b>http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Semantic.html</b>.
	4	R. J. Brachman and J. G. Schmolze. An overview of the KL-ONE knowledge representation system. Cognitive Science, 9(2): 171--216, Apr. 1985.
	5	B. Cuenca Grau, I. Horrocks, Y. Kazakov, and U. Sattler. Just the right amount: Extracting modules from ontologies. In Proc. of the Sixteenth International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2007), 2007.
	6	B. Cuenca Grau, Y. Kazakov, I. Horrocks, and U. Sattler. A logical framework for modular integration of ontologies. In Proc. of the 20th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2007), 2007.
	7	S. Derriere, A. Richard, and A. Preite-Martinez. An ontology of astronomical object types for the virtual observatory. Proc. of Special Session 3 of the 26th meeting of the IAU: Virtual Observatory in Action: New Science, New Technology, and Next Generation Facilities, 2006.
	8	D. Fensel, F. van Harmelen, I. Horrocks, D. McGuinness, and P. F. Patel-Schneider. OIL: An ontology infrastructure for the semantic web. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 16(2):38--45, 2001.
	9	C. Golbreich, S. Zhang, and O. Bodenreider. The foundational model of anatomy in OWL: Experience and perspectives. J. of Web Semantics, 4(3), 2006.
	10	J. Goodwin. Experiences of using OWL at the ordnance survey. In Proc. of the First OWL Experiences and Directions Workshop, volume 188 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings. CEUR <b>(http://ceur-ws.org/), 2005</b>.
	11	V. Haarslev and R. Möller. RACER system description. In Proc. of the Int. Joint Conf. on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR 2001), volume 2083 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 701--705. Springer, 2001.
	12	F. W. Hartel, S. de Coronado, R. Dionne, G. Fragoso, and J. Golbeck. Modeling a description logic vocabulary for cancer research. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 38(2):114--129, 2005.
	13	I. Horrocks, O. Kutz, and U. Sattler. The even more irresistible SROIQ. In Proc. of the 10th Int. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2006), pages 57--67. AAAI Press, 2006.
	14	I. Horrocks, P. F. Patel-Schneider, and F. van Harmelen. Reviewing the design of DAML+OIL: An ontology language for the semantic web. In Proc. of the 18th Nat. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2002), pages 792--797. AAAI Press, 2002.
	15	I. Horrocks, P. F. Patel-Schneider, and F. van Harmelen. From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: The making of a web ontology language. J. of Web Semantics, 1(1):7--26, 2003.
	16	I. Horrocks and U. Sattler. Decidability of SHIQ with complex role inclusion axioms. Artificial Intelligence, 160(1--2):79--104, Dec. 2004.
	17	I. Horrocks and U. Sattler. A tableaux decision procedure for SHOIQ. In Proc. of the 19th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2005), pages 448--453, 2005.
	18	U. Hustadt, B. Motik, and U. Sattler. Reducing SHIQ-description logic to disjunctive datalog programs. In Proc. of the 9th Int. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2004), pages 152--162, 2004.
	19	A. Kalyanpur, B. Parsia, E. Sirin, B. Cuenca-Grau, and J. Hendler. SWOOP: a web ontology editing browser. J. of Web Semantics, 4(2), 2005.
	20	A. Kalyanpur, B. Parsia, E. Sirin, and J. Hendler. Debugging unsatisfiable classes in owl ontologies. J. of Web Semantics, 3(4):243--366, 2005.
	21	A. Kershenbaum, A. Fokoue, C. Patel, C. Welty, E. Schonberg, J. Cimino, L. Ma, K. Srinivas, R. Schloss, and J. W. Murdock. A view of OWL from the field: Use cases and experiences. In Proc. of the Second OWL Experiences and Directions Workshop, volume 216 of CEUR (http://ceur-ws.org/), 2006.
	22	H. Knublauch, R. Fergerson, N. Noy, and M. Musen. The Protégé OWL Plugin: An open development environment for semantic web applications. In S. A. McIlraith, D. Plexousakis, and F. van Harmelen, editors, Proc. of the 2004 International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2004), number 3298 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 229--243. Springer, 2004.
	23	L. Lacy, G. Aviles, K. Fraser, W. Gerber, A. Mulvehill, and R. Gaskill. Experiences using OWL in military applications. In Proc. of the First OWL Experiences and Directions Workshop, volume 188 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings. CEUR <b>(http://ceur-ws.org/)</b>, 2005.
	24	S. McIlraith, T. C. Son, and H. Zeng. Semantic web services. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 16:46--53, 2001.
	25	P. F. Patel-Schneider, P. Hayes, and I. Horrocks. OWL Web Ontology Language semantics and abstract syntax. W3C Recommendation, 10 February 2004. Available at <b>http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/</b>.
	26	A. Rector and J. Rogers. Ontological and practical issues in using a description logic to represent medical concept systems: Experience from GALEN. In Reasoning Web, Second International Summer School, Tutorial Lectures, volume 4126 of LNCS, pages 197--231. SV, 2006.
	27	A. Ruttenberg, J. Rees, and J. Luciano. Experience using OWL DL for the exchange of biological pathway information. In Proc. of the First OWL Experiences and Directions Workshop, volume 188 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings. CEUR <b>(http://ceur-ws.org/), 2005</b>.
	28	A. Sidhu, T. Dillon, E. Chang, and B. S. Sidhu. Protein ontology development using OWL. In Proc. of the First OWL Experiences and Directions Workshop, volume 188 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings. CEUR <b>(http://ceur-ws.org/), 2005</b>.
	29	E. Sirin, B. Parsia, B. Cuenca Grau, A. Kalyanpur, and Y. Katz. Pellet: A practical owl-dl reasoner. To appear, 2005.
	30	D. Soergel, B. Lauser, A. Liang, F. Fisseha, J. Keizer, and S. Katz. Reengineering thesauri for new applications: The AGROVOC example. J. of Digital Information, 4(4), 2004.
	31	K. Spackman. Managing clinical terminology hierarchies using algorithmic calculation of subsumption: Experience with SNOMED-RT. J. of the Amer. Med. Informatics Ass., 2000. Fall Symposium Special Issue.
	32	Semantic web for earth and environmental terminology (SWEET). Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, 2006. http://sweet.jpl.nasa.gov/.
	33	D. Tsarkov and I. Horrocks. FaCT++ description logic reasoner: System description. In Proc. of the Int. Joint Conf. on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR 2006), volume 4130 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 292--297. Springer, 2006.
	34	R. Volz, S. Handschuh, S. Staab, L. Stojanovic, and N. Stojanovic. Unveiling the hidden bride: Deep Annotation for Mapping and Migrating Legacy Data to the Semantic Web. Journal of Web Semantics, 2004.
	35	W. A. Woods. What's in a link: Foundations for semantic networks. In R. J. Brachman and H. J. Levesque, editors, Readings in Knowledge Representation, pages 217--241. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco, California, 1985.