Semantic Web

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk
page.

 It needs additional references or sources for verification. Tagged since November 2009.
 Its tone or style may not be appropriate for Wikipedia. Tagged since November 2009.
 It reads like a personal reflection or essay. Tagged since November 2009.
 It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since
November 2009.

W3C's Semantic Web logo

The Semantic Web is a "web of data" that enables machines to understand the semantics, or
meaning, of information on the World Wide Web.[1] It extends the network of hyperlinked
human-readable web pages by inserting machine-readable metadata about pages and how they
are related to each other, enabling automated agents to access the Web more intelligently and
perform tasks on behalf of users. The term was coined by Tim Berners-Lee,[2] the inventor of the
World Wide Web and director of the World Wide Web Consortium, which oversees the
development of proposed Semantic Web standards. He defines the Semantic Web as "a web of
data that can be processed directly and indirectly by machines."

The term "Semantic Web" is often used more specifically to refer to the formats and technologies
that enable it.[3] These technologies include the Resource Description Framework (RDF), a
variety of data interchange formats (e.g. RDF/XML, N3, Turtle, N-Triples), and notations such
as RDF Schema (RDFS) and the Web Ontology Language (OWL), all of which are intended to
provide a formal description of concepts, terms, and relationships within a given knowledge
domain.

Many of the technologies proposed by the W3C already exist and are used in various contexts,
particularly those dealing with information that encompasses a limited and defined domain, and
where sharing data is a common necessity, such as scientific research or data exchange among
businesses. In addition, other technologies with similar goals have emerged, such as
microformats. However, the Semantic Web as originally envisioned, a system that enables
machines to understand and respond to complex human requests based on their meaning, has
remained largely unrealized and its critics have questioned its feasibility.

Contents
[hide]

 1 Purpose
 o 1.1 Semantic Publishing
o 1.2 Semantic Blogging
o 1.3 Web 3.0
 2 Relationship to the hypertext web
o 2.1 Limitations of HTML
o 2.2 Semantic Web solutions
 3 Skeptical reactions
o 3.1 Practical feasibility
o 3.2 The potential of an idea in fast progress
o 3.3 Censorship and privacy
o 3.4 Doubling output formats
o 3.5 Need
 4 Components
 5 Challenges
 6 Projects
o 6.1 DBpedia
o 6.2 FOAF
o 6.3 GoodRelations for e-commerce
o 6.4 SIOC
o 6.5 SIMILE
o 6.6 NextBio
o 6.7 Linking Open Data
o 6.8 OpenPSI
 7 See also
 8 References
 9 Further reading
 10 External links

Purpose
The main purpose of the Semantic Web is driving the evolution of the current Web by allowing
users to use it to its full potential, thus allowing them to find, share, and combine information
more easily. Humans are capable of using the Web to carry out tasks such as finding the Irish
word for "folder," reserving a library book, and searching for a low price for a DVD. However,
machines cannot accomplish all of these tasks without human direction, because web pages are
designed to be read by people, not machines. The semantic web is a vision of information that
can be interpreted by machines, so machines can perform more of the tedious work involved in
finding, combining, and acting upon information on the web.

Tim Berners-Lee originally expressed the vision of the semantic web as follows:[4]

I have a dream for the Web [in which computers] become capable of analyzing all the data on the
Web – the content, links, and transactions between people and computers. A ‘Semantic Web’,
which should make this possible, has yet to emerge, but when it does, the day-to-day
mechanisms of trade, bureaucracy and our daily lives will be handled by machines talking to
machines. The ‘intelligent agents’ people have touted for ages will finally materialize.

– Tim Berners-Lee, 1999

Semantic Web application areas are experiencing intensified interest due to the rapid growth in
the use of the Web, together with the innovation and renovation of information content
technologies. The Semantic Web is regarded as an integrator across different content,
information applications and systems, it also provides mechanisms for the realisation of
Enterprise Information Systems. The rapidity of the growth experienced provides the impetus for
researchers to focus on the creation and dissemination of innovative Semantic Web technologies,
where the envisaged ’Semantic Web’ is long overdue. Often the terms ’Semantics’, ’metadata’,
’ontologies’ and ’Semantic Web’ are used inconsistently. In particular, these terms are used as
everyday terminology by researchers and practitioners, spanning a vast landscape of different
fields, technologies, concepts and application areas. Furthermore, there is confusion with regard
to the current status of the enabling technologies envisioned to realise the Semantic Web. In a
paper presented by Gerber, Barnard and Van der Merwe[5] the Semantic Web landscape is
charted and a brief summary of related terms and enabling technologies is presented. The
architectural model proposed by Tim Berners-Lee is used as basis to present a status model that
reflects current and emerging technologies.[6]

Semantic Publishing

Semantic publishing will greatly benefit from the semantic web. In particular, the semantic web
is expected to revolutionize scientific publishing, such as real-time publishing and sharing of
experimental data on the Internet. This simple but radical idea is now being explored by W3C
HCLS group's Scientific Publishing Task Force.

Semantic Blogging

Semantic blogging, like semantic publishing, will change the way blogs are read. Currently "the
process of blogging inherently emphasizes metadata creation more than traditional Web
publishing methodologies".[7] Some blog users already tag their entries with topics, allowing for
easier migration into a semantic web environment. It is intentionally saved in not only a human-
readable format, but also in a machine-readable format as the tags can be linked easily to other
blogs containing similar information. When a release of a game or movie occurs, bloggers tend
to rate them using their own system. If there were to be a unified system, these blogs could easily
become assimilated using similar semantics and give a user a score when searching using a
semantic search. RSS feeds are another way that blogs already have machine-readable data that
is easily accessible by the semantic web.

Web 3.0

Main article: Web 3.0

Tim Berners-Lee has described the semantic web as a component of 'Web 3.0'.[8]

The internet community as a whole tends to find the two terms "Semantic Web" and "Web 3.0"
to be at least synonymous in concept if not completely interchangeable. The definition continues
to vary depending on to whom you speak. The overwhelming consensus is that Web 3.0 is most
assuredly the "next big thing" but there only lies speculation as to just what that might be. It will
be an improvement in the respect that it will still contain Web 2.0 properties while continuing to
add to its ever expanding lexicon and library of applications. There are some who claim that
Web 3.0 will be more application based and center its efforts towards more graphically capable
environments, "non-browser applications and non-computer based devices...geographic or
location-based information retrieval" and even more applicable use and growth of Artificial
Intelligence.[9] For example, Conrad Wolfram, has argued that Web 3.0 is where "the computer is
generating new information", rather than humans.[10]

Others simply state their belief that Web 3.0 will primarily focus on dramatically improving the
functionality and usability of search engines.[11] An important factor that users must continue to
keep in mind is that the transition to Web 2.0 from "Web 1.0" took approximately ten years.
Given the same time frame, this next transition will not be complete until around the year 2015.

People keep asking what Web 3.0 is. I think maybe when you've got an overlay of scalable
vector graphics – everything rippling and folding and looking misty — on Web 2.0 and access to
a semantic Web integrated across a huge space of data, you'll have access to an unbelievable data
resource..."

– Tim Berners-Lee, 2006

Highly specialized information silos, moderated by a cult of personality, validated by the

community, and put into context with the inclusion of meta-data through widgets.[12]

– Steve Spalding, 2007

Relationship to the hypertext web

Limitations of HTML

Many files on a typical computer can be loosely divided into documents and data. Documents
like mail messages, reports, and brochures are read by humans. Data, like calendars,
addressbooks, playlists, and spreadsheets are presented using an application program which lets
them be viewed, searched and combined in many ways.

Currently, the World Wide Web is based mainly on documents written in Hypertext Markup
Language (HTML), a markup convention that is used for coding a body of text interspersed with
multimedia objects such as images and interactive forms. Metadata tags, for example

<meta name="keywords" content="computing, computer studies, computer">

<meta name="description" content="Cheap widgets for sale">
<meta name="author" content="John Doe">

provide a method by which computers can categorise the content of web pages.

With HTML and a tool to render it (perhaps web browser software, perhaps another user agent),
one can create and present a page that lists items for sale. The HTML of this catalog page can
make simple, document-level assertions such as "this document's title is 'Widget Superstore'",
but there is no capability within the HTML itself to assert unambiguously that, for example, item
number X586172 is an Acme Gizmo with a retail price of €199, or that it is a consumer product.
Rather, HTML can only say that the span of text "X586172" is something that should be
positioned near "Acme Gizmo" and "€199", etc. There is no way to say "this is a catalog" or even
to establish that "Acme Gizmo" is a kind of title or that "€199" is a price. There is also no way to
express that these pieces of information are bound together in describing a discrete item, distinct
from other items perhaps listed on the page.

Semantic HTML refers to the traditional HTML practice of markup following intention, rather
than specifying layout details directly. For example, the use of <em> denoting "emphasis" rather
than <i>, which specifies italics. Layout details are left up to the browser, in combination with
Cascading Style Sheets. But this practice falls short of specifying the semantics of objects such
as items for sale or prices.

Microformats represent unofficial attempts to extend HTML syntax to create machine-readable

semantic markup about objects such as retail stores and items for sale.

Semantic Web solutions

The Semantic Web takes the solution further. It involves publishing in languages specifically
designed for data: Resource Description Framework (RDF), Web Ontology Language (OWL),
and Extensible Markup Language (XML). HTML describes documents and the links between
them. RDF, OWL, and XML, by contrast, can describe arbitrary things such as people, meetings,
or airplane parts. Tim Berners-Lee calls the resulting network of Linked Data the Giant Global
Graph, in contrast to the HTML-based World Wide Web.

These technologies are combined in order to provide descriptions that supplement or replace the
content of Web documents. Thus, content may manifest itself as descriptive data stored in Web-
accessible databases,[13] or as markup within documents (particularly, in Extensible HTML
(XHTML) interspersed with XML, or, more often, purely in XML, with layout or rendering cues
stored separately). The machine-readable descriptions enable content managers to add meaning
to the content, i.e., to describe the structure of the knowledge we have about that content. In this
way, a machine can process knowledge itself, instead of text, using processes similar to human
deductive reasoning and inference, thereby obtaining more meaningful results and helping
computers to perform automated information gathering and research.

An example of a tag that would be used in a non-semantic web page:

<item>cat</item>
Encoding similar information in a semantic web page might look like this:

<item rdf:about="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Cat">Cat</item>

Skeptical reactions
Practical feasibility

Critics (e.g. Which Semantic Web?) question the basic feasibility of a complete or even partial
fulfillment of the semantic web. Cory Doctorow's critique ("metacrap") is from the perspective
of human behavior and personal preferences. For example, people lie: they may include spurious
metadata into Web pages in an attempt to mislead Semantic Web engines that naively assume the
metadata's veracity. This phenomenon was well-known with metatags that fooled the AltaVista
ranking algorithm into elevating the ranking of certain Web pages: the Google indexing engine
specifically looks for such attempts at manipulation. Peter Gärdenfors and Timo Honkela point
out that logic-based semantic web technologies cover only a fraction of the relevant phenomena
related to semantics.[14][15]

Where semantic web technologies have found a greater degree of practical adoption, it has
tended to be among core specialized communities and organizations for intra-company projects.
[16]
The practical constraints toward adoption have appeared less challenging where domain and
scope is more limited than that of the general public and the World-Wide Web.[16]

The potential of an idea in fast progress

The original 2001 Scientific American article by Berners-Lee described an expected evolution of
the existing Web to a Semantic Web.[17] A complete evolution as described by Berners-Lee has
yet to occur. In 2006, Berners-Lee and colleagues stated that: "This simple idea, however,
remains largely unrealized."[18] While the idea is still in the making, it seems to evolve quickly
and inspire many. Between 2007–2010 several scholars have already explored first applications
and the social potential of the semantic web in the business and health sectors, and for social
networking [19] and even for the broader evolution of democracy, specifically, how a society
forms its common will in a democratic manner through a semantic web[20]

Censorship and privacy

Enthusiasm about the semantic web could be tempered by concerns regarding censorship and
privacy. For instance, text-analyzing techniques can now be easily bypassed by using other
words, metaphors for instance, or by using images in place of words. An advanced
implementation of the semantic web would make it much easier for governments to control the
viewing and creation of online information, as this information would be much easier for an
automated content-blocking machine to understand. In addition, the issue has also been raised
that, with the use of FOAF files and geo location meta-data, there would be very little anonymity
associated with the authorship of articles on things such as a personal blog. Some of these
concerns were addressed in the "Policy Aware Web" project[21] and is an active research and
development topic.
Doubling output formats

Another criticism of the semantic web is that it would be much more time-consuming to create
and publish content because there would need to be two formats for one piece of data: one for
human viewing and one for machines. However, many web applications in development are
addressing this issue by creating a machine-readable format upon the publishing of data or the
request of a machine for such data. The development of microformats has been one reaction to
this kind of criticism. Another argument in defense of the feasibility of semantic web is the likely
falling price of human intelligence tasks in digital labor markets like the Amazon Mechanical
Turk.

Specifications such as eRDF and RDFa allow arbitrary RDF data to be embedded in HTML
pages. The GRDDL (Gleaning Resource Descriptions from Dialects of Language) mechanism
allows existing material (including microformats) to be automatically interpreted as RDF, so
publishers only need to use a single format, such as HTML.

Need

The idea of a semantic web, able to describe and associate meaning with data necessarily
involves more than simple XHTML mark-up code. It is based on an assumption that in order for
it to be possible to endow machines with an ability to accurately interpret web homed content,
far more than the mere ordered relationships involving letters and words, is necessary as
underlying infrastructure (attendant to semantic issues). Otherwise, most of the supportive
functionality would have been available in Web 2.0 (and before) and it would have been possible
to derive a semantically capable Web with minor, incremental additions.

Additions to the infrastructure to support semantic functionality include latent dynamic network
models that can, under certain conditions, be 'trained' to appropriately 'learn' meaning based on
order data, in the process 'learning' relationships with order (a kind of rudimentary working
grammar). See for example latent semantic analysis

Components
The Semantic Web Stack.

The semantic web comprises the standards and tools of XML, XML Schema, RDF, RDF Schema
and OWL that are organized in the Semantic Web Stack. The OWL Web Ontology Language
Overview describes the function and relationship of each of these components of the semantic
web:

 XML provides an elemental syntax for content structure within documents, yet associates
no semantics with the meaning of the content contained within. XML is not at present a
necessary component of Semantic Web technologies in most cases, as alternative
syntaxes exists, such as Turtle. Turtle is a de facto standard, but has not been through a
formal standardization process.
  XML Schema is a language for providing and restricting the structure and content of
elements contained within XML documents.
 RDF is a simple language for expressing data models, which refer to objects
("resources") and their relationships. An RDF-based model can be represented in XML
syntax.
 RDF Schema extends RDF and is a vocabulary for describing properties and classes of
RDF-based resources, with semantics for generalized-hierarchies of such properties and
classes.
 OWL adds more vocabulary for describing properties and classes: among others,
relations between classes (e.g. disjointness), cardinality (e.g. "exactly one"), equality,
richer typing of properties, characteristics of properties (e.g. symmetry), and enumerated
classes.
 SPARQL is a protocol and query language for semantic web data sources.

Current ongoing standardizations include:

 Rule Interchange Format (RIF) as the Rule Layer of the Semantic Web Stack

Not yet fully realized layers include:

 Unifying Logic and Proof layers are undergoing active research.

The intent is to enhance the usability and usefulness of the Web and its interconnected resources
through:

 Servers which expose existing data systems using the RDF and SPARQL standards.
Many converters to RDF exist from different applications. Relational databases are an
important source. The semantic web server attaches to the existing system without
affecting its operation.
 Documents "marked up" with semantic information (an extension of the HTML <meta>
tags used in today's Web pages to supply information for Web search engines using web
crawlers). This could be machine-understandable information about the human-
understandable content of the document (such as the creator, title, description, etc., of the
document) or it could be purely metadata representing a set of facts (such as resources
and services elsewhere in the site). (Note that anything that can be identified with a
Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) can be described, so the semantic web can reason
about animals, people, places, ideas, etc.) Semantic markup is often generated
automatically, rather than manually.
 Common metadata vocabularies (ontologies) and maps between vocabularies that allow
document creators to know how to mark up their documents so that agents can use the
information in the supplied metadata (so that Author in the sense of 'the Author of the
page' won't be confused with Author in the sense of a book that is the subject of a book
review).
 Automated agents to perform tasks for users of the semantic web using this data
  Web-based services (often with agents of their own) to supply information specifically to
agents (for example, a Trust service that an agent could ask if some online store has a
history of poor service or spamming)

Challenges
Some of the challenges for the Semantic Web include vastness, vagueness, uncertainty,
inconsistency, and deceit. Automated reasoning systems will have to deal with all of these issues
in order to deliver on the promise of the Semantic Web.

 Vastness: The World Wide Web contains at least 24 billion pages as of this writing (June
13, 2010). The SNOMED CT medical terminology ontology contains 370,000 class
names, and existing technology has not yet been able to eliminate all semantically
duplicated terms. Any automated reasoning system will have to deal with truly huge
inputs.
 Vagueness: These are imprecise concepts like "young" or "tall". This arises from the
vagueness of user queries, of concepts represented by content providers, of matching
query terms to provider terms and of trying to combine different knowledge bases with
overlapping but subtly different concepts. Fuzzy logic is the most common technique for
dealing with vagueness.
 Uncertainty: These are precise concepts with uncertain values. For example, a patient
might present a set of symptoms which correspond to a number of different distinct
diagnoses each with a different probability. Probabilistic reasoning techniques are
generally employed to address uncertainty.
 Inconsistency: These are logical contradictions which will inevitably arise during the
development of large ontologies, and when ontologies from separate sources are
combined. Deductive reasoning fails catastrophically when faced with inconsistency,
because "anything follows from a contradiction". Defeasible reasoning and paraconsistent
reasoning are two techniques which can be employed to deal with inconsistency.
 Deceit: This is when the producer of the information is intentionally misleading the
consumer of the information. Cryptography techniques are currently utilized to alleviate
this threat.

This list of challenges is illustrative rather than exhaustive, and it focuses on the challenges to
the "unifying logic" and "proof" layers of the Semantic Web. The World Wide Web Consortium
(W3C) Incubator Group for Uncertainty Reasoning for the World Wide Web (URW3-XG) final
report lumps these problems together under the single heading of "uncertainty". Many of the
techniques mentioned here will require extensions to the Web Ontology Language (OWL) for
example to annotate conditional probabilities. This is an area of active research.[22]

Projects
This article may contain excessive, poor or irrelevant examples. You can improve the article
by adding more descriptive text. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for further
suggestions. (March 2010)
This section lists some of the many projects and tools that exist to create Semantic Web
solutions.[23]

DBpedia

DBpedia is an effort to publish structured data extracted from Wikipedia: the data is published in
RDF and made available on the Web for use under the GNU Free Documentation License, thus
allowing Semantic Web agents to provide inferencing and advanced querying over the
Wikipedia-derived dataset and facilitating interlinking, re-use and extension in other data-
sources.

FOAF

A popular application of the semantic web is Friend of a Friend (or FoaF), which uses RDF to
describe the relationships people have to other people and the "things" around them. FOAF
permits intelligent agents to make sense of the thousands of connections people have with each
other, their jobs and the items important to their lives; connections that may or may not be
enumerated in searches using traditional web search engines. Because the connections are so vast
in number, human interpretation of the information may not be the best way of analyzing them.

FOAF is an example of how the Semantic Web attempts to make use of the relationships within
a social context.

GoodRelations for e-commerce

A huge potential for Semantic Web technologies lies in adding data structure and typed links to
the vast amount of offer data, product model features, and tendering / request for quotation data.

The GoodRelations ontology[24][25][26] is a popular vocabulary for expressing product information,

prices, payment options, etc. It also allows expressing demand in a straightforward fashion.

GoodRelations has been adopted by Google, BestBuy, Overstock, Yahoo, OpenLink Software,
O'Reilly Media, the Book Mashup, and many others.

SIOC

The Semantically-Interlinked Online Communities project (SIOC, pronounced "shock") provides

a vocabulary of terms and relationships that model web data spaces. Examples of such data
spaces include, among others: discussion forums, blogs, blogrolls / feed subscriptions, mailing
lists, shared bookmarks and image galleries.

SIMILE

Semantic Interoperability of Metadata and Information in unLike Environments

SIMILE is a joint project, conducted by the MIT Libraries and MIT CSAIL, which seeks to
enhance interoperability among digital assets, schemata/vocabularies/ontologies, meta data, and
services.

NextBio

A database consolidating high-throughput life sciences experimental data tagged and connected
via biomedical ontologies. Nextbio is accessible via a search engine interface. Researchers can
contribute their findings for incorporation to the database. The database currently supports gene
or protein expression data and is steadily expanding to support other biological data types.

Linking Open Data

Datasets in the Linking Open Data project, as of Sept 2008

Class linkages within the Linking Open Data datasets

The Linking Open Data project is a W3C-led effort to create openly accessible, and interlinked,
RDF Data on the Web. The data in question takes the form of RDF Data Sets drawn from a
broad collection of data sources. There is a focus on the Linked Data style of publishing RDF on
the Web.

OpenPSI

OpenPSI the (OpenPSI project) is a community effort to create a UK government linked data
service that supports research. It is a collaboration between the University of Southampton and
the UK government, led by OPSI at The National Archives and is supported by JISC funding.

See also
Book: Semantic Web
Wikipedia Books are collections of articles that can be downloaded or ordered
in print.

 Agris: International Information System for the Agricultural Sciences and Technology
 Business semantics management
 Computational semantics
 Corporate Semantic Web
 Entity-attribute-value model
 Linked Data
 List of emerging technologies
 Ontology learning
 Semantic advertising
 Semantic computing
  Semantic Sensor Web
 Semantic Web Services
 Social Semantic Web
 Website Parse Template
 Smart-M3
 Web 3.0

References
1. ^ "W3C Semantic Web Frequently Asked Questions". W3C. http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/SW-
FAQ. Retrieved March 13, 2008.
2. ^ Berners-Lee, Tim; James Hendler and Ora Lassila (May 17, 2001). "The Semantic Web".
Scientific American Magazine. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-semantic-web&print=true.
Retrieved March 26, 2008.
3. ^ Herman, Ivan (March 12, 2008). "W3C Semantic Web Activity". W3C.
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/. Retrieved March 13, 2008.
4. ^ Berners-Lee, Tim; Fischetti, Mark (1999). Weaving the Web. HarperSanFrancisco. chapter 12.
ISBN 978-0-06-251587-2.
5. ^ Gerber, AJ, Barnard, A & Van der Merwe, Alta (2006), A Semantic Web Status Model,
Integrated Design & Process Technology, Special Issue: IDPT 2006
6. ^ Gerber, Aurona; Van der Merwe, Alta; Barnard, Andries; (2008), A Functional Semantic Web
architecture, European Semantic Web Conference 2008, ESWC’08, Tenerife, June 2008.
7. ^ Karger, David. "What Would It Mean to Blog on the Semantic Web". http://www.ifis.uni-
luebeck.de/~ifis/fileadmin/user_files/lehre/ws0910/hs/groppej_-
_What_Would_It_Mean_to_Blog_on_the_Semantic_Web.pdf. Retrieved November 15, 2010.
8. ^ Victoria Shannon (June 26, 2006). "A 'more revolutionary' Web". International Herald Tribune.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/23/business/web.php. Retrieved May 24, 2006.
9. ^ unknown (November 19, 2007). "The advent of Web 3.0". Semantic Web Company.
http://www.semantic-web.at/index.php?id=1&subid=57&action=resource&item=1537. Retrieved
November 14, 2010.
10. ^ Conrad Wolfram on Communicating with apps in web 3.0 IT PRO, 17 Mar 2010
11. ^ Shah Newaz Alam. "Web 3.0 vs Web 2.0". Buzzle.com. http://www.buzzle.com/articles/web-30-
vs-web-20.html. Retrieved November 14, 2010.
12. ^ Steve Spalding (July 14, 2007). "How To Define Web 3.0". howtosplitanatom.com.
http://howtosplitanatom.com/news/how-to-define-web-30-2/. Retrieved November 14, 2010.
13. ^ Artem Chebotko and Shiyong Lu, "Querying the Semantic Web: An Efficient Approach Using
Relational Databases", LAP Lambert Academic Publishing, ISBN 978-3-8383-0264-5, 2009.
14. ^ Gärdenfors, Peter (2004). How to make the Semantic Web more semantic. IOS Press. pp. 17–34.
15. ^ Timo Honkela, Ville Könönen, Tiina Lindh-Knuutila and Mari-Sanna Paukkeri (2008).
"Simulating processes of concept formation and communication". Journal of Economic Methodology.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a903999101.
16. ^ a b Ivan Herman (2007). "State of the Semantic Web". Semantic Days 2007.
http://www.w3.org/2007/Talks/0424-Stavanger-IH/Slides.pdf. Retrieved July 26, 2007.
17. ^ Berners-Lee, Tim (May 1, 2001). "The Semantic Web". Scientific American.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00048144-10D2-1C70-84A9809EC588EF21. Retrieved
March 13, 2008.
18. ^ Nigel Shadbolt, Wendy Hall, Tim Berners-Lee (2006). "The Semantic Web Revisited". IEEE
Intelligent Systems. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/12614/1/Semantic_Web_Revisted.pdf. Retrieved April
13, 2007.
 19. ^ Lee Feigenbaum (May 1, 2007). "The Semantic Web in Action". Scientific American.
http://www.thefigtrees.net/lee/sw/sciam/semantic-web-in-action. Retrieved February 24, 2010.
20. ^ Martin Hilbert (April, 2009). "The Maturing Concept of E-Democracy: From E-Voting and
Online Consultations to Democratic Value Out of Jumbled Online Chatter". Journal of Information
Technology and Politics. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a911066517.
Retrieved February 24, 2010.
21. ^ http://policyawareweb.org/
22. ^ Lukasiewicz, Thomas; Umberto Straccia. "Managing uncertainty and vagueness in description
logics for the Semantic Web". http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B758F-
4SPSPKW-
1&_user=147018&_coverDate=11%2F30%2F2008&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docancho
r=&view=c&_acct=C000012179&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=147018&md5=8123c273189b114
8cadb12f95b87a5ef.
23. ^ See, for instance: Bergman, Michael K.. "Sweet Tools". AI3; Adaptive Information, Adaptive
Innovation, Adaptive Infrastructure. http://www.mkbergman.com/?page_id=325. Retrieved January 5,
2009.
24. ^ "GoodRelations: The Web Ontology for E-Commerce". E-Business + Web Science Research
Group. http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelations.
25. ^ "GoodRelations Project Main Page". http://purl.org/goodrelations/.
26. ^ Hepp, Martin (September 29 – October 3, 2008). "GoodRelations: An Ontology for Describing
Products and Services Offers on the Web". Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on
Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (EKAW2008) (Acitrezza, Italy) (Springer LNCS
(Lecture Notes in Computer Science)) 5268: 332–347.
http://www.heppnetz.de/files/GoodRelationsEKAW2008-crc-final.pdf.

Further reading
 Grigoris Antoniou, Frank van Harmelen (March 31, 2008). A Semantic Web Primer, 2nd
Edition. The MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-01242-1. http://www.amazon.com/Semantic-
Primer-Cooperative-Information-Systems/dp/0262012421/.
 Dean Allemang, James Hendler (May 9, 2008). Semantic Web for the Working
Ontologist: Effective Modeling in RDFS and OWL. Morgan Kaufmann. ISBN 978-0-12-
373556-0. http://www.amazon.com/Semantic-Web-Working-Ontologist-
Effective/dp/0123735564/.
 John Davies (July 11, 2006). Semantic Web Technologies: Trends and Research in
Ontology-based Systems. Wiley. ISBN 0-470-02596-4.
http://www.amazon.com/Semantic-Web-Technologies-Research-Ontology-
based/dp/0470025964/.
 Pascal Hitzler, Markus Krötzsch, Sebastian Rudolph (August 25, 2009). Foundations of
Semantic Web Technologies. CRCPress. ISBN 1-4200-9050-X. http://www.semantic-
web-book.org.
 Thomas B. Passin (March 1, 2004). Explorer's Guide to the Semantic Web. Manning
Publications. ISBN 1-932394-20-6. http://www.amazon.com/Explorers-Guide-Semantic-
Thomas-Passin/dp/1932394206/.
 Liyang Yu (June 14, 2007). Introduction to Semantic Web and Semantic Web Services.
CRC Press. ISBN 1-58488-933-0. http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Semantic-Web-
Services/dp/1584889330/.
  Jeffrey T. Pollock (March 23, 2009). Semantic Web For Dummies. For Dummies.
ISBN 0-470-39679-2. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0470396792.
 Martin Hilbert (April, 2009). The Maturing Concept of E-Democracy: From E-Voting
and Online Consultations to Democratic Value Out of Jumbled Online Chatter. Journal
of Information Technology & Politics. ISBN 1-68080-271-5242.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a911066517.

External links
Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Semantic Web

 Official website
 W3C Semantic Web Activity
 links collection on Semantic Overflow
 Semantic Technology and the Enterprise
 SSWAP: Simple Semantic Web Architecture and Protocol
 How Stuff Works: The Semantic Web