, 34:469 | Cite as

The Semantic Web: Collective Intelligence on the Web

  • Maciej Janik
  • Ansgar Scherp
  • Steffen StaabEmail author


The World Wide Web has turned hypertext into a success story by enabling world-wide sharing of unstructured information and informal knowledge. The Semantic Web targets the sharing of structured information and formal knowledge pursuing objectives of achieving collective intelligence on the Web. Germane to the structure of the Semantic Web is a layering and standardization of concerns. These concerns are reflected by an architecture of the Semantic Web that we present through a common use case. Semantic Web data for the use case is now found on the Web and is part of a quickly growing set of Semantic Web resources available for formal processing.


Domain Ontology Domain Name System SPARQL Query Ontology Match Core Ontology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Artz D, Gil Y (2007) A survey of trust in computer science and the semantic web. J Web Sem 5(2):58–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Auer S, Bizer C, Kobilarov G, Lehmann J, Cyganiak R, Ives ZG (2007) DBpedia: A Nucleus for a Web of Open Data. ISWC/ASWC 2007:722-735. In: The Semantic Web, 6th International Semantic Web Conference, 2nd Asian Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2007+ASWC 2007, Busan, Korea, 11–15 November 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4825, SpringerGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baader F (2011) What’s new in Description Logics. doi: 10.1007/s00287-011-0534-yGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berners-Lee T (1994) Universal resource identifiers in WWW: a unifying syntax for the expression of names and addresses of objects on the network as used in the World-Wide web. RFC 1630, Internet Engineering Task ForceGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bizer C (2009) The emerging web of linked data. IEEE Intel Syst 24(5):87–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Blomqvist E (2009) Ontocase-automatic ontology enrichment based on ontology design patterns. In: Proceedings of The Semantic Web – ISWC 2009, 8th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2009, Chantilly, VA, USA, 25–29 October 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 5823, Springer, pp 65–80Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boley H, Hallmark G, Kifer M, Paschke A, Polleres A, Reynolds D (2009) RIF core dialect. W3C candidate recommendation, W3C, October 2009., last access 30.3.2010Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bonatti PA, Olmedilla D (2007) Rule-based policy representation and reasoning for the semantic web. In: Reasoning Web Summer School, vol 4636, Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, pp 240–268Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Borgo S, Masolo C (2009) Handbook on Ontologies, chapter Foundational choices in DOLCE, 2nd edn. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brickley D, Guha R (2004) RDF vocabulary description language 1.0: RDF schema. W3C recommendation, W3C, February 2004., last access 30.3.2010Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Broekstra J, Kampman A, Harmelen FV (2002) Sesame: a generic architecture for storing and querying RDF and RDF schema. In: Proceedings of The Semantic Web – ISWC 2002, First International Semantic Web Conference, Sardinia, Italy, 9–12 June 2002, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2342, Springer, pp 54–68Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dividino RQ, Schenk S, Sizov S, Staab S (2009) Provenance, trust, explanations – and all that other meta knowledge. KI 23(2):24–30Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Duerst M, Suignard M (2005) Internationalized resource identifiers (IRIs). RFC 3987, Internet Engineering Task ForceGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ehrig M (2007) Ontology Alignment: Bridging the Semantic Gap, vol 4, Semantic Web and Beyond. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Euzenat J, Shvaiko P (2007) Ontology matching, chapter Classifications of ontology matching techniques. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Euzenat J, Shvaiko P (2007) Ontology matching. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fielding RT (2000) Architectural Styles and the Design of Network-based Software Architectures. PhD thesis, University of California, Irvine, USAGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Flouris G, Fundulaki I, Pediaditis P, Theoharis Y, Christophides V (2009) Coloring RDF triples to capture provenance. In: International Semantic Web Conference, vol 5823, LNCS. Springer, pp 196–212Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Franz T, Schultz A, Sizov S, Staab S (2009) Triplerank: Ranking semantic web data by tensor decomposition. In: International Semantic Web Conference, vol 5823, LNCS. Springer, pp 213–228Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gangemi A, Presutti V (2009) Handbook on Ontologies, chapter Ontology Design Patterns, 2nd edn. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gavriloaie R, Nejdl W, Olmedilla D, Seamons KE, Winslett M (2004) No registration needed: how to use declarative policies and negotiation to access sensitive resources on the semantic web. In: European Semantic Web Symposium, vol 3053, LNCS. Springer, pp 342–356Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Glaser H, Jaffri A, Millard I (2009) Managing co-reference on the semantic web. In: Proceedings of the WWW2009 Workshop on Linked Data on the Web, Madrid, Spain, 20 April 2009. Scholar
  23. 23.
    Golbeck J, Hendler JA (2006) Inferring binary trust relationships in web-based social networks. ACM Trans Intern Technol 6(4):497–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Golbeck J, Mannes A (2006) Using trust and provenance for content filtering on the semantic web. In: Models of Trust for the Web, CEUR Workshop Proceedings. CEUR-WS.orgGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gomez-Perez A, Fernandez-Lopez M, Corcho O (2004) Ontological engineering. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    W. O. W. Group (2009) OWL 2 web ontology language document overview. W3C recommendation, W3C., last access 30.3.2010Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Halpin H, Presutti V (2009) An ontology of resources: Solving the identity crisis. In: Proceedings of The Semantic Web: Research and Applications, 6th European Semantic Web Conference, ESWC 2009, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, 31 May–4 June 2009, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 5554, Springer, pp 521–534Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Harth A, Hose K, Karnstedt M, Polleres A, Sattler K-U, Umbrich J (2010) Data summaries for on-demand queries over linked data. In: World Wide Web. ACMGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Harth A, Janik M, Staab S (2011) Semantic Web architecture. In: Handbook of Semantic Web Technologies. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hartig O, Bizer C, Freytag JC (2009) Executing SPARQL queries over the web of linked data. In: Proceedings of The Semantic Web – ISWC 2009, 8th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2009, Chantilly, VA, USA, 25–29 October 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 5823, Springer, pp 293–309Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Heinsohn J, Kudenko D, Nebel B, Profitlich H-J (1994) An empirical analysis of terminological representation systems. Artif Intell 68(2):367–397zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Huynh DF, Karger DR, Miller RC (2007) Exhibit: lightweight structured data publishing. In: World Wide Web. ACM, pp 737–746Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kanani P, McCallum A, Pal C (2007) Improving author coreference by resource-bounded information gathering from the web. In: Conference on Artifical Intelligence, San Francisco, CA, USA. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., pp 429–434Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kasneci G, Elbassuoni S, Weikum G (2009) Ming: mining informative entity relationship subgraphs. In: Information and Knowledge Management. ACM, pp 1653–1656Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Munroe KD, Ludäscher B, Papakonstantinou Y (2000) Blending Browsing and Querying of XML in a Lazy Mediator System. In: Proceedings of Advances in Database Technology – EDBT 2000, 7th International Conference on Extending Database Technology, Konstanz, Germany, 27–31 March 2000. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1777, SpringerGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Oberle D (2006) Semantic Management of Middleware. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Oberle D, Guarino N, Staab S (2009) What is an ontology? In: Staab S, Studer R (eds) Handbook on Ontologies, 2nd edn. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Papakonstantinou Y, Garcia-Molina H, Widom J (1995) Object exchange across heterogeneous information sources. In: Data Engineering, Washington, DC, USA. IEEE Computer Society, pp 251–260Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Pietriga E, Bizer C, Karger DR, Lee R (2006) Fresnel: a browser-independent presentation vocabulary for RDF. In: Proceedings of The Semantic Web – ISWC 2006, 5th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2006, Athens, GA, USA, 5–9 November 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4273, Springer, pp 158–171Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Quan DA, Karger R (2004) How to make a semantic web browser. In: World Wide Web, New York, NY, USA. ACM, pp 255–265Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rendle S, Schmidt-Thieme L (2006) Object identification with constraints. In: Proceedings of the 6th IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM 2006), 18–22 December 2006, Hong Kong, China. IEEE Computer Society, pp 1026–1031Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Saathoff C, Scherp A (2010) Unlocking the semantics of multimedia presentations in the web with the multimedia metadata ontology. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW 2010, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA, 26–30 April 2010. ACMGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sacco GM, Tzitzikas Y (eds) (2009) Dynamic Taxonomies and Faceted Search: Theory, Practice, Experience. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Schenk S, Saathoff C, Staab S, Scherp A (2009) SemaPlorer – interactive semantic exploration of data and media based on a federated cloud infrastructure. J Web Sem 7(4):298–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Schenk S, Staab S (2008) Networked graphs: a declarative mechanism for SPARQL rules, SPARQL views and RDF data integration on the web. In: World Wide Web, 21–25 April. ACM, pp 585–594Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Schwagereit F, Scherp A, Staab S (2010) Representing distributed groups with dgFOAF. In: Extended Semantic Web Conference, LNCS. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Staab S, Studer R (eds) (2009) Handbook on Ontologies. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Stoilos G, Stamou GB, Pan JZ, Tzouvaras V, Horrocks I (2007) Reasoning with very expressive fuzzy description logics. J Artif Intell Res 30:273–320MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Stuckenschmidt H, Vdovjak R, Broekstra J, Houben G-J (2005) Towards distributed processing of RDF path queries. Int J Web Eng Technol 2(2/3):207–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Suchanek FM, Kasneci G, Weikum G (2007) Yago: a core of semantic knowledge. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW 2007, Banff, Alberta, Canada, 8–12 May 2007. ACM, pp 697–706Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wick ML, Culotta A, Rohanimanesh K, McCallum A (2009) An entity based model for coreference resolution. In: Proceedings of the SIAM International Conference on Data Mining, SDM 2009, 30 April–2 May 2009, Sparks, Nevada, USA. SIAM 2009, pp 365–376Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Wick ML, Rohanimanesh K, Schultz K, McCallum A (2008) A unified approach for schema matching, coreference and canonicalization. In: Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, 24–27 August 2008. ACM 2008, pp 722–730Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Wilkinson K, Sayers C, Kuno HA, Reynolds D (2003) Efficient RDF storage and retrieval in Jena2. In: Cruz IF, Kashyap V, Decker S, Eckstein R (eds) Proceedings of SWDB’03, The first International Workshop on Semantic Web and Databases, Co-located with VLDB 2003, Humboldt-Universität, Berlin, Germany, 7–8 September 2003, pp 131–150Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Web Science and Technologies, WeSTUniversity of Koblenz-LandauKoblenzGermany

Personalised recommendations