Semantic Web applications: Fields and Business cases. The Industry challenges the research.

  • Alain Léger
  • Lyndon J.B. Nixon
  • Pavel Shvaiko
  • Jean Charlet
Part of the IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 188)


Semantic web technology is more and more often applied to a large spectrum of applications where domain knowledge is conceptualized and formalized (Ontology) as a support for diversified processing (Reasoning) operated by machines. Moreover through a subtle joining of human reasoning (cognitive) and mechanical reasoning (logic-based), it is possible for humans and machines to share complementary tasks. To name few of those applications areas: Corporate Portals and Knowledge Management, E-Commerce, E-Work, Healthcare, E-Government, Natural Language understanding and Automated Translation, Information search, Data and Services Integration, Social networks and collaborative filtering, Knowledge Mining, etc. From a social and economic perspective, this emerging technology should contribute to growth in economic wealth, but it must also show clear cut value in our everyday activities in being technology transparent and efficient. The uptake of Semantic Web technology by industry is progressing slowly. One of the problems is that academia is not always aware of the concrete problems that arise in industry. Conversely, industry is not often well informed about the academic developments that can potentially meet its needs. In this paper we present an ongoing work in the cross-fertilization between industry and academy. In particular, we present a collection of applications fields and use cases from enterprises which are interested in the promises of Semantic Web technology. We explain our approach in the analysis of the industry needs. We summarize industrial knowledge processing requirements in the form of a typology of knowledge processing tasks. These results are intended to focus academia on the development of plausible knowledge-based solutions for concrete industrial problems, and therefore, facilitate the uptake of Semantic Web technology within industry.


Europe Marketing Editing Illy 


  1. 1.
    K. Wiig, Knowledge management: where did it come from and where will it go? Journal of Expert Systems with Applications, 13(1), 1–14, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Hibbard, Knowledge management—knowing what we know. Information Week, 20 October 1997.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    G. Petrash, Managing knowledge assets for value. In Proceedings of the Knowledge-Based Leadership Conference, Boston, MA, October 1996. Boston, MA: Linkage.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zyl J. Corbett D. (2000), A framework for Comparing the use of a Linguistic Ontology in an Application, Workshop Applications of Ontologies and Problemsolving Methods, ECAI’2000, Berlin Germany, August, 2000Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Guarino N., Masolo C, Vetere G., OntoSeek: (1999) Content-Based Access to the Web, IEEE Intelligent System.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    MKBEEM (2002) Multilingual Knowledge-Based E-Commerce Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wiederhold G. (1992). Mediators in the architecture of future information systems, Computer, Vol. 25(3). p.38–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barillot C, Amsaleg L., Aubry F., Bazin J-P., Benali H., Cointepas Y., Corouge I., Dameron O., Dojat M., Garbay C, Gibaud B., Gros P., Inkingnehun S., Malandain G., Matsumoto J., Papadopoulos D., Pélégrini M., Richard N., Simon E., Neurobase: Management of distributed knowledge and data bases in neuroimaging. In Human Brain Mapping, Volume 19, Pages 726–726, New-York, NY, 2003.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cordonnier E., Croci S., Laurent J.-F., Gibaud B. (2003) Interoperability and Medical Communication Using “Patient Envelope”-Based Secure Messaging Proceedings of the Medical Informatics Europe Congress.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Charlet J., Cordonnier E., Gibaud B. (2002) Interopérabilité en médecine: quand le contenu interroge le contenant et 1’organisation. Revue Information, interaction, intelligence 2(2).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    L. Nixon, M. Mochol, A. Léger, F. Paulus, L. Rocuet, M. Bonifacio, R. Cuel, M. Jarrar, P. Verheyden, Y. Kompatsiaris, V. Papastathis, S. Dasiopoulou, and A. Gomez Perez. D1.1.2 Prototypical Business Use Cases. Technical report, Knowledge Web NoE, 2004.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    P. Shvaiko, A. L’eger, F. Paulus, L. Rocuet, L. Nixon, M. Mochol, Y. Kompatsiaris, V. Papastathis, and S. Dasiopoulou. D1.1.3 Knowledge Processing Requirements Analysis. Technical report, Knowledge Web NoE, 2004.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    D. Dou, D. McDermott, and P. Qi. Ontology translation on the Semantic Web. Journal on Data Semantics, pages 35–57, 2005.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stanford Medical Informatics. Protégé ontology editor and knowldege aquisition system. Scholar
  15. 15.
    D. L. McGuinness, R. Fikes, J. Rice, and S. Wilder. An environment for merging and testing large ontologies. In Proceedings of KR, pages 483–493, 2000.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    E. Rahm and P. Bernstein. A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching. VLDB Journal, (10(4)):334–350, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    P. Shvaiko and J. Euzenat. A survey of schema-based macthing approaches. Submitted to the Journal on Data Semantics, 2004.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    A. Billig and K. Sandkuhl. Match-making based on semantic nets: The xml-based approach of baseweb. In Proceedings of the 1st workshop on XML-Technologien fr das Semantic Web, pages 39–51, 2002.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    M. Ehrig and S. Staab. QOM: Quick ontology mapping. In Proceedings of ISWC, pages 683–697, 2004.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    J. Euzenat and P. Valtchev. Similarity-based ontology alignment in OWL-lite. In Proceedings of ECAI, pages 333–337, 2004.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    H.H. Do and E. Rahm. COMA-a system for flexible combination of schema matching approaches. In Proceedings of VLDB, pages 610–621, 2001.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    J. Zhong, H. Zhu, J. Li, and Y. Yu. Conceptual graph matching for semantic search. In Proceedings of the 2002 International Conference on Computational Science, 2002.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    F. Giunchiglia and P. Shvaiko. Semantic matching. Knowledge Engineering Review Journal, (18(3)):265–280, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    F. Giunchiglia, P. Shvaiko, and M. Yatskevich. S-Match: an algorithm and an implementation of semantic matching. In Proceedings of ESWS, pages 61–75, 2004.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    T. Di Noia, E. Di Sciascio, F. M. Donini, and M. Mongiello. A system for principled matchmaking in an electronic marketplace. In Proceedings of WWW, pages 321–330, 2003.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    R. Dhamankar, Y. Lee, A. Doan, A. Halevy, and P. Domingos. iMAP: Discovering complex semantic matches between database schemas. In Proceedings of SIGMOD, pages 383–394, 2004.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    P. Shvaiko, F. Giunchiglia, P. Pinheiro da Silva, and D. L. McGuinness. Web explanations for semantic heterogeneity discovery. In Proceedings of ESWC, 2005.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    J. Petrini and T. Risch. Processing queries over rdf views of wrapped relational databases. In Proceedings of the 1st International workshop on Wrapper Techniques for Legacy Systems, Delft, Holland, 2004.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Y. Velegrakis, R. J. Miller, and J. Mylopoulos. Representing and querying data transformations. In Proceedings of ICDE, 2005.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    N. Preguica, M. Shapiro, and C. Matheson. Semantics-based reconciliation for collaborative and mobile environments. In Proccedings of CoopIS, 2003.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    P. Traverso and M. Pistore. Automated composition of semantic web services into executable processes. In Proceedings of ISWC, pages 380–394, 2004.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    aceMedia project. Integrating knowledge, semantics and content for user centred intelligent media services, Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    V. Haarslev, R. Moller, and M. Wessel. RACER: Semantic middleware for industrial projects based on RDF/OWL, a W3C Standard. http.// Scholar
  34. 34.
    E. Mena, V. Kashyap, A. Sheth, and A. Illarramendi. Observer: An approach for query processing in global information systems based on interoperability between pre-existing ontologies. In Proceedings of CoopIS, pages 14–25, 1996.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    G. Antoniou, M. Baldoni, C. Baroglio, R. Baumgartner, F. Bry, T. Eiter, N. Henze, M. Herzog, W. May, V. Patti, R. Schindlauer, H. Tompits, and S. Schaffert. Reasoning Methods for Personalization on the Semantic Web. Annals of Mathematics, Computing & TeleinformaticsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alain Léger
    • 1
  • Lyndon J.B. Nixon
    • 2
  • Pavel Shvaiko
    • 3
  • Jean Charlet
    • 4
  1. 1.France Telecom R&D - RennesCesson-SévignéFrance
  2. 2.Freie Universität BerlinBerlinGermany
  3. 3.University of Trento (UniTn)TrentoItaly
  4. 4.Jean Charlet, STIM, DPA/AP-Hopitaux Paris & Université Paris 6ParisFrance

Personalised recommendations