Advertisement

Abstract

The Semantic Web is a significant improvement of the original World Wide Web. It models shared meanings with ontologies, and uses these to provide many different kinds of web services. However, shared meaning is not enough. If the Semantic Web is to have an impact in the real world, with its multiple, changing, and imperfect sources of meaning, adequately modeling context is essential. Context of use is the focus of the Pragmatic Web and is all-important to deal with issues like information overload and relevance of information. Still, great confusion remains about how to model context and which role it should play in the Pragmatic Web. We propose an approach to put ontologies in context by using pragmatic patterns in meaning negotiation processes, among other meaning evolution processes. It then becomes possible to better deal with partial, contradicting, and evolving ontologies. Such an approach can help address some of the complexities experienced in many current ontology engineering efforts.

Keywords

Negotiation Process Conceptual Structure Deontic Logic Conceptual Graph Individual Context 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., Lassila, O.: The Semantic Web. Scientific American, 35–43 (May 2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buchler, J.: Philosophical Writings of Peirce. Dover Publ., New York (1955)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carlile, P.R.: A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development. Organization Science 13(4), 442–455 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Corbett, D.: Interoperability of Ontologies Using Conceptual Graph Theory. In: Wolff, K.E., Pfeiffer, H.D., Delugach, H.S. (eds.) ICCS 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3127, pp. 375–387. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Delugach, H.S.: Towards Building Active Knowledge Systems With Conceptual Graphs. In: Ganter, B., de Moor, A., Lex, W. (eds.) ICCS 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2746, pp. 296–308. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    de Moor, A.: Improving the Testbed Development Process in Collaboratories. In: Wolff, K.E., Pfeiffer, H.D., Delugach, H.S. (eds.) ICCS 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3127, pp. 261–274. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    de Moor, A., Keeler, M., Richmond, G.: Towards a Pragmatic Web. In: Priss, U., Corbett, D.R., Angelova, G. (eds.) ICCS 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2393, pp. 235–249. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    de Moor, A., Weigand, H.: Business Negotiation Support: Theory and Practice. International Negotiation 9(1), 31–57 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fillies, C., Wood-Albrecht, G., Weichhardt, F.: Pragmatic Applications of the Semantic Web Using SemTalk. Computer Networks 42, 599–615 (2003)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gruber, T.: Towards Principles for the Design of Ontologies Used for Knowledge Sharing. In: Guarino, N., Poli, R. (eds.) Formal Ontology in Conceptual Analysis and Knowledge Representation. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1994)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Habermas, J.: Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns, vol. 2. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt (1981)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harper, L.W., Delugach, H.S.: Using Conceptual Graphs to Represent Agent Semantic Constituents. In: Wolff, K.E., Pfeiffer, H.D., Delugach, H.S. (eds.) ICCS 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3127, pp. 333–345. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kim, H., Dong, A.: Pragmatics of the Semantic Web. In: Semantic Web Workshop 2002, Hawaii (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kreuz, R.J., Roberts, R.M.: When Collaboration Fails: Consequences of Pragmatic Errors in Conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 19, 239–252 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kurtz, C.F., Snowden, D.J.: The New Dynamics of Strategy: Sense-Making in a Complex and Complicated World. IBM Systems Journal 42(3), 462–483 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    McCarthy, J.: Elephant 2000: A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts, Technical Report, Stanford University (1996)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    McLaughlin, W.S.: The Use of the Internet for Political Action by Non-State Dissident Actors in the Middle East. First Monday 8(11) (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mey, J.L.: Context and (Dis)ambiguity: a Pragmatic View. Journal of Pragmatics 35, 331–347 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Meyer, J.J.-C., Wieringa, R. (eds.): Deontic Logic in Computer Science: Normative System Specification. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (1993)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mineau, G.W., Gerbe, O.: Contexts: A Formal Definition of Worlds of Assertions. In: Delugach, H.S., Keeler, M.A., Searle, L., Lukose, D., Sowa, J.F. (eds.) ICCS 1997. LNCS, vol. 1257, pp. 80–94. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nonaka, I., Reinmoeller, P., Senoo, D.: The ’ART’ of Knowledge: Systems to Capitalize on Market Knowledge. European Management Journal 16(6), 673–684 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Repenning, A., Sullivan, J.: The Pragmatic Web: Agent-Based Multimodal Web Interaction with no Browser in Sight. In: Human-Computer Interaction - INTERACT 2003. IFIP, pp. 212–219. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schuler, D.: A Pattern Language for Living Communication. In: Participatory Design Conference (PDC 2002), Malmo, Sweden (June 2002)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shanks, G., Tansley, E., Weber, R.: Using Ontology to Validate Conceptual Models. Communications of the ACM 46(10), 85–89 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Singh, M.P.: The Pragmatic Web. IEEE Internet Computing, 4–5 (May/June 2002a)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Singh, M.P.: The Pragmatic Web: Preliminary Thoughts. In: Proc. of the NSF-EU Workshop on Database and Information Systems Research for Semantic Web and Enterprises, Amicalolo Falls and State Park, Georgia, April 3-5 (2002b)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Skagestad, P.: Thinking with Machines: Intelligence Automation, Evolutionary Epistemology, and Semiotic. Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems 16(2), 157–180 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sowa, J.: Architectures for Intelligent Systems. IBM Syst. Journal 41(3), 331–349 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Spyns, P., Meersman, R.A.: From Knowledge to Interaction: from the Semantic to the Pragmatic Web. Technical Report STAR-2003-05, STARLab, Brussels (2003)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Spyns, P., Meersman, R.A., Jarrar, M.: Data Modelling versus Ontology Engineering. ACM SIGMOD Record 31(4), 12–17 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Weigand, H., de Moor, A.: Workflow Analysis with Communication Norms. Data & Knowledge Engineering 47(3), 349–369 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aldo de Moor
    • 1
  1. 1.STARLabVrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations