PowerAqua: Fishing the Semantic Web

  • Vanessa Lopez
  • Enrico Motta
  • Victoria Uren
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4011)


The Semantic Web (SW) offers an opportunity to develop novel, sophisticated forms of question answering (QA). Specifically, the availability of distributed semantic markup on a large scale opens the way to QA systems which can make use of such semantic information to provide precise, formally derived answers to questions. At the same time the distributed, heterogeneous, large-scale nature of the semantic information introduces significant challenges. In this paper we describe the design of a QA system, PowerAqua, designed to exploit semantic markup on the web to provide answers to questions posed in natural language. PowerAqua does not assume that the user has any prior information about the semantic resources. The system takes as input a natural language query, translates it into a set of logical queries, which are then answered by consulting and aggregating information derived from multiple heterogeneous semantic sources.


Ontology Term Query Term Question Answering Word Sense Disambiguation Lexical Resource 
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.
    Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., Lassila, O.: The Semantic Web. Scientific American 284(5), 33–43 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adams, T., Dullea, J., Clark, P., Sripada, S., Barrett, T.: Semantic Integration of Heterogeneous Information Sources Using a Knowledge-Based System. In: Proc. of the 5th International Conference on Computer Science and Informatics (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Doan, A., Madhavan, J., Domingos, P., Halevy, A.: Learning to Map between Ontologies on the Semantic Web. In: Proc. of the World-Wide Web Conference (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lopez, V., Pasin, M., Motta, E.: AquaLog: An Ontology-portable Question Answering System for the Semantic Web. In: Proc. of the 2nd European Semantic Web Conference (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mc Guinness, D.: Question Answering on the SW. IEEE Intelligent Systems 19(1), 82–85 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cunningham, H., Maynard, D., Bontcheva, K., Tablan, V.: GATE: A Framework and Graphical Development Environment for Robust NLP Tools and Applications. In: Proc. of the 40th Anniversary Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2002), Philadelphia (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ding, X.L., et al.: Swoogle: A semantic web search and metadata engine. In: Proc. 13th ACM Conf. on Information And Knowledge Management (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guo, Y., Pan, Z., Heflin, J.: An Evaluation of Knowledge Base Systems for Large OWL Datasets. In: International Semantic Web Conference, pp. 274–288 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mena, E., Kashyap, V., Sheth, A., Illarramendi, A.: OBSERVER: An approach for Query Processing in Global Information Systems based on Interoperation across Pre-existing Ontologies. Distributed and Parallel Databases 8(2), 223–271 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Giunchiglia, F., Shvaiko, P., Yatskevich, M.: S-Match: an algorithm and an implementation of semantic matching. In: Proc. of the 1st European Semantic Web Symposium (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Alani, H., Brewster, C.: Ontology Ranking based on the Analysis of Concept Structures. In: Proc. of the 3rd International Conference on Knowledge Capture (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ide, N., Veronis, J.: Word Sense Disambiguation: The State of the Art. Computational Linguistics 24(1), 1–40 (1998)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Budanitsky, A., Hirst, G.: Evaluating WordNet-based measures of semantic distance. Computational Linguistics (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Resnik, P.: Disambiguating noun grouping with respect to WordNet senses. In: Proc. of the 3rd Workshop on very Large Corpora. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Giunchiglia, F., Yatskevich, M.: Element Level Semantic Matching. In: McIlraith, S.A., Plexousakis, D., van Harmelen, F. (eds.) ISWC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3298. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Magnini, B., Serafín, L., Speranza, M.: Making Explicit the Semantics Hidden in Schema Models. In: Proc. of the Workshop on Human Language Technology for the Semantic Web and Web Services, held at ISWC 2003, Sanibel Island, Florida (2003) , (2003). Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Banerjee, S., Pedersen, T.: Extended Gloss Overlaps as a Measure of Semantic Relatedness. In: International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mitra, P., Wiederhold, G., Jannink, J.: Semi-automatic Integration of Knowledge Sources. In: Proc. of the 2nd International Conference on Information Fusion (1999)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Levy, A.Y., Srivastava, D., Kirk, T.: Data Model and Query Evaluation in Global Information Systems. Journal of Intelligence Information Systems 5(2), 121–143 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bouquet, P., Serafini, L., Zanobini, S.: Semantic coordination: a new approach and an application. In: International Semantic Web Conference, pp. 130–145 (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Madhavan, J., Bernstein, P.A., Rahm, E.: Generic schema matching with cupid. The Very Large Databases Journal, 49–58 (2001)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rahm, E., Bernstein, P.A.: A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching. The VLDB Journal — The International Journal on Very Large Data Bases 10(4), 334–350 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vanessa Lopez
    • 1
  • Enrico Motta
    • 1
  • Victoria Uren
    • 1
  1. 1.Knowledge Media Institute & Centre for Research in ComputingThe Open UniversityMilton KeynesUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations