The Semantic Publishing and Referencing Ontologies

  • Silvio Peroni
Part of the Law, Governance and Technology Series book series (LGTS, volume 15)


One of the main research areas in semantic publishing is the development of semantic models that fit the requirements of authors and publishers. Although several models and metadata schemas have been developed in the past, they do not fully comply with the vocabulary used by publishers or they are not adequate for describing specific topics (e.g., characterisation of bibliographic citations, definition of publishing roles, description of publishing workflows, etc.). In this chapter I introduce the Semantic Publishing and Referencing (SPAR) Ontologies, a suite of orthogonal and complementary OWL 2 DL ontology modules for the creation of comprehensive machine-readable RDF metadata for every aspect of semantic publishing and referencing. In particular, I show the characteristics and benefits of all the SPAR ontologies, and support the entire discussion with several examples of Turtle code describing a particular reference of the legal discipline, namely Casanovas et al.’s “OPJK and DILIGENT: ontology modelling in a distributed environment”.


Bibliographic Reference Bibliographic Record Citation Context Reference Ontology Ontology Module 
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. Accomazzi, A., and R. Dave. 2011. Semantic interlinking of resources in the virtual observatory era. ArXiv:1103.5958. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  2. Aranguren, M. E., E. Antezana, M. Kuiper, and R. Stevens. 2008. Ontology design patterns for bio-ontologies: A case study on the cell cycle ontology. BMC Bioinformatics 9 (5): S–1. (London, United Kingdom: BioMed Central). doi:10.1186/1471-2105-9-S5-S1.Google Scholar
  3. Attwood, T. K., D. B. Kell, P. McDermott, J. Marsh, S. R. Pettifer, and D. Thorne. 2010. Utopia documents: Linking scholarly literature with research data. Bioinformatics 26 (18): 568–574. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btq383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barabucci, G., L. Cervone, M. Palmirani, S. Peroni, and F. Vitali. 2009. Multi-layer markup and ontological structures in Akoma Ntoso. In Proceeding of the international workshop on AI Approaches to the Complexity of Legal Systems II (AICOL-II), lecture notes in computer science 6237, ed. P. Casanovas, U. Pagallo, G. Sartor, and G. Ajani, 133–149. Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-16524-5_9.Google Scholar
  5. Berjon, R., T. Leithead, E. D. Navara, E. O’Connor, and S. Pfeiffer. 2013. HTML5: A vocabulary and associated APIs for HTML and XHTML. W3C candidate recommendation 6 August 2013. World Wide Web Consortium. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  6. Bojars, U., and J. G. Breslin. 2010. SIOC core ontology specification. 25 March 2010. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  7. Brickley, D., and L. Miller. 2010. FOAF vocabulary specification 0.98. Namespace document, 9 August 2010-Marco Polo Edition. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  8. Casanovas, P., N. Casellas, C. Tempich, D. Vrandecic, and R. Benjamins. 2007. OPJK and DILIGENT: Ontology modeling in a distributed environment. Artificial Intelligence and Law 15 (2): 171–186. doi:10.1007/s10506-007-9036-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ciccarese, P., and T. Groza. 2011. Ontology of Rhetorical Blocks (ORB). Editor’s draft, 5 June 2011. World Wide Web Consortium. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  10. Ciccarese, P., and S. Peroni. 2013. The collections ontology: Creating and handling collections in OWL 2 DL frameworks. To appear in Semantic Web–Interoperability, Usability, Applicability. doi:10.3233/SW-130121.Google Scholar
  11. Ciccarese, P., E. Wu, J. Kinoshita, G. Wong, M. Ocana, A. Ruttenberg, and T. Clark. 2008. The SWAN biomedical discourse ontology. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 41 (5): 739–751. doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2008.04.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ciccarese, P., D. Shotton, S. Peroni, and T. Clark. 2011. CiTO + SWAN: The web semantics of bibliographic records, citations, evidence and discourse relationships. To appear in Semantic Web–Interoperability, Usability, Applicability. doi:10.3233/SW-130098.Google Scholar
  13. Cimiano, P., and J. Volker. 2005. Text2Onto—A framework for ontology learning and data-driven change discovery. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on applications of natural language to information systems (NLDB05), lecture notes in computer science 3513, ed. A. Montoyo, R. Munoz, and E. Metais, 227–238. Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/11428817_21.Google Scholar
  14. Crofts, N., M. Doerr, T. Gill, S. Stead, and M. Stiff. 2011. Definition of the CIDOC conceptual reference model. Version 5.0.4, November 2011. ICOM/CIDOC CRM special interest group. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  15. D’Arcus, B., and F. Giasson. 2009. Bibliographic ontology specification. Specification document, 4 November 2009. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  16. Dattolo, A., A. Di Iorio, S. Duca, A. A. Feliziani, and F. Vitali. 2007. Structural patterns for descriptive documents. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on web engineering 2007 (ICWE 2007), lecture notes in computer science 4607, ed. L. Baresi, P. Fraternali, and G. Houben, 421–426. Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-73597-7_35.Google Scholar
  17. De Waard, A. 2010a. From proteins to fairytales: Directions in semantic publishing. IEEE Intelligent Systems 25 (2): 83–88. doi:10.1109/MIS.2010.49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. De Waard, A. 2010b. Medium-grained document structure. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  19. Di Iorio, A., D. Gubellini, and F. Vitali. 2005. Design patterns for document substructures. Proceedings of the extreme markup languages 2005. Rockville: Mulberry Technologies, Inc. EML2005Vitali01.html. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  20. Di Iorio, A., S. Peroni, F. Poggi, and F. Vitali. 2012. A first approach to the automatic recognition of structural patterns in XML documents. Proceedings of the 2012 ACM symposium on Document Engineering (DocEng 2012), 85–94. New York: ACM. doi:10.1145/2361354.2361374.Google Scholar
  21. Dublin Core Metadata Initiative. 2012. DCMI metadata terms. DCMI recommendation. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  22. Gangemi, A. 2010a. Submission: Participation. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  23. Gangemi, A. 2010b. Submission: Region. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  24. Gangemi, A. 2010c. Submission: Sequence. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  25. Gangemi, A. 2010d. Submission: TimeIndexedSituation. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  26. Gangemi, A., S. Peroni, and F. Vitali. 2010. Literal reification. Proceedings of the Workshop on Ontology Pattern 2010 (WOP 2010), CEUR workshop proceedings 671, 65–66. Aachen: Accessed 30 July 2013.
  27. Garlik, S. H., and A. Seaborne. 2013. SPARQL 1.1 query language. W3C recommendation 21 March 2013. World Wide Web Consortium. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  28. Groza, T., K. Möller, S. Handschuh, D. Trif, and S. Decker. 2007. SALT: Weaving the claim web. In Proceedings of 6th International Semantic Web Conference and of the 2nd Asian Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2007 + ASWC 2007), lecture notes in computer science 4825, ed. K. Aberer, K. Choi, N. F. Noy, D. Allemang, K. Lee, L. J. B. Nixon, J. Golbeck, P. Mika, D. Maynard, R. Mizoguchi, G. Schreiber, and P. Cudré-Mauroux, 197–210. Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-76298-0_15.Google Scholar
  29. Groza, T., S. Handschuh, K. Möller, and S. Decker. 2007. SALT–semantically annotated LaTeX for scientific publications. In Proceedings of the fourth European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC 2007), lecture notes in computer science 4519, ed. E. Franconi, M. Kifer, and W. May, 518–532. Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-72667-8_37.Google Scholar
  30. Groza, T., S. Handschuh, and S. Decker. 2011. Capturing rhetoric and argumentation aspects within scientific publications. Journal on Data Semantics 15: 1–36. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-22630-4_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gruber, T. R. 1995. Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. International Journal of Human Computer Studies 43 (5–6): 907–928. doi:10.1006/ijhc.1995.1081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Guarino, N., and C. Welty. 2002. Evaluating ontological decisions with OntoClean. Communications of the ACM 45 (2): 61–65. doi:10.1145/503124.503150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hammond, T. 2008. RDF site summary 1.0 modules: PRISM. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  34. Hayes, P., and C. Welty. 2006. Defining N-ary relations on the semantic web. W3C working group note 12 April 2006. World Wide Web Consortium. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  35. Hobbs, J. R., and F. Pan. 2006. Time ontology in OWL. W3C working draft, 27 September 2006. World Wide Web Consortium. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  36. Horridge, M., and P. Patel-Schneider. 2012. OWL 2 web ontology language Manchester syntax. 2nd ed. W3C working group note 11 December 2012. World Wide Web Consortium. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  37. Horrocks, I., P. F. Patel-Schneider, H. Boley, S. Tabet, B. Grosof, and M. Dean. 2004. SWRL: A semantic web rule language combining OWL and RuleML. W3C Member Submission 21 May 2004. World Wide Web Consortium. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  38. Iannella, R. 2013. vCard ontology: For describing people and organisations. W3C working draft 24 September 2013. World Wide Web Consortium. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  39. International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records. 2009. Functional requirements for bibliographic records final report. International federation of library associations and institutions. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  40. Kircz, J. G. 1991. Rhetorical structure of scientific articles: The case for argumentational analysis in information retrieval. Journal of Documentation 47 (4): 354–372. doi:10.1108/eb026884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Masolo, C., L. Vieu, E. Bottazzi, C. Catenacci, R. Ferrario, A. Gangemi, and N. Guarino. 2004. Social roles and their descriptions. Proceedings of the 9th international conference on the principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR2004), 267–277. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  42. Miles, A., and S. Bechhofer. 2009. SKOS simple knowledge organization system reference. W3C recommendation 18 August 2009. World Wide Web Consortium. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  43. Moller, K., S. Bechhofer, and T. Heath. 2009. Semantic web conference ontology. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  44. Peroni, S., and D. Shotton. 2012. FaBiO and CiTO: Ontologies for describing bibliographic resources and citations. Journal of Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 17:33–43. doi:10.1016/j.websem.2012.08.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Peroni, S., E. Motta, and M. d’Aquin. 2008. Identifying key concepts in an ontology, through the integration of cognitive principles with statistical and topological measures. In Proceedings of the 3rd Asian Semantic Web Conference (ASWC 2008), ed. J. Domingue and C. Anutariya. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  46. Picca, D., A. Gliozzo, and A. Gangemi. 2008. LMM: An OWL-DL MetaModel to represent heterogeneous lexical knowledge. Proceedings of the 6th Language Resource and Evaluation Conference (LREC 2008). Luxembourg: European Language Resources Association. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  47. Presutti, V., and A. Gangemi. 2008. Content ontology design patterns as practical building blocks for web ontologies. In Proceedings of the 27th international conference on conceptual modeling (ER 2008), lecture notes in computer science 5231, ed. Q. Li, S. Spaccapietra, E. S. K. Yu, and A. Olivé, 128–141. Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-87877-3_11.Google Scholar
  48. Prud’hommeaux, E., and G. Carothers. 2013. Turtle, Terse RDF triple language. W3C candidate recommendation 19 February 2013. World Wide Web Consortium. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  49. Rector, A. 2003. Modularisation of domain ontologies implemented in description logics and related formalisms including OWL. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Knowledge Capture (K-CAP 2003), ed. J. H. Gennari, B. W. Porter, and Y. Gil. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  50. Schneider, J., T. Groza, and A. Passant. 2011. A review of argumentation for the social semantic web. Semantic Web–Interoperability, Usability, Applicability 4 (2): 159–218. doi:10.3233/SW-2012-0073.Google Scholar
  51. Shotton, D. 2009. Semantic publishing: The coming revolution in scientific journal publishing. Learned Publishing 22 (2): 85–94. doi:10.1087/2009202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Shotton, D. 2010. CiTO, the citation typing ontology. Journal of Biomedical Semantics 1 (1): S–6. doi:10.1186/2041-1480-1-S1-S6.Google Scholar
  53. Shotton, D., C. Caton, and G. Klyne. 2010. Ontologies for sharing, ontologies for use. Accessed 12 March 2012.
  54. Toulmin, S. 1959. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (ISBN 0521827485).Google Scholar
  55. Varma, P. 2010. Project documents ontology. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  56. Walsh, N. (2010). DocBook 5: The definitive guide. Sebastopol: O’Really Media. Version 1.0.3. (ISBN: 0596805029).Google Scholar
  57. Wan, S., C. Paris, and R. Dale. 2010. Supporting browsing-specific information needs: Introducing the citation-sensitive in-browser summariser. Journal of Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 8 (2–3): 196–202. doi:10.1016/j.websem.2010.03.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations