Emergent Semantics Principles and Issues

  • Karl Aberer
  • Philippe Cudré-Mauroux
  • Aris M. Ouksel
  • Tiziana Catarci
  • Mohand-Said Hacid
  • Arantza Illarramendi
  • Vipul Kashyap
  • Massimo Mecella
  • Eduardo Mena
  • Erich J. Neuhold
  • Olga De Troyer
  • Thomas Risse
  • Monica Scannapieco
  • Fèlix Saltor
  • Luca de Santis
  • Stefano Spaccapietra
  • Steffen Staab
  • Rudi Studer
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2973)


Information and communication infrastructures underwent a rapid and extreme decentralization process over the past decade: From a world of statically and partially connected central servers rose an intricate web of millions of information sources loosely connecting one to another. Today, we expect to witness the extension of this revolution with the wide adoption of meta-data standards like RDF or OWL underpinning the creation of a semantic web. Again, we hope for global properties to emerge from a multiplicity of pair-wise, local interactions, resulting eventually in a self-stabilizing semantic infrastructure. This paper represents an effort to summarize the conditions under which this revolution would take place as well as an attempt to underline its main properties, limitations and possible applications.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ouksel, M., Ahmed, I.: Ontologies are not the panacea in data integration: A flexible coordinator for context construction. Journal of Distributed and Parallel Databases 7(1) (1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ouksel, M.: In-context peer-to-peer information filtering on the web. SIGMOD Record 32(3) (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aberer, K., Cudre-Mauroux, P., Hauswirth, M.: A framework for semantic gossiping. SIGMOD Record 31(4) (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ouksel, M., Naiman, C.: Coordinating context building in heterogeneous information systems. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems 3(1), 151–183Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ouksel, M.: A Framework for a Scalable Agent Architecture of Cooperating Heterogeneous Knowledge Sources. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gruber, T.R.: Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 43(5-6), 907–928Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Albert, R., Barabasi, A.: Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 47–97 (2001)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goldhaber, M.: The attention economy and the net. First Monday 2(4) (1997)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Martinoli, A., Mondada, F.: Probabilistic modelling of a bio-inspired collective experiment with real robots. In: Proceeding of the Third International Symposium on Distributed Autonomous Robotic SystemsGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Aberer, K.: P-Grid: A self-organizing access structure for P2P information systems. In: Batini, C., Giunchiglia, F., Giorgini, P., Mecella, M. (eds.) CoopIS 2001. LNCS, vol. 2172, pp. 179–185. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ratnasamy, S., Francis, P., Handley, M., Karp, R., Shenker, S.: A scalable content addressable network. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM 2001 (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Weiss, G. (ed.): Multiagent Systems. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Aberer, K., Datta, A., Hauswirth, M.: The quest for balancing peer load in structured peer-to-peer systems. Technical report ic/2003/32, EPFL (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Datta, A., Hauswirth, M., Aberer, K.: Updates in highly unreliable, replicated peer-to-peer systems. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, ICDCS2003, Providence, Rhode Island, USA (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    McCool, R., Guha, R.V.: Tap, building the semantic webGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Aberer, K., Cudré-Mauroux, P., Hauswirth, M.: The Chatty Web: Emergent Semantics Through Gossiping. In: International World Wide Web Conference, WWW (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Owl web ontology language reference, 2003. W3C Candidate Recommendation, August 18 (2003), http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/
  18. 18.
    Resource description framework (rdf) model and syntax specification,1999. W3C Recommendation, February 22 (1999), http://www.w3.org/RDF/
  19. 19.
    Miller, G.A.: Wordnet: A lexical database for english. Communications of the ACM 38(11), 39–41 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bozsak, E., Ehrig, M., Handschuh, S., Hotho, A., Maedche, A., Motik, B., Oberle, D., Schmitz, C., Staab, S., Stojanovic, L., Stojanovic, N., Studer, R., Stumme, G., Sure, Y., Tane, J., Volz, R., Zacharias, V.: Kaon - towards a large scale semantic web. In: Bauknecht, K., Tjoa, A.M., Quirchmayr, G. (eds.) EC-Web 2002. LNCS, vol. 2455, pp. 304–313. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kamvar, S., Schlosser, M., Garcia-Molina, H.: The eigentrust algorithm for reputation management in p2p networks. In: International World Wide Web Conference (WWW), pp. 640–651 (2003)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Scannapieco, M., Mirabella, V., Mecella, M., Batini, C.: Data Quality in e-Business Applications. In: Bussler, C.J., McIlraith, S.A., Orlowska, M.E., Pernici, B., Yang, J. (eds.) CAiSE 2002 and WES 2002. LNCS, vol. 2512, pp. 121–138. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ehrig, M., Haase, P., van Harmelen, F., Siebes, R., Staab, S., Stuckenschmidt, H., Studer, R., Tempich, C.: The swap data and metadata model for semanticsbased peer-to-peer systems. In: Schillo, M., Klusch, M., Müller, J., Tianfield, H. (eds.) MATES 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2831, pp. 144–155. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Siebes, R., van Harmelen, F.: Ranking agent statements for building evolving ontologies. In: Proceedings of the AAAI 2002 workshop on meaning negotiation, Alberta, Canada, July 28 (2002)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tempich, C., Staab, S., Wranik, A.: REMINDIN’: Semantic query routing in peer-to-peer networks based on social metaphors (2003) (submitted for publication)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rahm, E., Bernstein, P.A.: A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching. VLDB Journal 10(4), 334–350 (2001)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Milo, T., Zohar, S.: Using schema matching to simplify heterogeneous data translation. In: Proc. 24th Int. Conf. Very Large Data Bases, VLDB, pp. 122–133, 24–27 (1998)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Doan, A., Madhavan, J., Domingos, P., Halevy, A.: Learning to map between ontologies on the semantic web. In: Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on World Wide Web, pp. 662–673. ACM Press, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Berlin, J., Motro, A.: Autoplex: Automated discovery of content for virtual databases. In: Batini, C., Giunchiglia, F., Giorgini, P., Mecella, M. (eds.) CoopIS 2001. LNCS, vol. 2172, p. 108. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mena, E., Kashyap, V., Sheth, A.P., 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
  31. 31.
    Jamil, H.M., Modica, G.A., Gal, A.: The use of machine-generated ontologies in dynamic information seeking. In: Batini, C., Giunchiglia, F., Giorgini, P., Mecella, M. (eds.) CoopIS 2001. LNCS, vol. 2172, pp. 433–448. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Halevy, Y., Ives, Z.G., Mork, P., Tatarinov, I.: Piazza: Data Management Infrastructure for Semantic Web Applications. In: International World Wide Web Conference, WWW (2003)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bernstein, P.A., Giunchiglia, F., Kementsietsidis, A., Mylopoulos, J., Serafini, L., Zaihrayeu, I.: Data management for peer-to-peer computing: A vision. In: Workshop on the Web and Databases, WebDB (2002)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nejdl, W., Wolf, B., Qu, C., Decker, S., Sintek, M., Naeve, A., Nilsson, M., Palmér, M., Risch, T.: EDUTELLA: a P2P networking infrastructure based on RDF. In: International World Wide Web Conference (WWW), pp. 604–615 (2000)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kleinberg, J.M.: Hubs, authorities, and communities. ACM Computing Surveys 31(4es) (1999)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Grefenstette, G.: The WWW as a resource for example-based MT tasks. In: Proceedings of ASLIB 1999 Translating and the Computer 21 (1999)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Agirre, E., Ansa, O., Hovy, E., Martinez, D.: Enriching Very Large Ontologies using the WWW. In: Workshop on Ontology Construction of the ECAI (2000)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Keller, F., Lapata, M., Ourioupina, O.: Using the web to overcome data sparseness. In: Proceedings of EMNLP 2002, pp. 230–237 (2002)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Markert, K., Modjeska, N., Nissim, M.: Using the web for nominal anaphora resolution. In: EACL Workshop on the Computational Treatment of Anaphora (2003)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hearst, M.A.: Automatic acquisition of hyponyms from large text corpora. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (1992)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Charniak, E., Berland, M.: Finding parts in very large corpora. In: Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the ACL, pp. 57–64 (1999)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mädche, A., Staab, S.: Ontology learning for the semantic web. IEEE Intelligent Systems 16(2), 72–79 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Googlism (2003), http://www.googlism.com
  44. 44.
    Flake, G.W., Lawrence, S., Giles, C.L., Coetzee, F.M.: Self-organization and identification of web communities. IEEE Computer 35(3), 66–70 (2002)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Glover, E.J., Tsioutsiouliklis, K., Lawrence, S., Pennock, D.M., Flake, G.W.: Using web structure for classifying and describing web pages. In: Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on World Wide Web, pp. 562–569. ACM Press, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Chakrabarti, S.: Data mining for hypertext: a tutorial survey. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter 1(2), 1–11 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Cimiano, P., Handschuh, S., Staab, S.: Towards the self-annotating web (2003) (submitted for publication)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Maedche, A., Neumann, G., Staab, S.: Bootstrapping an ontology-based information extraction system. In: Kacprzyk, J., Segovia, J., Szczepaniak, P.S., Zadeh, L.A. (eds.) Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, Intelligent Exploration of the Web, Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Maedche, A.: Ontology Learning for the Semantic Web. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2002)MATHGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Bisson, G., Nedellec, C., Canamero, L.: Designing clustering methods for ontology building - The Mo’K workbench. In: Proceedings of the ECAI Ontology Learning Workshop (2000)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Sanderson, M., Croft, B.: Deriving concept hierarchies from text. In Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pp. 206–213 (1999)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Cimiano, P., Staab, S., Tane, J.: Automatic acquisition of taxonomies from text: FCA meets NLP. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Adaptive Text Extraction and Mining (2003)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Missikoff, M., Navigli, R., Velardi, P.: The usable ontology: An environment for building and assessing a domain ontology. In: Horrocks, I., Hendler, J. (eds.) ISWC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2342, p. 39. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Behrens, C., Kashyap, V.: The ”Emergent” Semantic Web: A Consensus Approach for Deriving Semantic Knowledge on the Web. In: Semantic Web Working Symposium, SWWS (2001)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Aberer, K., Hauswirth, M.: P2P Information Systems. In: International Conference on Data Engineering, ICDE (2002)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Cohen, E., Shenker, S.: Replication strategies in unstructured peer-to-peer networks. ACM SIGCOMM (2002)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Yang, B., Garcia-Molina, H.: Designing a Super-peer Network. In: IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering (2003)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Stoica, I., Morris, R., Karger, D., Kaashoek, F., Balakrishnan, H.: Chord: A scalable Peer-To-Peer lookup service for internet applications. In: ACM SIGCOMM (2001)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Aberer, K.: Scalable Data Access in P2P Systems Using Unbalanced Search Trees. In: Workshop on Distributed Data and Structures, WDAS (2002)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Rao, A., Lakshminarayanan, K., Surana, S., Karp, R., Stoica, I.: Load Balancing in Structured P2P Systems. In: Kaashoek, M.F., Stoica, I. (eds.) IPTPS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2735, Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Alima, L.O., El-Ansary, S., Brand, P., Haridi, S.: DKS(N, k, f): A Family of Low Communication, Scalable and Fault-Tolerant Infrastructures for P2P Applications. In: International Symposium on Cluster Computing and the Grid, CCGrid (2003)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Rowstron, A., Druschel, P.: Pastry: Scalable, decentralized object location, and routing for large-scale peer-to-peer systems. In: Guerraoui, R. (ed.) Middleware 2001. LNCS, vol. 2218, pp. 329–350. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Hauswirth, M., Datta, A., Aberer, K.: Efficient, self-contained handling of identity in peer-to-peer systemsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karl Aberer
    • 1
  • Philippe Cudré-Mauroux
    • 1
  • Aris M. Ouksel
    • 2
  • Tiziana Catarci
    • 3
  • Mohand-Said Hacid
    • 4
  • Arantza Illarramendi
    • 5
  • Vipul Kashyap
    • 6
  • Massimo Mecella
    • 3
  • Eduardo Mena
    • 7
  • Erich J. Neuhold
    • 8
  • Olga De Troyer
    • 9
  • Thomas Risse
    • 8
  • Monica Scannapieco
    • 3
  • Fèlix Saltor
    • 10
  • Luca de Santis
    • 3
  • Stefano Spaccapietra
    • 1
  • Steffen Staab
    • 11
  • Rudi Studer
    • 11
  1. 1.Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL)Switzerland
  2. 2.Univ. of Illinois at ChicagoUSA
  3. 3.Univ. of Roma 1Italy
  4. 4.Univ. of Lyon 1France
  5. 5.Univ. of the Basque CountrySpain
  6. 6.National Library of MedicineUSA
  7. 7.Univ. of ZaragozaSpain
  8. 8.Fraunhofer IPSIGermany
  9. 9.Vrije Univ. of BrusselBelgium
  10. 10.Univ. Politècnica de CatalunyaSpain
  11. 11.Univ. of KarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations