XAROP: A Midterm Report in Introducing a Decentralized Semantics-Based Knowledge Sharing Application

  • Christoph Tempich
  • Marc Ehrig
  • Christiaan Fluit
  • Peter Haase
  • Esteve Lladó Martí
  • Michal Plechawski
  • Steffen Staab
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3336)

Abstract

Knowledge management solutions relying on central repositories sometimes have not met expectations, since users often create knowledge ad-hoc using their individual vocabulary and using their own individual IT infrastructure (e.g., their laptop). To improve knowledge management for such decentralized and individualized knowledge work, it is necessary to, first, provide a corresponding decentralized IT infrastructure and to, second, deal with specific problems such as security and semantic heterogeneity. In this paper, we describe the technical peer-to-peer platform that we have built and summarize some of our experiences applying the platform in case study for coopetitioning organizations in the tourism sector.

References

  1. 1.
    Bonifacio, M., Bouquet, P., Traverso, P.: Enabling distributed knowledge management: Managerial and technological implications. Novatica and Informatik/Informatique III (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bonifacio, M., Bouquet, P., Danieli, A., Don‘a, A., Mameli, G., Nori, M.: Keex: A peer-to-peer solution for distributed knowledge management. In: Tochtermann, K., Maurer, H. (eds.) Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Knowledge Management (I-KNOW 2004), Graz, Austria (2004); Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS) 43–52 (2004) Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    O’Leary, D.: Using AI in knowledge management: Knowledge bases and ontologies. IEEE Intelligent Systems 13, 34–39 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schoder, D., Fischbach, K.: Peer-to-Peet Netzwerke für das Ressourcenmanagment. Wirtschaftsinformatik 45, 313–323 (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Haase, P., Broekstra, J., Ehrig, M., Menken, M., Mika, P., Plechawski, M., Pyszlak, P., Schnizler, B., Siebes, R., Staab, S., Tempich, C.: Bibster – a semantics-based bibliographic peer-to-peer system. In: McIlraith, S.A., Plexousakis, D., van Harmelen, F. (eds.) ISWC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3298, pp. 122–136. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Klyne, G., Carroll, J.J.: Resource Description Framework (RDF): Concepts and abstract syntax (2003), http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/
  7. 7.
    Broekstra, J., Kampman, A., van Harmelen, F.: Sesame: A generic architecture for storing and querying RDF and RDFSchema. In: Horrocks, I., Hendler, J. (eds.) ISWC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2342, p. 54. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gong, L.: Project jxta: A technology overview. Technical report, Sun Microsystems Inc. (2001) Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ehrig, M., Haase, P., van Harmelen, F., Siebes, R., Staab, S., Stuckenschmidt, H., Studer, R., Tempich, C.: The SWAP data and metadata model for semantics-based 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
  10. 10.
    Broekstra, J.: SeRQL: Sesame RDF query language. In: Ehrig, M., et al. (eds.) SWAP Deliverable 3.2 Method Design, pp. 55–68 (2003), http://swap.semanticweb.org/public/Publications/swap-d3.2.pdf
  11. 11.
    Noy, N.F., Musen, M.A.: The PROMPT suite: interactive tools for ontology merging and mapping. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 59, 983–1024 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Doan, A., Domingos, P., Halevy, A.: Learning to match the schemas of data sources: A multistrategy approach. VLDB Journal 50, 279–301 (2003)MATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ehrig, M., Staab, S.: Qom – quick ontology mapping. In: McIlraith, S.A., Plexousakis, D., van Harmelen, F. (eds.) ISWC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3298, pp. 683–697. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Levenshtein, I.V.: Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals. Cybernetics and Control Theory (1966)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cox, T., Cox, M.: Multidimensional Scaling. Chapman and Hall, Boca Raton (1994)MATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fluit, C., Sabou, M., van Harmelen, F.: Supporting user tasks through visualisation of lightweight ontologies. In: Staab, S., Studer, R. (eds.) Handbook on Ontologies in Information Systems. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gómez-Pérez, A., Fernández-López, M., Corcho, O.: Ontological Engineering. In: Advanced Information and Knowlege Processing. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pinto, S., Staab, S., Sure, Y., Tempich, C.: OntoEdit empowering SWAP: a case study in supporting DIstributed, Loosely-controlled and evolvInG Engineering of oNTologies (DILIGENT). In: Bussler, C.J., Davies, J., Fensel, D., Studer, R. (eds.) ESWS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3053, pp. 16–30. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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: Proc. of the 2002 WWWConference, Hawaii, USA, pp. 604–615 (2002)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schmücker, J., Müller, W.: Praxiserfahrungen bei der Einführung dezentraler Wissensmanagement Lösungen. Wirtschaftsinformatik 45, 307–311 (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christoph Tempich
    • 1
  • Marc Ehrig
    • 1
  • Christiaan Fluit
    • 2
  • Peter Haase
    • 1
  • Esteve Lladó Martí
    • 4
  • Michal Plechawski
    • 3
  • Steffen Staab
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute AIFBUniversity of KarlsruheKarlsruheGermany
  2. 2.AdunaAmersfoortThe Netherlands
  3. 3.EmpolisWarsawPoland
  4. 4.Fundación IBIT 

Personalised recommendations