The SWAP Data and Metadata Model for Semantics-Based Peer-to-Peer Systems

  • Marc Ehrig
  • Peter Haase
  • Ronny Siebes
  • Steffen Staab
  • Heiner Stuckenschmidt
  • Rudi Studer
  • Christoph Tempich
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2831)

Abstract

Peer-to-Peer systems are a new paradigm for information sharing and some systems have successfully been deployed. It has been argued that current Peer-to-Peer systems suffer from the lack of semantics. The SWAP project (Semantic Web and Peer-to-Peer) aims at overcoming this problem by combining the Peer-to-Peer paradigm with Semantic Web technologies. In this paper, we propose a data model for encoding semantic information that combines features of ontologies (concept hierarchies, relational structures) with a flexible description and rating model that allows us to handle heterogeneous and even contradictory views on the domain of interest. We discuss the role of this model in the SWAP environment and describe the model as well as its application.

References

  1. 1.
    Kan, G.: Gnutella. In: Peer-to-Peer: Harnessing the Power of Disruptive Technologies, pp. 94–122. O’Reilly, Sebastopol (1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Traversat, B., Abdelaziz, M., Duigou, M., Hugly, J.C., Poulouy, E., Yeager, B.: Project JXTA Virtual Network. Technical report, Sun Microsystems Inc. (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gruber, T.R.: 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, Deventer, The Netherlands. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1993)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brickley, D., Guha, R.: RDF Vocabulary Description Language 1.0: RDF Schema (1999), http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/
  5. 5.
    Broekstra, J., Klein, M., Decker, S., Fensel, D., van Harmelen, F., Horrocks, I.: Enabling knowledge representation on the web by extending rdf schema. In: Proceedings of the Tenth World Wide Web conference WWW 10, Hong Kong (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Maedche, A., Staab, S.: Ontology learning for the semantic web. IEEE Intelligent Systems 16, 72–79 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rodríguez, M.A., Egenhofer, M.J.: Determining semantic similarity among entity classes from different ontologies. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 15, 442–465 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Levenshtein, I.V.: Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, andreversals. Cybernetics and Control Theory (1966)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Maedche, A., Motik, B., Silva, N., Volz, R.: Mafra - a mapping framework for distributed ontologies. In: Gómez-Pérez, A., Benjamins, V.R. (eds.) EKAW 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2473, p. 235. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dean, M., Connolly, D., van Harmelen, F., Hendler, J., Horrocks, I., McGuinness, D.L., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Stein, L.A.: Owl web ontology language 1.0 reference. Internet (2002), http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/
  11. 11.
    Siebes, R., van Harmelen, F.: Ranking agent statements for building evolving ontologies. In: Proceedings of the AAAI 2002 workshop on meaning negotiation, Alberta, Canada (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Resnik, P.: Semantic similarity in a taxonomy: An information-based measure and its application to problems of ambiguity in natural language. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 11, 95–130 (1999)MATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Page, L., Brin, S., Motwani, R., Winograd, T.: The pagerank citation ranking: Bringing order to the web. Technical report, Stanford Digital Library Technologies Project (1998)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    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: Proceedings to the Eleventh International World Wide Web Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nejdl, W., Wolpers, M., Siberski, W., Schmitz, C., Schlosser, M., Brunkhorst, I., Lser, A.: Super-peer-based routing and clustering strategies for rdf-based peerto- peer networks. In: Proceedings of the 12th International World Wide Web Conference, Budapest, Hungary (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bonifacio, M., Cuel, R., Mameli, G., Nori, M.: A peer-to-peer architecture for distributed knowledge management. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Multi-Agent Systems, Large Complex Systems, and E-Businesses MALCEB 2002, Erfurt, Germany (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Maedche, A.: Emergent semantics for ontologies – support by an explicit lexical layer and ontology learning. IEEE Intelligent Systems – Trends and Controversies 17, 78–86 (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Aberer, K., Cudré-Mauroux, P., Hauswirth, M.: The Chatty Web: Emergent Semantics Through Gossiping. In: Proceedings of the 12th International World Wide Web Conference, Budapest, Hungary (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ehrig, M., Schmitz, C., Staab, S., Tane, J., Tempich, C.: Towards evaluation of peer-to-peer-based distributed knowledge management systems. In: van Elst, L., Dignum, V., Abecker, A. (eds.) AMKM 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2926, pp. 73–88. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marc Ehrig
    • 2
  • Peter Haase
    • 2
  • Ronny Siebes
    • 1
  • Steffen Staab
    • 2
  • Heiner Stuckenschmidt
    • 1
  • Rudi Studer
    • 2
  • Christoph Tempich
    • 2
  1. 1.Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam 
  2. 2.Institute AIFBUniversity of KarlsruheKarlsruhe

Personalised recommendations