Emergent Semantics in Distributed Knowledge Management

  • Carola Aiello
  • Tiziana Catarci
  • Paolo Ceravolo
  • Ernesto Damiani
  • Monica Scannapieco
  • Marco Viviani
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 130)


Organizations and enterprises have developed complex data and information exchange systems that are now vital for their daily operations. Currently available systems, however, face a major challenge. On todays global information infrastructure, data semantics is more and more context- and time-dependent, and cannot be fixed once and for all at design time. Identifying emerging relationships among previously unrelated information items (e.g., during data interchange) may dramatically increase their business value. This chapter introduce and discuss the notion of Emergent Semantics (ES), where both the representation of semantics and the discovery of the proper interpretation of symbols are seen as the result of a selforganizing process performed by distributed agents, exchanging symbols and adaptively developing the proper interpretation via multi-party cooperation and conflict resolution. Emergent data semantics is dynamically dependent on the collective behaviour of large communities of agents, which may have different and even conflicting interests and agendas. This is a research paradigm interpreting semantics from a pragmatic prospective. The chapter introduce this notion providing a discussion on the principles, research area and current state of the art.


Query Processing Service Discovery Service Description Reputation System Semantic Interoperability 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aberer, K., Cudré-Mauroux, P., Hauswirth, M.: The Chatty Web: Emergent Semantics Through Gossiping. In: Proceedings of the 12th International World Wide Web Conference (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aberer, K., Mauroux, P.C., Ouksel, A.M., Catarci, T., Hacid, M.S., Illarramendi, A., Kashyap, V., Mecella, M., Mena, E., Neuhold, E.J.: Emergent semantics principles and issues. LNCS, pp. 25–38. Springer, Heidelberg (March 2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arenas, M., Kantere, V., Kementsietsidis, A., Kiringa, I., Miller, R.J., Mylopoulos, J.: The hyperion project: From data integration to data coordination. SIGMOD Record 32(3), 53–58 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Artz, D., Gil, Y.: A survey of trust in computer science and the semantic web. Journal ofWeb Semantics (to appear, 2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Batini, C., Scannapieco, M. (eds.): Data Quality: Concepts, Methodologies, and Techniques. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Batini, C., Scannapieco, M. (eds.): Data Quality: Concepts, Methodologies, and Techniques ch. 2. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Batini, C., Scannapieco, M. (eds.): Data Quality: Concepts, Methodologies, and Techniques ch. 5. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bonatti, P., Olmedilla, D.: Driving and monitoring provisional trust negotiation with metapolicies. In: POLICY 2005: Proceedings of the Sixth IEEE International Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks (POLICY 2005), pp. 14–23. IEEE Computer Society, Washington (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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 (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bouquet, P., Magnini, B., Serafini, L., Zanobini, S.: A sat-based algorithm for context matching. In: CONTEXT, pp. 66–79 (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bressan, S., Goh, C.H., Fynn, K., Jakobisiak, M., Hussein, K., Kon, H., Lee, T., Madnick, S., Pena, T., Qu, J., Shum, A., Siegel, M.: The Context Interchange Mediator Prototype. In: Proc. SIGMOD 1997, Tucson, AZ (1997)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brogi, A., Corfini, S., Popescu, R.: Flexible Matchmaking of Web Services Using DAML-S Ontologies. In: Proc. Forum of the Second Int. Conference on Service Oriented Computing (ICSOC 2004), New York City, NY, USA (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Calvanese, D., Damaggio, E., De Giacomo, G., Lenzerini, M., Rosati, R.: Semantic data integration in p2p systems. In: DBISP2P, pp. 77–90 (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lenzerini, M., Rosati, R.: Logical foundations of peer-to-peer data integration. In: PODS, pp. 241–251 (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Casati, F., Shan, M.-C., Georakopoulos, D.: The VLDB Journal: Special Issue on E-Services 10(1) (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Castano, S., Ferrara, A., Montanelli, S.: H-match: an algorithm for dynamically matching ontologies in peer-based systems. In: SWDB, pp. 231–250 (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Catarci, T., Lenzerini, M.: Representing and Using Interschema Knowledge in Cooperative Information Systems. Journal of Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems 2(4) (1993)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ceravolo, P., Damiani, E., Viviani, M.: Bottom-up extraction and trust-based refinement of ontology metadata. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 19(2), 149–163 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    The OWL Service Coalition. OWL-S 1.1 release (2004),
  20. 20.
    Corcho, Ó.: Ontology based document annotation: trends and open research problems. IJMSO 1(1), 47–57 (2006)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Crespo, A., Garcia-Molina, H.: Routing indices for peer-to-peer systems. In: ICDCS, pp. 23 (2002)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cudré-Mauroux, P., Aberer, K., Abdelmoty, A.I., Catarci, T., Damiani, E., Illaramendi, A., Jarrar, M., Meersman, R., Neuhold, E.J., Parent, C., Sattler, K.-U., Scannapieco, M., Spaccapietra, S., Spyns, P., Tré, G.D.: Viewpoints on Emergent Semantics. In: Spaccapietra, S., Aberer, K., Cudré-Mauroux, P. (eds.) Journal on Data Semantics VI. LNCS, vol. 4090, pp. 1–27. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cudre-Mauroux, P., Aberer, K., Feher, A.: Probabilistic message passing in peer data management systems. In: ICDE 2006: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE 2006), p. 41. IEEE Computer Society, Washington (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dean, M., Schreiber, G., Bechhofer, S., van Harmelen, F., Hendler, J., Horrocks, I., McGuinness, D.L., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Stein, L.A.: OWL Web Ontology Language W3C Recommendation (2004),
  25. 25.
    Do, H.H., Rahm, E.: Coma - a system for flexible combination of schema matching approaches. In: VLDB, pp. 610–621 (2002)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Doan, A., Domingos, P., Halevy, A.Y.: Reconciling schemas of disparate data sources: A machine-learning approach. In: SIGMOD Conference, pp. 509–520 (2001)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Doan, A., Madhavan, J., Dhamankar, R., Domingos, P., Halevy, A.Y.: Learning to match ontologies on the semantic web. VLDB J 12(4), 303–319 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    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 peerto- peer systems. In: Schillo, M., Klusch, M., Müller, J., Tianfield, H. (eds.) MATES 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2831, pp. 144–155. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ehrig, M., Schmitz, C., Staab, S., Tane, J., Tempich, C.: Towards evaluation of peer-to-peer-based distributed information management systems. In: van Elst, L., Dignum, V., Abecker, A. (eds.) AMKM 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2926, Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Esteem Team. Emergent Semantics and Cooperation in MultiKnowledge Environments: the ESTEEM Architecture. In: Proc. of the VLDB Int. Workshop on Semantic Data and Service Integration (SDSI 2007). Vienna, Austria (to appear, 2007)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fagin, R., Kolaitis, P.G., Miller, R.J., Popa, L.: Data exchange: Semantics and query answering. In: ICDT, pp. 207–224 (2003)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Falcone, R., Castelfranchi, C.: Social Trust: A Cognitive Approach. In: Trust and deception in virtual societies, pp. 55–90. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell (2001)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fan, W., Lu, H., Madnick, S., Cheungd, D.: Discovering and Reconciling Value Conflicts for Numerical Data Integration. Information Systems 26(8) (2001)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Fensel, D., Benjamins, V.R., Motta, E., Wielinga, B.: UPML: A Framework for Knowledge System Reuse. In: Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 1999), Stockholm, Sweden, pp. 16–23 (1999)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fensel, D., Bussler, C., Ding, Y., Omelayenko, B.: The Web Service Modeling Framework WSMF. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 1(2), 113–137 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gambetta, D.: Can we trust trust? In: Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, pp. 213–237. Basil Blackwell, Malden (1988)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    De Giacomo, G., Lembo, D., Lenzerini, M., Rosati, R.: On reconciling data exchange, data integration, and peer data management. In: PODS, pp. 133–142 (2007)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Giunchiglia, F., Shvaiko, P.: Semantic Matching. Knowledge engineering review 18(3), 265–280 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Grandison, T., Sloman, M.: A Survey of Trust in Internet Applications. IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials 3(4) (September 2000)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Griffiths, N.: Trust: Challenges and Opportunities. AgentLink News, AgentLink 19, 9–11 (2005)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Guha, R.V., McCool, R.: Tap: A semantic web testbed. J. Web Sem. 1(1), 81–87 (2003)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Halevy, A.Y., Ives, Z.G., Suciu, D., Tatarinov, I.: Schema mediation in peer data management systems. In: ICDE, p. 505 (2003)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hose, K., Klan, D., Sattler, K.-U.: Distributed data summaries for approximate query processing in pdms. In: IDEAS, pp. 37–44 (2006)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Jarke, M., Lenzerini, M., Vassiliou, Y., Vassiliadis, P. (eds.): Fundamentals of Data Warehouses. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Golbeck, J.H.J., Parsia, B.: Trust networks on the semantic web. In: Proceedings of Cooperative Information Agents 2003, August FebruaryJuly-FebruarySeptember (2003)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Jøosang, A., Ismail, R., Boyd, C.: A survey of trust and reputation systems for online service provision. Decis. Support Syst. 43(2), 618–644 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Jøosang, A., Knapskog, S.J.: A metric for trusted systems. In: Proceedings of the 21st NIST-NCSC National Information Systems Security Conference, pp. 16–29 (1998)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kashyap, V.: Trust, but verify: Emergence, trust, and quality in intelligent systems. IEEE Intelligent Systems 19(5) (2004)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Keller,U., Lausen, H., Roman, D.: Web Service Modeling Ontology (WSMO). WSMO Working Draft (2004),
  50. 50.
    Kementsietsidis, A.: Data sharing and querying for peer-to-peer data management systems. In: EDBT Workshops, pp. 177–186 (2004)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kementsietsidis, A., Arenas, M., Miller, R.J.: Mapping data in peer-to-peer systems: Semantics and algorithmic issues. In: SIGMOD Conference, pp. 325–336 (2003)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Madhavan, J., Bernstein, P.A., Domingos, P., Halevy, A.: Representing and Reasoning about Mappings between Domain Models. In: Proc. of the 18th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and 14th Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada (2002)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Manchala, D.W.: Trust metrics, models and protocols for electronic commerce transactions. In: ICDCS 1998: Proceedings of the The 18th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, p. 312. IEEE Computer Society, Washington (1998)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Mawlood-Yunis, A., Weiss, M., Santoro, N.: Issues for robust consensus building in p2p networks. In: OTM Workshops, vol. 2, pp. 1021–1027 (2006)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    McKnight, D.H., Chervany, N.L: The meanings of trust. Technical Report WP 96-04, University of Minnesota, Carlson School of Management (1996)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Mihaila, G., Raschid, L., Vidal, M.: Using Quality of Data Metadata for Source Selection and Ranking. In: Suciu, D., Vossen, G. (eds.) WebDB 2000. LNCS, vol. 1997, Springer, Heidelberg (2000)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Motta, E., Domingue, J., Cabral, L., Gaspari, M.: IRS-II: A Framework and Infrastructure for Semantic Web Services. In: Fensel, D., Sycara, K.P., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) ISWC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2870, pp. 306–318. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Motta, E., Domingue, J., Cabral, L., Gaspari, M.: METEOR-S Web Service Annotation Framework. In: Proc. of the 13th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2004), New York, NY, USA, pp. 553–562 (2004)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Mui, L., Mohtashemi, M., Halberstadt, A.: Notions of reputation in multi-agents systems: A review. In: Falcone, R., Barber, S., Korba, L., Singh, M.P. (eds.) AAMAS 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2631, pp. 280–287. ACM Press, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Olmedilla, D., Rana, O.F., Matthews, B., Nejdl, W.: Security and trust issues in semantic grids. In: Goble, C., Kesselman, C., Sure, Y. (eds.) Semantic Grid: The Convergence of Technologies, number 05271 in Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings. Internationales Begegnungs- und Forschungszentrum fuer Informatik (IBFI), Schloss Dagstuhl, Germany (2006)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Ooi, B.C., Shu, Y., Tan, K.-L.: Relational data sharing in peer-based data management systems. SIGMOD Rec. 32(3), 59–64 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Orlowska, E.: Kripke semantics for knowledge representation logics. Studia Logica, 25 (1990)Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Rabitti, F., Savino, P.: Querying semantic image databasesGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Rahm, E., Bernstein, P.A.: A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching. VLDB J. 10(4), 334–350 (2001)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Ramchurn, S.D., Huynh, D., Jennings, N.R.: Trust in multi-agent systems. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 19(1), 1–25 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Rasmusson, L., Jansson, S.: Simulated social control for secure internet commerce. In: NSPW 1996: Proceedings of the 1996 workshop on New security paradigms, pp. 18–25. ACM Press, New York (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Richardson, M., Agrawal, R., Domingos, P.: Trust Management for the Semantic Web. In: Fensel, D., Sycara, K.P., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) ISWC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2870, Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Sattler, K., Conrad, S., Saake, G.: Interactive Example- Driven Integration and Reconciliation for Accessing Database Integration. Information Systems 28 (2003)Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Scannapieco, M., Virgillito, A., Marchetti, C., Mecella, M., Baldoni, R.: The DaQuinCIS Architecture: a Platform for Exchanging and Improving Data Quality in Cooperative Information Systems. Information Systems 29(7), 551–582 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Shvaiko, P., Euzenat, J.: A Survey of Schema-based Matching Approaches. Journal on Data Semantics (JoDS) 4, 146–171 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Staab, S.: Emergent semantics. IEEE Intelligent Systems 17(1), 78–86 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Staab, S., Bhargava, B., Lilien, L., Rosenthal, A., Winslett, M., Sloman, M., Dillon, T.S., Chang, E., Hussain, F.K., Nejdl, W., Olmedilla, D., Kashyap, V.: The pudding of trust. IEEE Intelligent Systems 19(5), 74–88 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Wang, R.Y., Kon, H.B., Madnick, S.E.: Data Quality Requirements: Analysis and Modeling. In: Proc. ICDE 1993, Vienna, Austria (1993)Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Winskel, G.: The formal semantics of programming languages: An introduction. MIT Press, Cambridge (1993)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Yan, L.L., Ozsu, T.: Conflict Tolerant Queries in AURORA. In: Proc. CoopIS 1999, Edinburgh, UK (1999)Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Zeng, L., Benatallah, B., Dumas, M., Kalagnanam, J., Chang, H.: QoS-Aware Middleware for Web Services Composition. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 30(5), 311–327 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carola Aiello
    • 2
  • Tiziana Catarci
    • 2
  • Paolo Ceravolo
    • 1
  • Ernesto Damiani
    • 1
  • Monica Scannapieco
    • 2
  • Marco Viviani
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Tecnologie dell’InformazioneUniversità di MilanoCrema (CR)Italy
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Informatica e SistemisticaSapienza Università di RomaRomaItaly

Personalised recommendations