User Profiles and Matchmaking on Mobile Phones

  • Thomas Kleemann
  • Alex Sinner
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4369)


During the past few years mobile phones have become an ubiquitous companion. In parallel the semantic web provides enabling technologies to annotate and match information with a user’s interests. This paper presents a thorough definition of annotations and profiles. The optimizations of annotations and profiles make the mobile phone a first class participant of a semantic environment rather than a mere displaying client of services running elsewhere. The implementation of the system – including a first order model generating theorem prover and a description logic interface – renders the idea viable in the real world. The choosen solution even enables explanations within the matchmaking process. The profile does not have to leave the personal device and ensures privacy by doing so. An additionally benefit is the independence from communication with any reasoning backends.


Mobile Phone Mobile Device Description Logic Service Node Service Ontology 
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.
    Antoniou, G., van Harmelen, F.: Web ontology language: Owl. In: Staab, S., Studer, R. (eds.) Handbook on Ontologies in Information Systems. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D.L., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: The description logic handbook: theory, implementation, and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baader, F., Horrocks, I., Sattler, U.: Description logics as ontology languages for the semantic web (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baumgartner, P.: Hyper Tableaux — The Next Generation. Technical Report 32–97, Universität Koblenz-Landau (1997)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baumgartner, P., Furbach, U., Gross-Hardt, M., Kleemann, T.: Model based deduction for database schema reasoning. In: Biundo, S., Frühwirth, T., Palm, G. (eds.) KI 2004. LNCS, vol. 3238, pp. 168–182. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baumgartner, P., Furbach, U., Niemelä, I.: Hyper Tableaux. Technical Report 8–96, Universität Koblenz-Landau (1996)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boley, H., RuleML (2005),
  8. 8.
    Goré, R.P., Posegga, J., Slater, A., Vogt, H.: System description: card TAP: The first theorem prover on a smart card. In: Kirchner, C., Kirchner, H. (eds.) CADE 1998. LNCS, vol. 1421, pp. 47–50. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grosof, B.N., Horrocks, I., Volz, R., Decker, S.: Description logic programs: Combining logic programs with description logic. In: Proc. of the Twelfth International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2003), pp. 48–57. ACM Press, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haarslev, V., Möller, R.: Expressive ABox Reasoning with Number Restrictions, Role Hierarchies, and Transitively Closed Roles. In: KR 2000: Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 273–284. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Haarslev, V., Möller, R.: RACER system description. In: Goré, R.P., Leitsch, A., Nipkow, T. (eds.) IJCAR 2001. LNCS, vol. 2083, p. 701. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Horrocks, I.: The faCT system. In: de Swart, H. (ed.) TABLEAUX 1998. LNCS, vol. 1397, pp. 307–312. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Bechhofer, S., Tsarkov, D.: OWL rules: A proposal and prototype implementation. J. of Web Semantics 3(1), 23–40 (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kleemann, T.: Towards mobile reasoning. In: Proc. of the workshop on Knowledge Engineering and Software Engineering, Bremen (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kleemann, T.: Towards OWL reasoning with SWRL. In: Proc. of the Description Logic workshop, (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Li, L., Horrocks, I.: A software framework for matchmaking based on semantic web technology. In: Proceedings of the Twelfth International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2003), pp. 331–339. ACM Press, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Noia, T.D., Sciascio, E.D., Donini, F.M., Mongiello, M.: Abductive matchmaking using description logics. In: Proc. of IJCAI 2003, pp. 337–342 (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sinner, A., Kleemann, T.: Krhyper - in your pocket, system description. In: Nieuwenhuis, R. (ed.) CADE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3632, pp. 452–457. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sinner, A., Kleemann, T., von Hessling, A.: Semantic user profiles and their applications in a mobile environment. In: Proc. of Artificial Intelligence in Mobile Systems (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sutcliffe, G., Suttner, C.: The TPTP Problem Library: CNF Release v1.2.1. Journal of Automated Reasoning 21(2), 177–203 (1998)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Takahshi, H., Yoshie, O.: Ubiquitous maintenance - defining invocation of plant maintanance agents in real workspace by spatial programming. In: Seipel, D., Hanus, M., Geske, U., Bartenstein, O. (eds.) INAP/WLP 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3392. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Veit, D., Muller, J., Schneider, M., Fiehn, B.: Matchmaking for autonomous agents in electronic marketplaces. In: 5th international conference on Autonomous agents AGENTS 2001, pp. 65–66. ACM Press, New York (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wernhard, C.: System Description: KRHyper. Fachberichte Informatik 14–2003, Universität Koblenz-Landau (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Kleemann
  • Alex Sinner

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations