The Digital Publishing Revolution

  • Silvio Peroni
Part of the Law, Governance and Technology Series book series (LGTS, volume 15)


In this Chapter I discuss the theories and technologies that take part in today’s publishing revolution, a.k.a. semantic publishing. In particular, I introduce some of the most important research works on my primary fields of interest, namely markup models and languages to enhance published documents (e.g., legislative documents) semantically, and ontologies/metadata schema to describe such documents. Finally, after introducing some significant research areas in the semantic publishing domain, I conclude the chapter by listing events (i.e., projects, workshops, journal issues, competitions) that have characterised the initial development of the discipline of semantic publishing.


Markup Language Link Open Data Simple Knowledge Organization System Legal Ontology Markup Semantic 
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.


  1. Adida, B., M. Birbeck, S. McCarron, and S. Pemberton. 2013. RDFa core 1.1. 2nd ed. Syntax and processing rules for embedding RDF through attributes. W3C recommendation 22 August 2013. World Wide Web Consortium. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  2. Barabucci, G., L. Cervone, M. Palmirani, S. Peroni, and F. Vitali. 2009. Multi-layer markup and ontological structures in Akoma Ntoso. In Proceeding of the international workshop on AI approaches to the complexity of legal systems II (AICOL-II), lecture notes in computer science 6237 vols, ed. P. Casanovas, U. Pagallo, G. Sartor, and G. Ajani, 133-149. Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-16524-5_9.Google Scholar
  3. Barabucci, G., L. Cervone, A. Di Iorio, M. Palmirani, S. Peroni, and F. Vitali. 2010. Managing semantics in XML vocabularies: An experience in the legal and legislative domain. Proceedings of balisage: The markup conference 2009. Rockville: Mulberry Technologies, Inc. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  4. Barabucci, G., A. Di Iorio, F. Poggi, and F. Vitali. 2013. Integration of legal datasets: From meta-model to implementation. Proceedings of international conference on information integration and web-based applications and services (iiWAS2013), 585–594. New York: ACM. doi:10.1145/2539150.2539180.Google Scholar
  5. Beck, J. 2010. Report from the field: PubMed central, an XML-based archive of life sciences journal articles. Proceedings of the international symposium on XML for the long haul: Issues in the long-term preservation of XML. doi:10.4242/BalisageVol6.Beck01.Google Scholar
  6. Beckett, D. 2004. RDF/XML syntax specification (Revised). W3C recommendation, 10 February 2004. World Wide Web Consortium. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  7. Bjork, B., and T. Hedlund. 2009. Two scenarios for how scholarly publishers could change their business model to open access. Journal of Electronic Publishing 12 (1). doi:10.3998/3336451.0012.102.Google Scholar
  8. Boer, A., R. Hoekstra, and R. Winkels. 2002. METALex: Legislation in XML. In Proceedings of the 15th annual conference on legal knowledge and information systems (JURIX 2002), ed. T. Bench-Capon, A. Daskalopulu, and R. Winkels, 1–10. Amsterdam: IOS Press. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  9. Boer, A., R. Hoekstra, R. Winkels, T. Engers van, and F. Willaert. 2002. Proposal for a dutch legal XML standard. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Electronic Government (EGOV 2002), lecture notes in computer science. 2456 vols, ed. R. Traunmuller and K. Lenk, 142–149. Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/3-540-46138-8_22.Google Scholar
  10. Boer, A., R. Winkels, F. Vitali. 2007. Proposed XML standards for law: MetaLex and LKIF. In Proceedings of the 12th annual conference on legal knowledge and information systems (JURIX 2007), ed. A. R. Lodder and L. Mommers, 19–28. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  11. Boer, A., R. Winkels, F. Vitali. 2008. MetaLex XML and the legal knowledge interchange format. Computable models of the law, languages, dialogues, games, ontologies, lecture notes in computer science. 4884 vols, ed. P. Casanovas, G. Sartor, N. Casellas, and R. Rubino, 21–41. Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-85569-9_2.Google Scholar
  12. Breuker, J., A. Boer, R. Hoekstra, and K. van den Berg. 2006. Developing content for LKIF: Ontologies and frameworks for legal reasoning. Proceedings of the 19th annual conference on legal knowledge and information systems (JURIX 2006), ed. T. M. van Engers, 169–174. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  13. Brickley, D., and R. V. Guha. 2004. RDF vocabulary description language 1.0: RDF schema. W3C recommendation 10 February 2004. World Wide Web Consortium. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  14. Brickley, D., and L. Miller. 2010. FOAF vocabulary specification 0.98. Namespace document, 9 August 2010—Marco polo edition. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  15. Bromley, A. 1991. Policy statements on data management for global change research. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  16. Carlisle, D., P. Ion, and R. Miner. 2010. Mathematical markup language (MathML) version 3.0. W3C recommendation, 21 October 2010. World Wide Web Consortium. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  17. Carroll, J., and G. Klyne. 2004. Resource Description Framework (RDF): Concepts and abstract syntax. W3C recommendation, 10 February 2004. World Wide Web Consortium. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  18. Casanovas, P., N. Casellas, C. Tempich, D. Vrandecic,and R. Benjamins. 2007. OPJK and DILIGENT: Ontology modeling in a distributed environment. Artificial Intelligence and Law 15 (2): 171–186. doi:10.1007/s10506-007-9036-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Casellas, N. 2011. Legal ontology engineering. Law, governance and technology series 3. Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-1497-7.Google Scholar
  20. Ciccarese, P., and S. Peroni. 2013. The collections ontology: Creating and handling collections in OWL 2 DL frameworks. To appear in Semantic Web—Interoperability, Usability, Applicability. doi:10.3233/SW-130121.Google Scholar
  21. Ciccarese, P., E. Wu, J. Kinoshita, G. Wong, M. Ocana, A. Ruttenberg, and T. Clark. 2008. The SWAN biomedical discourse ontology. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 41 (5): 739–751. doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2008.04.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Clark, J. 2001. RELAX NG specification. Committee specification. Committee specification 3 December 2001. Organization for the advancement of structured information standards. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  23. Comité Européen de Normalisation. 2010. Metalex (Open XML interchange format for legal and legislative resources). CEN workshop agreement 15710:2010 (E). Brussels: Comité Européen de Normalisation. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  24. Connolly, D. 2007. Gleaning resource descriptions from dialects of languages (GRDDL). W3C recommendation 11 September 2007. World Wide Web Consortium. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  25. Coombs, J. H., A. H. Renear, and S. J DeRose. 1987. Markup systems and the future of scholarly text processing. Communications of the ACM 30 (11): 933–947. doi:10.1145/32206.32209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cunningham, H. 2002. GATE, a general architecture for text engineering. Computers and the Humanities, 36(2): 223–254. doi:10.1023/A:1014348124664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. D’Arcus, B., and F. Giasson. 2009. Bibliographic ontology specification. Specification document, 4 November 2009. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  28. Day, D. S., C. McHenry, R. Kozierok, and L. Riek. 2004. Callisto: A configurable annotation workbench. In Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2004), ed. M. T. Lino, M. F. Xavier, F. Ferreira, R. Costa, R. Silva, C. Pereira, and S. Barros, 2073–2076. Paris: European Language Resources Association. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  29. DeRose, S. 2004. Markup overlap: A review and a horse. Proceedings of the extreme markup languages 2004. Rockville: Mulberry Technologies, Inc. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  30. DeRose, S., E. Maler, and R. Daniel. 2001. XPointer xpointer scheme. W3C working draft, 19 December 2002. World Wide Web Consortium. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  31. Drummond, N., A. Rector, R. Stevens, G. Moulton, M. Horridge, H. H. Wang, and J. Seidenberg. 2006. Putting OWL in order: Patterns for sequences in OWL. In Proceedings of the workshop on OWL: Experiences and directions (OWLED 2006), CEUR workshop proceedings. 216 vos, ed. B. C. Grau, P. Hitzler, C. Shankey, and E. Wallace. Aachen: Accessed 30 July 2013.
  32. Dubin, D. 2003. Object mapping for markup semantics. Proceedings of the extreme markup languages 2003. Rockville: Mulberry Technologies, Inc. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  33. Dublin Core Metadata Initiative. 2008. Expressing dublin core metadata using HTML/XHTML meta and link elements. DCMI recommendation. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  34. Dublin Core Metadata Initiative. 2012a. DCMI metadata terms. DCMI recommendation. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  35. Dublin Core Metadata Initiative. 2012b. Dublin core metadata element set, Version 1.1. DCMI recommendation. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  36. Gangemi, A., and P. Mika. 2003. Understanding the semantic web through descriptions and situations. In Proceedings of the on the move confederated international conferences, CoopIS, DOA, and ODBASE 2003 (CoopIS/DOA/ODBASE 2003), lecture notes in computer science. 2888 vols, ed. R. Meersman, Z. Tari, and D. C. Schmidt, 689–706. Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-39964-3_44.Google Scholar
  37. Gangemi, A., M. T. Sagri, and D. Tiscornia. 2005. A constructive framework for legal ontologies. Law and the semantic web: Legal ontologies. Methodologies, legal information retrieval, and applications, lecture notes in computer science. 3369 vols, ed. V. R. Benjamins, P. Casanovas, J. Breuker, and A. Gangemi, 97–124. Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-32253-5_7.Google Scholar
  38. Gao, S., C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, and H. S Thompson. 2012. W3C XML schema definition language (XSD) 1.1 Part 1: Structures. W3C recommendation 5 April 2012. World Wide Web Consortium. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  39. Garcia, R., O. Celma. 2005. Semantic integration and retrieval of multimedia metadata. Proceedings of the 5th international workshop on knowledge markup and semantic annotation (SemAnnot 2005), CEUR workshop proceedings 185: 69–80. Aachen: Accessed 30 July 2013.
  40. Guittet, C. 1985. Formex: Formalized exchange of electronic publications. Luxembourg: office for official publications of the European communities. (ISBN: 978-9282553992).Google Scholar
  41. Hammond, T. 2008. RDF site summary 1.0 modules: PRISM. rss/modules/mod_prism.html. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  42. Harnad, S., and T. Brody. 2004. Comparing the impact of Open Access (OA) vs. Non-OA articles in the same journals. D-Lib Magazine 10 (6). doi:10.1045/june2004-harnad.Google Scholar
  43. Harnad, S., T. Brody, F. Vallieres, L. Carr, S. Hitchcock, Y. Gingras, C. Oppenheim, H. Stamerjohanns, and E. R Hilf. 2004. The access/impact problem and the green and gold roads to open access. Serials Review 30 (4): 310–314. doi:10.1016/j.serrev.2004.09.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hillmann, D., K. Coyle, J. Phipps, and G. Dunsire. 2010. RDA vocabularies: Process, outcome, use. D-Lib Magazine 16 (1/2). doi:10.1045/january2010-hillmann.Google Scholar
  45. Hobbs, J. R., and F. Pan. 2006. Time ontology in OWL. W3C working draft, 27 September 2006. World Wide Web Consortium. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  46. Hoekstra, R. 2011. The MetaLex document server—legal documents as versioned linked data. In Proceedings of the 10th international semantic web conference (ISCW 2011), Part II, lecture notes in computer science. 7032 vols, ed. L. Aroyo, C. Welty, H. Alani, J. Taylor, A. Bernstein, L. Kagal, N. F. Noy, and E. Blomqvist, 128–143. Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-25093-4_9.Google Scholar
  47. Huitfeldt, C., and C. M Sperberg-McQueen. 2003. TexMECS: An experimental markup metalanguage for complex documents. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  48. International Digital Enterprise Alliance. 2009. Publishing requirements for industry standard metadata specification version 2.0. Alexandria: IDEAlliance. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  49. International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records. 2009. Functional requirements for bibliographic records final report. International federation of library associations and institutions. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  50. JTC1/SC34 WG 6. 2006. ISO/IEC 26300:2006—Information technology—open document format for office applications (OpenDocument) v1.0. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization. detail.htm?csnumber=43485. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  51. Koutsomitropoulos, D. A., G. D. Solomou, and T. S Papatheodorou. 2008. Semantic interoperability of dublin core metadata in digital repositories. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Innovations in Information Technology (IIT 2008), 233–237. Washington: IEEE Computer Society. doi:10.1109/INNOVATIONS.2008.4781709.Google Scholar
  52. Krotzsch, M., F. Simancik, and I. Horrocks. 2011. A description logic primer. Ithaca: Cornell University Library. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  53. Lawrence, S. 2001. Free online availability substantially increases a paper’s impact. Nature 411 (6837): 52–1. doi:10.1038/35079151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Library of Congress-Network Development and MARK Standard Office. 2010. MARK 21 format for bibliographic data. 1999 edition, further updates October 2001 and October 2010. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  55. Lupo, C., F. Vitali, E. Francesconi, M. Palmirani, R. Winkels, E. de Maat, A. Boer, and P. Mascellani. 2007. General XML format(s) for legal sources. Deliverable 3.1 of the European project for standardised transparent representation in order to extende legal accessibility (ESTRELLA). EU IST-2004-027655. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  56. Marchetti, A., F. Megale, E. Seta, and F. Vitali. 2002. Using XML as a means to access legislative documents: Italian and foreign experiences. ACM SIGAPP Applied Computing Review 10 (1): 54–62. doi:10.1145/568235.568246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Marcoux, Y. 2006. A natural-language approach to modeling: Why is some XML so difficult to write? Proceedings of the extreme markup languages 2006. Rockville: Mulberry Technologies, Inc. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  58. Marcoux, Y. 2008. Graph characterization of overlap-only TexMECS and other overlapping markup formalisms. Proceedings of balisage: The markup conference 2008. Rockville: Mulberry Technologies, Inc. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  59. Marcoux, Y., and E. Rizkallah. 2009. Intertextual semantics: A semantics for information design. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60 (9): 1895–1906. doi:10.1002/asi.21134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Marinelli, P., F. Vitali, and S. Zacchiroli. 2008. Towards the unification of formats for overlapping markup. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia 14 (1): 57–94. doi:10.1080/13614560802316145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Miles, A., and S. Bechhofer. 2009. SKOS simple knowledge organization system reference. W3C recommendation 18 August 2009. World Wide Web Consortium. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  62. Montoya, E., M. Ruiz, and J. Giraldo. 2005. BDNG: A dublin core-based architecture for digital libraries. Proceedings of the international conference on dublin core and metadata applications 2005. Singapore: Dublin Core Metadata Initiative. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  63. Motik, B., P. F. Patel-Schneider, and B. Parsia. 2012. OWL 2 web ontology language: Structural specification and functional-style syntax (Second edition). W3C recommendation 11 December 2012. World Wide Web Consortium. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  64. Nuzzolese, A. G., A. Gangemi, and V. Presutti. 2010. Gathering lexical linked data and knowledge patterns from FrameNet. Proceedings of the 6th international conference on knowledge capture (K-CAP 2011), 41–48. New York: ACM. doi:10.1145/1999676.1999685.Google Scholar
  65. Odlyzko, A. 2002. The rapid evolution of scholarly communication. Learned Publishing 15 (1): 7–19. doi:10.1087/095315102753303634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Peroni, S., D. Shotton, and F. Vitali. 2012. Scholarly publishing and the linked data: Describing roles, statuses, temporal and contextual extents. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on semantic systems (I-SEMANTICS 2012), ed. H. Sack and T. Pellegrini, 9–16. New York: ACM. doi:10.1145/2362499.2362502.Google Scholar
  67. Peroni, S., D. Shotton, and F. Vitali. 2012. The live OWL documentation environment: A tool for the automatic generation of ontology documentation. In Proceedings of the 18th international conference on knowledge engineering and knowledge management (EKAW 2012), lecture notes in computer science. 7603 vols, ed. A. ten Teije, J. Völker, S. Handschuh, H. Stuckenschmidt, M. d’Aquin, A. Nikolov, N. Aussenac-Gilles, and N. Hernandez, 398–412. Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-33876-2_35.Google Scholar
  68. Petersen, K. E. 2005. Lex dania XML status April 2005. Proceedings of the third workshop on legislative XML: 13–19. Rome: Centro Nazionale per l’Informatica nella Pubblica Amministrazione. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  69. Petersen, K. E. 2011. Experiences with “Lex Dania Live”. From information to knowledge, frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications. 236 vols, ed. M. A. Biasiotti and S. Faro, 69–76. Amsterdam: IOS Press. doi:10.3233/978-1-60750-988-2-69.Google Scholar
  70. Portier, P., and S. Calabretto. 2009. Methodology for the construction of multi-structured documents. Proceedings of balisage: The markup conference 2009. Rockville: Mulberry Technologies, Inc. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  71. Renear, A., D. Dubin, and C. M Sperberg-McQueen. 2002. Towards a semantics for XML markup. Proceedings of the 2002 ACM symposium on Document Engineering (DocEng 2002), 119–126. New York: ACM. doi:10.1145/585058.585081.Google Scholar
  72. Renear, A., D. Dubin, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, and C. Huitfeldt. 2003. XML semantics and digital libraries. Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL 2003), 303–305. Washington: IEEE Computer Society. doi:10.1109/JCDL.2003.1204879.Google Scholar
  73. Riggs, K.R. 2002. XML and free text. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 53 (6): 526–528. doi:10.1002/asi.10063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. SC34/WG3. 2003. Topic Maps. ISO 13250. Geneva: International organization for standardization. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  75. Schmidt, D. 2009. Merging multi-version texts: A generic solution to the overlap problem. Proceedings of balisage: The markup conference 2009. Rockville: Mulberry Technologies, Inc. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  76. Schmidt, D., and R. Colomb. 2009.A data structure for representing multi-version texts online. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 67 (6): 497–514. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2009.02.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Schonefeld, O., and A. Witt. 2006. Towards validation of concurrent markup. Proceedings of the extreme markup languages 2006. Rockville: Mulberry Technologies, Inc. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  78. Shadbolt, N., K. O’Hara, T. Berners-Lee, N. Gibbins, H. Glaser, W. Hall, and M. C. Schraefel. 2012. Linked open government data: Lessons from IEEE Intelligent Systems 27 (3): 16–24. doi:10.1109/MIS.2012.23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Sheridan, J., and J. Tennison. 2010. Linking UK government data. In Proceedings of the Linked Data on the Web workshop (LDOW 2010), CEUR workshop proceedings. 628 vols, ed. C. Bizer, T. Heath, T. Berners-Lee, and M. Hausenblas. Aachen: Accessed 30 July 2013.
  80. Shotton, D. 2009. Semantic publishing: The coming revolution in scientific journal publishing. Learned Publishing 22 (2): 85–94. doi:10.1087/2009202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Shotton, D., K. Portwin, G. Klyne, and A. Miles. 2009. Adventures in semantic publishing: Exemplar semantic enhancements of a research article. PLoS Computational Biology 5 (4): e100036–1. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Simon, J., A. Birukou, F. Casati, R. Casati, and M. Marchese. 2011. Liquid publications green paper. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  83. Simons, G. F., W. D. Lewis, S. O. Farrar, D. T. Langendoen, B. Fitzsimons, and H. Gonzalez. 2004. The semantics of markup: Mapping legacy markup schemas to a common semantics. In Proceedings of the workshop on NLP and XML (NLPXML 2004), ed. N. Ide and L. Romary, 25–32. Stroudsburg: Association for Computational Linguistics. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  84. Solomon, J. S. 2008. Developing open access journals: A practical guide. Oxford: Chandos Publishing Limited. (ISBN: 1843343394).Google Scholar
  85. Sperberg-McQueen, C. M., and C. Huitfeldt. 2004. GODDAG: A data structure for overlapping hierarchies. In Proceeding of the 5th international workshop on the Principles of Digital Document Processing (PODDP 2000), lecture notes in computer science 2023, ed. P. R. King and E. V. Munson, 139–160. Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-39916-2_12.Google Scholar
  86. Sperberg-McQueen, C. M., C. Huitfeldt, and A. Renear. 2000. Meaning and interpretation of markup. Markup Languages: Theory and Practice 2 (3): 215–234. doi:10.1162/ 109966200750363599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Sperberg-McQueen, C. M., Y. Marcoux, and C. Huitfeldt. 2009. Two representations of the semantics of TEI lite. Proceedings of Digital Humanities 2010 (DH 2010). Accessed 30 July 2013.
  88. Styles, R., D. Ayers, and N. Shabir. 2008. Semantic marc, MARC21 and the semantic Web. In Proceedings of the WWW 2008 workshop on Linked Data on the Web (LDOW2008), CEUR workshop proceedings. 369 vols, ed. C. Bizer, T. Heath, K. Idehen, and T. Berners-Lee. Aachen: Accessed 30 July 2013.
  89. Swan, A. 2009. The open access citation advantages: Studies and results to date. Technical report, School of Electronics & Computer Science, University of Southampton. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  90. Tennison, J., and W. Piez. 2002. The Layered Markup and Annotation Language (LMNL). Presented at the extreme markup languages conference 2002. 4–9 August 2002, Montreal.Google Scholar
  91. Text Encoding Initiative Consortium. 2013. TEI P5: Guidelines for electronic text encoding and interchange. Charlottesville: TEI Consortium. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  92. Tummarello, G., C. Morbidoni, and E. Pierazzo. 2005. Toward textual encoding based on RDF. In Proceedings of the 9th ICCC international conference on Electronic Publishing (ELPUB2005), ed. M. Dobreva and J. Engelen. Leuven: Peeters Publishing Leuven. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  93. Van Deursen, D., C. Poppe, G. Martens, E. Mannens, R. Van de Walle. 2008. XML to RDF conversion: A generic approach. In Proceedings of the 4th international conference on automated solutions for cross media content and multi-channel distribution (AXMEDIS 08), ed. P. Nesi, J. Delgado, and K. Ng, 138–144. Washington: IEEE Computer Society. doi:10.1109/AXMEDIS.2008.17.Google Scholar
  94. van Hage W. R., V. Malaisé, R. Segers, L. Hollink, and G. Schreiber. 2011. Design and use of the simple event model (SEM). Journal of Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 9 (2): 128–136. doi:10.1016/j.websem.2011.03.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. van Laarschot R., W. van Steenbergen, H. Stuckenschmidt, A. R. Lodder, F. van Harmelen. 2005. The legal concepts and the Layman’s terms—bridging the gap through ontology-based reasoning about liability. In Proceedings of the 18th annual conference on legal knowledge and information systems (JURIX 2005), ed. M. Moens Katholieke, P. Spyns, 115–125. Amsterdam: IOS Press. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  96. W3C HTML Working Group. 2002. XHTML™ 1.0 The extensible hypertext markup language (Second edition). W3C recommendation, 1 August 2002. World Wide Web Consortium. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  97. Walsh, N. 2010. DocBook 5: The definitive guide. Sebastopol: O’Really Media. (Version 1.0.3. ISBN: 0596805029).Google Scholar
  98. Wyner, A., and R. Hoekstra. 2012. A legal case OWL ontology with an instantiation of Popov v. Hayashi. Artificial Intelligence and Law 20 (1): 83–107. doi:10.1007/s10506-012-9119-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Zhao, J. 2010. Open provenance model vocabulary specification. Revision 1. 0, 6 October 2010. Accessed 30 July 2013.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations