Complete Semantics to Empower Touristic Service Providers

  • Zaenal Akbar
  • Elias Kärle
  • Oleksandra Panasiuk
  • Umutcan Şimşek
  • Ioan Toma
  • Dieter Fensel
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10574)

Abstract

The tourism industry has a significant impact on the world’s economy, contributes 10.2% of the world’s gross domestic product in 2016. It becomes a very competitive industry, where having a strong online presence is an essential aspect for business success. To achieve this goal, the proper usage of latest Web technologies, particularly schema.org annotations is crucial. In this paper, we present our effort to improve the online visibility of touristic service providers in the region of Tyrol, Austria, by creating and deploying a substantial amount of semantic annotations according to schema.org, a widely used vocabulary for structured data on the Web. We started our work from Tourismusverband (TVB) Mayrhofen-Hippach and all touristic service providers in the Mayrhofen-Hippach region and applied the same approach to other TVBs and regions, as well as other use cases. The rationale for doing this is straightforward. Having schema.org annotations enables search engines to understand the content better, and provide better results for end users, as well as enables various intelligent applications to utilize them. As a direct consequence, the region of Tyrol and its touristic service increase their online visibility and decrease the dependency on intermediaries, i.e. Online Travel Agency (OTA).

Keywords

Semantic annotations Schema.org Touristic service providers 

References

  1. 1.
    Ackstaller, D., Akbar, Z., Eppacher, D., Esswein, C., Holzknecht, O., Kärle, E., Kratzer, P., Simsek, U., Stock, J., Strickner, J., Targa, S., Ucar, S., Vieider, H., Winder, J.: Semantic annotation for mayrhofen.at. Technical report, Semantic Technology Institute (STI) Innsbruck, August 2016. http://oc.sti2.at/results/white-papers/semantic-annotation-mayrhofenat
  2. 2.
    Akbar, Z., García, J.M., Toma, I., Fensel, D.: On using semantically-aware rules for efficient online communication. In: Bikakis, A., Fodor, P., Roman, D. (eds.) RuleML 2014. LNCS, vol. 8620, pp. 37–51. Springer, Cham (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-09870-8_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Akbar, Z., Toma, I.: Feratel content annotation with schema.org. Technical report, Semantic Technology Institute (STI) Innsbruck, February 2015. http://oc.sti2.at/results/white-papers/feratel-content-annotation-schemaorg
  4. 4.
    Auer, S., Dietzold, S., Lehmann, J., Hellmann, S., Aumueller, D.: Triplify: light-weight linked data publication from relational databases, WWW 2009, pp. 621–630. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bizer, C.: D2RQ - treating Non-RDF databases as virtual RDF graphs. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2004) (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bizer, C., Eckert, K., Meusel, R., Mühleisen, H., Schuhmacher, M., Völker, J.: Deployment of RDFa, microdata, and microformats on the web – a quantitative analysis. In: Alani, H., Kagal, L., Fokoue, A., Groth, P., Biemann, C., Parreira, J.X., Aroyo, L., Noy, N., Welty, C., Janowicz, K. (eds.) ISWC 2013. LNCS, vol. 8219, pp. 17–32. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-41338-4_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Şimşek, U., Kärle, E., Holzknecht, O., Fensel, D.: Domain specific semantic validation of schema.org annotations. In: Ershov, A.P. (ed.) Informatics Conference. Springer (2017, to appear)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dimou, A., Vander Sande, M., Colpaert, P., Verborgh, R., Mannens, E., Van de Walle, R.: RML: a generic language for integrated RDF mappings of heterogeneous data. In: Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Linked Data on the Web, April 2014Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ebner, C.: Deskline 3.0 standard interface (DSI) documentation (2016), ver. 1.0.67, 28 June 2016Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fensel, A., Akbar, Z., Toma, I., Fensel, D.: Bringing online visibility to hotels with Schema.org and multi-channel communication. In: Inversini, A., Schegg, R. (eds.) Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2016, pp. 3–16. Springer, Cham (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-28231-2_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goel, K., Guha, R.V., Othar, H.: Introducing Rich Snippets (2009). https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2009/05/introducing-rich-snippets.html
  12. 12.
    Guha, R.V., Brickley, D., Macbeth, S.: Schema.org: evolution of structured data on the web. Commun. ACM 59(2), 44–51 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gupta, D.D., Utkarsh: Assessing the website effectiveness of top ten tourist attracting nations. Inf. Technol. Tourism 14(2), 151–175 (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hepp, M., Siorpaes, K., Bachlechner, D.: Towards the semantic web in e-tourism: can annotation do the trick? In: Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Information System (ECIS 2006), pp. 2362–2373 (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kärle, E., Fensel, A., Toma, I., Fensel, D.: Why are there more hotels in Tyrol than in Austria? Analyzing Schema.org usage in the hotel domain. In: Inversini, A., Schegg, R. (eds.) Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2016, pp. 99–112. Springer, Cham (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-28231-2_8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kärle, E., Simsek, U., Akbar, Z., Hepp, M., Fensel, D.: Extending the Schema.org vocabulary for more expressive accommodation annotations. In: Schegg, R., Stangl, B. (eds.) Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2017, pp. 31–41. Springer, Cham (2017). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-51168-9_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Khalili, A., Auer, S.: User interfaces for semantic authoring of textual content: a systematic literature review. Web Semant. Sci. Serv. Agents World Wide Web 22, 1–18 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Maedche, A., Staab, S.: Applying semantic web technologies for tourism information systems. In: Wöber, K., Frew, A., Hitz, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 9th International Conference for Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism, ENTER 2002, Innsbruck, Austria, 22–25th January 2002. Springer, Vienna (2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mich, L.: The website quality of the regional tourist boards in the Alps: ten years later. In: Xiang, Z., Tussyadiah, I. (eds.) Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2014, pp. 651–663. Springer, Cham (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-03973-2_47 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stavrakantonakis, I., Toma, I., Fensel, A., Fensel, D.: Hotel websites, Web 2.0, Web 3.0 and online direct marketing: the case of Austria. In: Xiang, Z., Tussyadiah, I. (eds.) Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2014, pp. 665–677. Springer, Cham (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-03973-2_48 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Werthner, H., Alzua-Sorzabal, A., Cantoni, L., Dickinger, A., Gretzel, U., Jannach, D., Neidhardt, J., Pröll, B., Ricci, F., Scaglione, M., Stangl, B., Stock, O., Zanker, M.: Future research issues in IT and tourism. Inf. Technol. Tourism 15(1), 1–15 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zaenal Akbar
    • 1
  • Elias Kärle
    • 1
  • Oleksandra Panasiuk
    • 1
  • Umutcan Şimşek
    • 1
  • Ioan Toma
    • 1
  • Dieter Fensel
    • 1
  1. 1.Semantic Technology Institute (STI) InnsbruckUniversity of InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria

Personalised recommendations