Domain Specific Semantic Validation of Annotations

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10742)


Since its unveiling in 2011, has become the de facto standard for publishing semantically described structured data on the web, typically in the form of web page annotations. The increasing adoption of facilitates the growth of the web of data, as well as the development of automated agents that operate on this data. is a large heterogeneous vocabulary that covers many domains. This is obviously not a bug, but a feature, since aims to describe almost everything on the web, and the web is huge. However, the heterogeneity of may cause a side effect, which is the challenge of picking the right classes and properties for an annotation in a certain domain, as well as keeping the annotation semantically consistent. In this work, we introduce our rule based approach and an implementation of it for validating annotations from two aspects: (a) the completeness of the annotations in terms of a specified domain, (b) the semantic consistency of the values based on pre-defined rules. We demonstrate our approach in the tourism domain.


Rule-based systems Semantic validation 


  1. 1.
    Fürber, C., Hepp, M.: Using SPARQL and SPIN for data quality management on the semantic web. In: Abramowicz, W., Tolksdorf, R. (eds.) BIS 2010. LNBIP, vol. 47, pp. 35–46. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Guha, R.V., Brickley, D., Macbeth, S.: evolution of structured data on the web. Commun. ACM 59(2), 44–51 (2016). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kärle, E., Fensel, A., Toma, I., Fensel, D.: Why are there more hotels in Tyrol than in Austria? Analyzing usage in the hotel domain. In: Inversini, A., Schegg, R. (eds.) Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2016, pp. 99–112. Springer, Cham (2016). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kärle, E., Simsek, U., Akbar, Z., Hepp, M., Fensel, D.: Extending the 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). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Khalili, A., Auer, S.: WYSIWYM authoring of structured content based on In: Lin, X., Manolopoulos, Y., Srivastava, D., Huang, G. (eds.) WISE 2013. LNCS, vol. 8181, pp. 425–438. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Knublauch, H., Kontokostas, D.: Shapes constraint language (2016).
  7. 7.
    Le Hors, A., Solbrig, H., Prudhommeaux, E.: RDF validation workshop report, practical assurances for quality RDF data. Technical rep., Cambridge, MA, USA (2013).
  8. 8.
    Meusel, R., Bizer, C., Paulheim, H.: A web-scale study of the adoption and evolution of the vocabulary over time. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Web Intelligence, Mining and Semantics, WIMS 2015, pp. 15:1–15:11. ACM, New York (2015).
  9. 9.
    Patel-Schneider, P.F.: Analyzing In: Mika, P., et al. (eds.) ISWC 2014. LNCS, vol. 8796, pp. 261–276. Springer, Cham (2014). Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Prud’hommeaux, E., Labra Gayo, J.E., Solbrig, H.: Shape expressions: an RDF validation and transformation language. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Semantic Systems - SEM 2014, pp. 32–40 (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Simister, S., Brickley, D.: Simple application-specific constraints for RDF models. In: RDF Validation Workshop. Practical Assurances for Quality of RDF Data, Cambridge, MA, Boston, pp. 1–5 (2013).

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.STI InnsbruckUniversity of InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria

Personalised recommendations