Advertisement

Checking Semantic Integrity Constraints on Integrated Web Documents

  • Franz Weitl
  • Burkhard Freitag
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3289)

Abstract

A conceptual framework for the specification and verification of constraints on the content and narrative structure of documents is proposed. As a specification formalism we define CTL \({_\mathcal {DL}}\) which is a new version of the temporal logic CTL extended with description logic concepts. In contrast to existing solutions our approach allows for the integration of ontologies to achieve interoperability and abstraction from implementation aspects of documents. This makes it specifically suitable for the integration of heterogenous and distributed information resources in the semantic web.

Keywords

Description Logic Semantic Model Domain Ontology Narrative Structure State Formula 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Artale, A., Franconi, E.: Temporal description logics. In: Vila, L., van Beek, P., Boddy, M., Fisher, M., Gabbay, D., Galton, A., Morris, R. (eds.) Handbook of Time and Temporal Reasoning in Artificial Intelligence, MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Artale, A., Franconi, E.: A survey of temporal extensions of description logics. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence (AMAI) 30(1-4), 171–210 (2001)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook - Theory, Implementation and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baader, F., Nutt, W.: Basic description logics. In: [3], ch.2, pp. 47–100 (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bloom, B.S., Engelhart, M.B., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., Krathwohl, D.R.: Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. The Classification of Educational Goals. In: Handbook, I. (ed).: Cognitive Domain. Longman, New York (1956)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Courtiat, J.-P., Santos, B.O.C.A.S., Lohr, C.: Experience with RT-LOTOS, a Temporal Extension of the LOTOS Formal Description Technique. Invited Paper in Computer Communications (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    de Alfaro, L.: Model checking the world wide web. In: Berry, G., Comon, H., Finkel, A. (eds.) CAV 2001. LNCS, vol. 2102, p. 337. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dong, J.: Model checking the composition of hypermedia design components. In: Proceedings of the 2000 conference of the Centre for Advanced Studies on Collaborative research, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, IBM Press (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Donini, F.M.: Complexity of reasoning. In: [3], ch. 3, pp. 101–141 (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dreyfus, H.L., Dreyfus, S.E.: Künstliche Intelligenz. Von den Grenzen der Denkmaschine und dem Wert der Intuition, Hamburg (1988)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Emerson, E.: Temporal and modal logic. In: van Leeuwen, J. (ed.) Handbook of theoretical Computer Science: Formal Models and Semantics, pp. 996–1072. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1990)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Handschuh, S., Staab, S., Ciravegna, F.: S-CREAM - Semi-automatic CREAtion of Metadata. In: Gómez-Pérez, A., Benjamins, V.R. (eds.) EKAW 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2473, p. 358. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hodkinson, I., Wolter, F., Zakharyaschev, M.: Decidable and undecidable fragments of first-order branching temporal logics. In: Proceedings of the 17th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS 2002), pp. 393–402 (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kohlhase, M.: OMDoc: Towards an Internet Standard for the Administration, Distribution and Teaching of mathematical Knowledge. In: Proceedings of Artificial Intelligence and Symbolic Computation. LNCS (LNAI), Springer, Heidelberg (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kozen, D.: Results on the propositional mu-calculus. Theoretical Computer Science 27, 333–355 (1983)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Krieg-Brückner, B., et al.: Multimedia instruction in safe and secure systems. In: Wirsing, M., Pattinson, D., Hennicker, R. (eds.) WADT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2755, pp. 82–117. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lucke, U., Tavangarian, D., Voigt, D.: Multidimensional Educational Multimedia with<ML >3. In: Proc. of the E-Learn Conference, Phoenix, Arizona, USA (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mukherjee, S., Yang, G., Ramakrishnan, I.V.: Automatic annotation of contentrich HTML documents: Structural and semantic analysis. In: Second International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC), Sanibel Island, Florida (October 2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Niles, I., Pease, A.: Towards a standard upper ontology. In: Welty, C., Smith, B. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS 2001), Ogunquit, Maine (2001)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Süß, C., Freitag, B.: LMML - the learning material markup language framework. In: International Worshop ICL, Villach, Austria (September 2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Santos, C.A.S., Courtiat, J.-P., Soares, L.F.G., De Souza, G.L.: Formal specification and verification of hypermedia documents based on the nested context model. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Multimedia Modeling (1998)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Santos, C.A.S., Sampaio, P.N.M., Courtiat, J.P.: Revisiting the concept of hypermedia document consistency. In: Proceedings of the seventh ACM international Conference on Multimedia (Part 2), Florida, United States, pp. 183–186. ACM Press, Orlando (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Santos, C.A.S., Soares, L.F.G., de Souza, G.L., Courtiat, J.-P.: Design methodology and formal validation of hypermedia documents. In: Proceedings of the sixth ACM international conference on Multimedia, pp. 39–48. ACM Press, Bristol (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stotts, D., Navon, J.: Model checking cobweb protocols for verification of HTML frames behavior. In: Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on World Wide Web, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, pp. 182–190. ACM Press, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stotts, P., Furuta, R., Ruiz, J.: Hyperdocuments as automata: Trace-based browsing property verification. In: Lucarella, D., Nanard, J., Nanard, M., Paolini, P. (eds.) Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Hypertext (ECHT 1992), pp. 272–281. ACM Press, New York (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stotts, P.D., Furuta, R., Cabarrus, C.R.: Hyperdocuments as automata: Verification of trace-based browsing properties by model checking. Information Systems 16(1), 1–30 (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Franz Weitl
    • 1
  • Burkhard Freitag
    • 1
  1. 1.University of PassauGermany

Personalised recommendations