On the Emergent Semantic Web and Overlooked Issues

  • Yannis Kalfoglou
  • Harith Alani
  • Marco Schorlemmer
  • Chris Walton
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3298)


The emergent Semantic Web, despite being in its infancy, has already received a lot of attention from academia and industry. This resulted in an abundance of prototype systems and discussion most of which are centred around the underlying infrastructure. However, when we critically review the work done to date we realise that there is little discussion with respect to the vision of the Semantic Web. In particular, there is an observed dearth of discussion on how to deliver knowledge sharing in an environment such as the Semantic Web in effective and efficient manners. There are a lot of overlooked issues, associated with agents and trust to hidden assumptions made with respect to knowledge representation and robust reasoning in a distributed environment. These issues could potentially hinder further development if not considered at the early stages of designing Semantic Web systems. In this perspectives’ paper, we aim to help engineers and practitioners of the Semantic Web by raising awareness of these issues.


Knowledge Representation Resource Description Framework Trust Management Dialogue Protocol Semantic Interoperability 
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.
    Alani, H., Dasmahapatra, S., Gibbins, N., Glasser, H., Harris, S., Kalfoglou, Y., O’Hara, K., Shadbolt, N.: Managing reference: Ensuring Referential Integrity of Ontologies for the Semantic Web. In: Gómez-Pérez, A., Benjamins, V.R. (eds.) EKAW 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2473, pp. 317–334. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Pater-Schneider, P.: The Description Logic Handbook. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barwise, J., Seligman, J.: Information Flow. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1997)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berners Lee, T.: What the SemanticWeb can represent. Web design Issues (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., Lassila, O.: The Semantic Web. Scientific American (May 2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bertino, E., Provetti, A., Salvetti, F.: Local Closed-World assumptions for reasoning about Semantic Web data. In: Proc. of APPIA-GULP-PRODE Joint Conference on Declarative Programming, AGP 2003 (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Blumenthal, M., Clark, D.: Rethinking the Design of the Internet: The end-to-end arguments vs. the brave new world. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology (TOIT) 1(1), 70–109 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Corrêa da Silva, F., Vasconcelos, W., Robertson, D., Brilhante, V., de Melo, A., Finger, M., Agustí, J.: On the insufficiency of ontologies: Problems in knowledge sharing and alternative solutions. Knowledge Based Systems 15(3), 147–167 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    da Silva, F., Agustí, J.: Knowledge Coordination. John Wiley and Sons Ltd, Chichester (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Decker, S., Erdmann, M., Fensel, D., Studer, R.: Ontobroker: Ontology Based Access to Distributed and Semi-Structured Information. In: Proc. of DS-8, Semantic Issues in Multimedia Systems, pp. 351–369 (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Devlin, K.: Logic and Information. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1991)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dimitrakos, T., Bicarregui, J.: Towards a Framework for Managing Trust in e-services. In: Proc. of 4th Int. Conf. on Electronic Commerce Research, pp. 360–381 (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ding, L., Zhou, L., Finin, T.: Trust based Knowledge Outsourcing for Semantic Web agents. In: Proc. of 2nd International Conference on Web Intelligence (WI 2003) (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dzbor, M., Domingue, J., Motta, E.: Magpie—Towards a SemanticWeb browser. In: Proc. of 2nd International Conference on the Semantic Web (ISWC 2003), pp. 690–705 (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Farrugia, J.: Logical Systems: Towards protocols for Web-based meaning negotiation. In: Proc. of AAAI 2002 Workshop on Meaning Negotiation, pp. 56–59 (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Finin, T., Joshi, A.: Agents, Trust, and Information access on the SemanticWeb. Technical report, SIGMOD Record, vol 31(4) (December 2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Flores, R.A., Kremer, R.C.: Bringing Coherence to Agent Conversations. In: Wooldridge, M.J., Weiß, G., Ciancarini, P. (eds.) AOSE 2001. LNCS, vol. 2222, pp. 50–67. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gil, Y., Ratnakar, V.: Trusting Information sources: One citizen at a time. In: Horrocks, I., Hendler, J. (eds.) ISWC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2342, pp. 162–177. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Giorgini, P., Massaci, F., Mylopoulos, J., Zannone, N.: Requirements engineering meets trust management: model, methodology, and reasoning. In: Proc. of 2nd Int. Conf. on Trust Management ( iTrust 2004) (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Golbeck, J., Parsia, B., Hendler, J.: Trust networks on the Semantic Web. In: Proc. of 7th Int. Workshop on Cooperative Information Agents (CIA 2003) (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Golden, K., Etzioni, O., Weld, D.: Omnipresence without omnipresence. In: Proc. of 12th Nat. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 1994) (1994)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gray, E., Seigneur, J., Chen, Y., Jensen, C.: Trust propagation in small world. In: Proc. of 1st Int. Conf. on Trust Management (iTrust 2003) (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Burstein, M.: Ontology Mapping for Dynamic Service Invocation on the Semantic Web. In: Proc.of AAAI Sprimg Symposium on Semantic Web Services (2004)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Haustein, S., Pleumann, J.: Is participation in the SemanticWeb too difficult? In: Horrocks, I., Hendler, J. (eds.) ISWC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2342, pp. 448–454. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Heflin, J.: OWLWeb Ontology Language use cases and requirements. Technical report, W3C, 2004. W3C Recommendation—10 (February 2004)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Heflin, J., Munoz-Avila, H.: LCW-based agent planning for the SemanticWeb. In: Proc. of AAAI 2002 Workshop on Ontologies and the Semantic Web (WS-02-11) (2002)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kalfoglou, Y., Schorlemmer, M.: IF-MAP: an ontology mapping method based on Information Flow theory. In: Spaccapietra, S., March, S., Aberer, K. (eds.) Journal on Data Semantics I. LNCS, vol. 2800, pp. 98–127. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kalfoglou, Y., Schorlemmer, M.: Ontology mapping: the state of the art. The Knowledge Engineering Review 18(1), 1–31 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lassila, O., Swick, R.: Resource Description Framework(RDF) Model and Syntax Specification. W3C recommendation, W3C (February 1999)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Luqi, Cooke, D.: How to combine nonmonotonic logic and rapid prototyping to help maintain software. Int. J. of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering 5(1), 89–118 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Marsh, S.: Formalising trust as a computational concept. PhD thesis, University of Stirling (1994)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Matthews, B., Dimitrakos, T.: Deploying trust policies on the Semantic Web. In: Proc. of 2nd Int. Conf. on Trust Management (iTrust 2004) (2004)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Maximilien, M., Singh, P.: An ontology forWeb service ratings and reputations. In: Proc. of AAMAS 2003 Workshop on Ontologies in Agent Systems (OAS 2003)(2003)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    McBride, B.: Four steps towards the widespread adoption of the Semantic Web. In: Proc. of the 1st Int. Conf. on the Semantic Web (ISWC 2002), pp. 419–423 (2002)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: Games that agents play: A formal framework for dialogues between autonomous agents. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 11(3), 315–334 (2002)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    McGuinness, D., van Harmelen, F.: OWL Web Ontology Language. Technical report, W3C (2004)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Meseguer, J.: Formal Interoperability. In: Proc. of 5th Int. Symp. on Artificial Intelligence and Mathematics (1998)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Milgram, S.: The small world problem. Psychology Today, 60–67 (1967)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Milner, R.: Communication and Concurrency. Prentice Hall International, Englewood Cliffs (1989) ISBN: 0131150073zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mui, L., Mohtashemi, M., Halberstadt, A.: A computational model for trust and reputation. In: Proc. of 35th Hawaii Int. Conf. on System Sciences, HICSS-35 (2002)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Nwana, H.S.: Software Agents: An Overview. The Knowledge Engineering Review 11(3), 1–40 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Patel-Schneider, P., Fensel, D.: Layering the Semantic Web: Problems and directions. In: Horrocks, I., Hendler, J. (eds.) ISWC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2342, pp. 16–30. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Quan, D., Karger, D.: How to make a SemanticWeb browser. In: Proc. of 13th Int. World Wide Web Conf, WWW 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Reiter, R.: On Closed World databases. In: Proc. of 1978 ACM SIGMOD Int. Conf. on Management of Data (1978)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Resnick, P., Zeckhauser, R.: Trust among strangers in Internet transactions: Empirical analysis of eBay’s reputation system. Advances in Applied Mircroelectronics 11 (2002)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Richardson, M., Agrawal, R., Domingos, P.: Trust management for the Semantic Web. In: Fensel, D., Sycara, K., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) ISWC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2870, pp. 351–368. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Robertson, D.: A Lightweight Method for Coordination of Agent Oriented Web Services. In: Proc. of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Semantic Web Services (2004)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sowa, J.: Architectures for Intelligent Systems. IBM Systems Journal 41(3), 331–349 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Rodríguez, J.A., Martín, F.J., Noriega, P., Garcia, P., Sierra, C.: Towards a Formal Specification of Complex Social Structures in Multi-Agent Systems. In: Proc. of Collaboration between Human and Artificial Societies conference, pp. 284–300 (2000)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    van Harmelen, F.: How the Semantic Web will change KR: challenges and opportunities for a new research agenda. The Knowledge Engineering Review 17(1), 93–96 (2002)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Volz, R., Oberle, D., Staab, S., Motik, B.: KAON server: A Semantic Web management system. In: Proc. of the 12th Int. World Wide Web Conf, WWW 2003 (2003)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Walton, C.: Model Checking Multi-AgentWeb Services. In: Proc. of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Semantic Web Services (2004)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Walton, D.N., Krabbe, E.C.W.: Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. SUNY Press (1995)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Wooldridge, M.: Semantic issues in the verification of agent communication languages. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 3(1), 9–31 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Yu, B., Singh, M.: An evidential model of distributed reputation management. In: Alonso, E., Kudenko, D., Kazakov, D. (eds.) AAMAS 2000 and AAMAS 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2636, pp. 294–301. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yannis Kalfoglou
    • 1
  • Harith Alani
    • 1
  • Marco Schorlemmer
    • 2
  • Chris Walton
    • 3
  1. 1.Advanced Knowledge Technologies (AKT), School of Electronics and Computer ScienceUniversity of SouthamptonUK
  2. 2.Escola de Tecnologies d’Informació i ComunicacióUniversitat Internacional de CatalunyaSpain
  3. 3.Advanced Knowledge Technologies (AKT), CISA, School of InformaticsUniversity of EdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations