Distributed Knowledge Representation on the Social Semantic Desktop: Named Graphs, Views and Roles in NRL
The vision of the Social Semantic Desktop defines a user’s personal information environment as a source and end-point of the Semantic Web: Knowledge workers comprehensively express their information and data with respect to their own conceptualizations. Semantic Web languages and protocols are used to formalize these conceptualizations and for coordinating local and global information access. From the way this vision is being pursued in the NEPOMUK project, we identified several requirements and research questions with respect to knowledge representation. In addition to the general question of the expressivity needed in such a scenario, two main challenges come into focus: i) How can we cope with the heterogeneity of knowledge models and ontologies, esp. multiple knowledge modules with potentially different interpretations? ii) How can we support the tailoring of ontologies towards different needs in various exploiting applications?
In this paper, we present NRL, an approach to these two question that is based on named graphs for the modularization aspect and a view concept for the tailoring of ontologies. This view concept turned out to be of additional value, as it also provides a mechanism to impose different semantics on the same syntactical structure.
We think that the elements of our approach are not only adequate for the semantic desktop scenario, but are also of importance as building blocks for the general Semantic Web.
KeywordsSemantic View Graph View View Concept Declarative Semantic Procedural Semantic
- 1.Bechhofer, S., van Harmelen, F., Hendler, J., Horrocks, I., McGuinnes, D., Patel-Schneider, P., Stein, L.: OWL web ontology language reference (2004)Google Scholar
- 2.Beckett, D.: RDF/XML syntax specification (revised). W3C recommendation, W3C (February 2004), http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/
- 3.Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., Lassila, O.: The semantic web. Scientific American 89 (2001)Google Scholar
- 4.Brickley, D., Guha, R.: RDF vocabulary description language 1.0: RDF Schema. Technical report, W3C (February 2004), http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/
- 6.Decker, S., Frank, M.: The social semantic desktop. In: Proc. of the WWW2004 Workshop Application Design, Development and Implementation Issues in the Semantic Web (2004), http://www.deri.at/publications/techpapers/documents/DERI-TR-2004-05-02.pdf
- 7.Hayes, P.: RDF semantics. W3C recommendation, W3C (February 2004), http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/
- 8.Manola, F., Miller, E.: RDF primer. W3C recommendation, W3C (February 2004), http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/
- 9.Prud’hommeaux, E., Seaborne, A.: SPARQL query language for RDF. W3C working draft, W3C (2005), http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/
- 10.Sauermann, L., Dengel, A., Elst, L., Lauer, A., Maus, H., Schwarz, S.: Personalization in the EPOS project. In: Bouzid, M., Henze, N. (eds.) Proceedings of the International Workshop on Semantic Web Personalization, Budva, Montenegro, June 12, 2006, pp. 42–52 (2006)Google Scholar
- 12.van Elst, L., Dignum, V., Abecker, A.: Towards agent-mediated knowledge management. In: van Elst, L., Dignum, V., Abecker, A. (eds.) AMKM 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2926, pp. 1–30. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar