Semantic Web

  • Sven GroppeEmail author


The Semantic Web provides languages to define data, queries, ontologies, and rules. This chapter introduces them after a short motivation and overview of the Semantic Web.


Resource Description Framework Query Result Boolean Formula SPARQL Query Triple Pattern 
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.


  1. Adida, B., Birbeck, M. (eds): RDFa primer – bridging the human and data webs, W3C Working Group Note., 14 October 2008
  2. Alvestrand, H.: RFC 3066 - Tags for the identification of languages, IETF, (2001)
  3. Auer, S., et al.: Dbpedia: a nucleus for a web of open data. In: ISWC/ASWC (2007)Google Scholar
  4. Avgustinov, P., Hajiyev, E., Ongkingco, N., Demoor, O., Sereni, D., Tibble, J., Verbaere, M.: Semantics of static pointcuts in AspectJ. In: Proceedings of the 34th Annual ACM SIGPLANSIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL’07). ACM Press, New York, pp. 11–23 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D.L., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F. (eds.): Description logic handbook: theory, implementation, and applications, 2nd edn. Cambridge, The University Press, Cambridge (2007)Google Scholar
  6. Bancilhon, F., Maier, D., Sagiv, Y., Ullman, J.D.: Magic sets and other strange ways to implement logic programs (extended abstract). In: Proceedings of the fifth ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD symposium on Principles of Database Systems. Cambridge, Massachusetts (1986)Google Scholar
  7. Bancilhon, F., Ramakrishnan, R.: An amateur’s introduction to recursive query processing of strategies. In: Proceedings of the ACM-SIGMOD International Conference on Management Data. ACM, New York (1986)Google Scholar
  8. Beckett, D. (ed): RDF/XML syntax specification (Revised), W3C Recommendation, 10th February 2004Google Scholar
  9. Beckett, D.: Turtle – terse RDF triple language. (2006)
  10. Beckett, D., Broekstra, J., (eds): SPARQL query results XML format, W3C Recommendation. 15 January 2008, (2008)
  11. Beeri, C., Ramakrishnan, R.: On the power of magic. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGACTSIGMOD Symposium on Principles of Database Systems. ACM, New York, pp. 269–283 (1987)Google Scholar
  12. Berners-Lee, T.: N3QL – RDF data query language, W3C, July 2004. (2004)
  13. Berners-Lee, T.: Notation 3 – An RDF language for the semantic web. W3C. (1998)
  14. Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., Masinter, L.: Uniform resource identifiers (URI): Generic syntax, RFC 2396 (1998)Google Scholar
  15. Boley, H.: RIF RuleML Rosetta Ring: Round-Tripping the Dlex Subset of Datalog RuleML and RIF-Core, Rule Interchange and Applications, International Symposium, RuleML 2009. Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, November 5–7 (2009)Google Scholar
  16. Boley, H., Kifer M., (eds): RIF Basic Logic Dialect, W3C candidate recommendation, 1 October 2009. (2009)
  17. Boley, H., Hallmark, G., Kifer, M., Paschke A., Polleres A., Reynolds D., (eds.): RIF Core Dialect, W3C Candidate Recommendation, 1 October 2009. (2009)
  18. Bost, T., Bonnard, P.: Mark proctor: implementation of production rules for a RIF dialect: A MISMO proof-of-concept for loan rates. International Symposium on Advances in Rule Interchange and Applications (RuleML), Orlando, Florida (2007)Google Scholar
  19. Brickley, D., Guha, D.V.: RDF vocabulary description language 1.0: RDF Schema, W3C Recommendation, (2004)
  20. Broekstra, J., Kampman A.: SeRQL: A second generation RDF Query language. User manual, Aduna, 2003. (2003)
  21. Broekstra, J., Kampman, A., van Harmelen, F.: Sesame: A generic architecture for storing and querying RDF and RDF schema. In: International Semantic Web Conference 2002, Chia, Sardinai, Italy (2002)Google Scholar
  22. Chen, W., Warren, D.S.: Tabled evaluation with delaying for general logic programs. J ACM 43(1), 20–74 (1996)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Chinnici, R., Moreau, J.-J., Ryman, A., Weerawarana, S.: Web Services Description Language (WSDL) Version 2.0 Part 1: Core Language, W3C Recommendation., 26 June 2007
  24. Clark, K.G. (ed): SPARQL protocol for RDF, W3C Recommendation, 15 January 2008. (2008)
  25. de Bruijn, J.: RIF RDF and OWL Compatibility, W3C Candidate Recommendation 1 October 2009. (2009)
  26. de Kunder, M.: The size of the World Wide Web, (2010)
  27. de Sainte Marie C.: A modest proposal to enable RIF dialects with limited forward compatibility. Rule interchange and applications. In: International Symposium, RuleML 2009, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, November 5–7 (2009)Google Scholar
  28. de Sainte Marie, C.; Paschke, A., Hallmark, G., (eds): RIF production rule dialect. W3C candidate recommendation, 1 October 2009.
  29. de Sainte Marie, C.: W3C rule interchange format – The production rule dialect, tutorial at RuleML, slides available at (2008)
  30. Dean, M., Schreiber, G. (Eds): OWL Web Ontology Language Reference, W3C Recommendation, 10 February 2004, (2004)
  31. Dürst, M., Suignard, M.: Internationalized resource identifiers (IRIs),, W3C Memo (2005)
  32. Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Krennwallner, T., Polleres, A.: Rules and ontologies for the Semantic Web, Reasoning Web 2008, LNCS 5224, pp. 1–53 (2008)Google Scholar
  33. Faber, W., Greco, G., Leone, N.: Magic sets and their application to data integration. In: 10th International Conference of Database Theory (ICDT). Edinburgh, UK (2005)Google Scholar
  34. Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: The stable model semantics for logic programming. In: Logic Programming: Proceedings of the Fifth Conference and Symposium. pp. 1070–1080. (1988)Google Scholar
  35. Gordon T.F.: Guido Governatori, and Antonino Rotolo, Rules and Norms: Requirements for rule interchange languages in the legal domain. Rule Interchange and Applications, International Symposium, RuleML 2009. Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, November 5–7 (2009)Google Scholar
  36. Grant, J., Beckett, D. (eds): RDF Test Cases, W3C Recommendation,, 10th February 2004
  37. Guha, R., McCool, R.: TAP: A semantic web test-bed. Journal of Web Semantics, vol. 1, Issue 1, December (2003)Google Scholar
  38. Guha, R.V., McCool, R., Fikes, R.: Contexts for the Semantic Web. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Semantic Web Conference, Hiroshima, Japan, November (2004)Google Scholar
  39. Hallmark, G., de Sainte Marie, C., Del Fabro, M.D., Albert, P., Paschke, A.: Please pass the rules: A rule interchange demonstration. In: International Symposium on Rule Interchange and Applications (RuleML). Orlando, FL, USA (2008)Google Scholar
  40. Harth, A., Decker, S.: Optimized index structure for querying RDF from the web. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Latin American Web Congress (LA-WEB), Buenos Aires, Argentina (2005)Google Scholar
  41. Hawke, S.: RIF: bringing order to chaos, keynote at RuleML, slides. (2009)
  42. Hayes, P.: RDF Semantics, W3C Recommendation, 10th February 2004,
  43. Henschen, L.J., Naqvi, S.A.: Compiling queries in relational first-order databases. J ACM 31(1), 47–85 (1984)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. IBM, IBM RIF Demo, International Symposium on Rule Interchange and Applications (RuleML), Orlando, FL, USA (2008)Google Scholar
  45. Kiefer, M.: Rule interchange format: The framework, Joint Keynote between RR2008 and RuleML-2008, slides available at (2008)
  46. Kifer, M., Lozinskii, E.L.: On compile-time query optimization in deductive databases by means of static filtering. ACM Trans Datab Syst 15(3), 385–426 (1990)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kjernsmo, K., Passant, A.: SPARQL new features and rationale, W3C Working Draft 2 July 2009. Available at
  48. Lam, M.S., Whaley, J., Livshits, V.B., Martin, M.C., Avots, D., Carbin, M., Unkel, C.: Context-sensitive program analysis as database queries. In: Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS’05). ACM, New York, pp. 1–12. (2005)Google Scholar
  49. Lisi, F.A.: Building rules on top of ontologies for the semantic web with inductive logic programming. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP) 8(3), 271–300 (2008)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  50. Liu, Y.A., Stoller, S.D.: From datalog rules to efficient programs with time and space guarantees. ACM Trans Program Lang Syst 31(6) (2009)Google Scholar
  51. MacGregor, R.M., Ko, I.-Y.: Representing contextualized data using semantic web tools. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Practical and Scalable Semantic Systems. Sanibel Island, FL, USA, October (2003)Google Scholar
  52. Malhotra, A., Melton, J., Walsh, N., (eds): XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 Functions and Operators, W3C Recommendation, 23 January (2007)Google Scholar
  53. McBride, B.: Jena: A semantic web toolkit. IEEE Internet Computing 6(6), 55–59 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. McKay, D.P., Shapiro, S.C.: Using active connection graphs for reasoning with recursive rules. In: International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. pp. 368–374. (1981)Google Scholar
  55. Miller, L., Seaborne, A., Reggiori, A.: Three implementations of SquishQL, a simple RDF query language, ISWC2002, Chia, Sardinai, Italy (2002)Google Scholar
  56. Motik, B., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Parsia, B.: OWL 2 Web ontology language structural specification and functional-style syntax, W3C Recommendation, 27 October 2009Google Scholar
  57. Peterson, D., Gao, S., Malhotra, A., Sperberg-McQueen, C.M., Thompson, H.S., (eds): W3C XML Schema Definition Language (XSD) 1.1 Part 2: Datatypes. W3C Candidate Recommendation., 30 April 2009. Latest version available as
  58. Prud’hommeaux, E., Seaborne, A.: SPARQL Query Language for RDF, W3C Recommendation, (2008)Google Scholar
  59. Sacca, D., Zaniolo, C.: On the implementation of the simple class of logic queries for databases. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD Symposium on Principles of Database Systems. ACM, New York, pp. 16–23. (1986)Google Scholar
  60. Seaborne, A.: RDQL – A query language for RDF. W3C Member Submission, W3C, 2004. Available at:
  61. Seaborne, A., Manjunath, G.: SPARQL/Update, A language for updating RDF graphs. (2008)
  62. Semantic web challenge 2010. Billion triples track.
  63. Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics, uniprot RDF, (2009)
  64. Tamaki, H., Sato, T.: OLD resolution with tabulation. In: Shapiro, E. (ed.) Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Logic Programming, pp. 84–98. Springer, Berlin (1986)Google Scholar
  65. van Assem, M., Gangemi, A., Schreiber, G.: RDF/OWL Representation of WordNet, W3C Working Draft, 2006.
  66. van Gelder, A., Ross, K.A., Schlipf, J.S.: The well-founded semantics for general logic programs. J ACM 38(3), 620–650 (1991)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  67. Wilkinson, K., Sayers, C., Kuno, H., Reynolds, D.: Efficient RDF Storage and Retrieval in Jena2. In: Workshop on Semantic Web and Databases. Berlin, Germany (2003)Google Scholar
  68. World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), XPath Version 2.0, W3C Recommendation. (2007)Google Scholar
  69. World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), XQuery 1.0: An XML Query Language, W3C Recommendation (2007)Google Scholar
  70. World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), XSL Transformations (XSLT) Version 2.0, W3C Recommendation, (2007)Google Scholar
  71. Zhao, J., Boley, H.: Uncertainty treatment in the rule interchange format: From encoding to extension. In: Fourth International Workshop on Uncertainty Reasoning for the Semantic Web. Karlsruhe, Germany (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Information SystemsUniversity of LübeckLübeckGermany

Personalised recommendations