Agreement Technologies and the Semantic Web

Part of the Law, Governance and Technology Series book series (LGTS, volume 8)


Here we discuss the relationship between Agreement Technologies and the Semantic Web, especially focusing on how Semantic Web standards play a role in the Agreement Technologies stack, but also issues related to Linked Data and the Web of Data. We start the chapter with an account of Semantic Web standards and ensue with the role they play in Agreement Technologies.


  1. Adida, B., M. Birbeck, S. McCarron, and S. Pemberton. 2008. RDFa in XHTML: Syntax and Processing. W3C Recommendation, W3C. Available at
  2. Angele, J., H. Boley, J. de Bruijn, D. Fensel, P. Hitzler, M. Kifer, R. Krummenacher, H. Lausen, A. Polleres, and R. Studer. 2005. Web Rule Language (WRL). W3C Member Submission.
  3. Angles, R., and C. Gutierrez. 2008. The expressive power of sparql. In international semantic web conference (ISWC 2008). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5318, 114–129. Karlsruhe: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Baader, F. 2003. Terminological cycles in a description logic with existential restrictions. In Proceedings of the eighteenth international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI2003), Acapulco, Mexico, 325–330.Google Scholar
  5. Baader, F., S. Brandt, and C. Lutz. 2005. Pushing the el envelope. InProceedings of the nineteenth international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI2005), 364–369. Edinburgh: Professional Book Center.Google Scholar
  6. Baselice, S., P. A. Bonatti, and G. Criscuolo. 2009. On finitely recursive programs. TPLP 9(2): 213–238.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Beckett, D., and T. Berners-Lee. 2008. Turtle – Terse RDF triple language. W3c Team Submission, W3C. Available at
  8. Beckett, D., and B. McBride. 2004. RDF/XML syntax specification (Revised). W3c Recommendation, W3C. Available at
  9. Berners-Lee, T. 2006. Linked data – Design issues. Available at
  10. Berners-Lee, T., and D. Connolly. 2008. Notation3 (N3): A readable RDF syntax. W3c Team Submission, W3C. Available at
  11. Berners-Lee, T., D. Connolly, L. Kagal, Y. Scharf, and J. Hendler. 2008. N3logic: a logical framework for the world wide web. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 8(3): 249–269.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Berrueta, D., and J. Phipps. 2008. Best practice recipes for publishing rdf vocabularies. W3C Working Group Note.
  13. Bojārs, U., J. G. Breslin, D. Berrueta, D. Brickley, S. Decker, S. Fernández, C. Görn, A. Harth, T. Heath, K. Idehen, K. Kjernsmo, A. Miles, A. Passant, A. Polleres, L. Polo, and M. Sintek. 2007. SIOC core ontology specification. W3C Member Submission Available at
  14. Boley, H., and M. Kifer. 2010. RIF basic logic dialect. W3C Proposed Recommendation, W3C. Available at
  15. Boley, H., G. Hallmark, M. Kifer, A. Paschke, A. Polleres, and D. Reynolds. 2010. RIF core dialect. W3C Proposed Recommendation, W3C. Available at
  16. Bray, T., J. Paoli, and C. Sperberg-McQueen. 1998. XML Path Language (XPath) 2.0. W3C recommendation, W3C. Available at
  17. Brickley, D., R. Guha, B. McBride. 2004. RDF vocabulary description language 1.0: RDF schema. Tech. rep., W3C. W3C Recommendation.
  18. Bruijn, J. d., and S. Heymans. 2007. Logical foundations of (e)RDF(S): Complexity and reasoning. In Proceedings of the 6th international semantic web conference and 2nd Asian semantic web conference (ISWC2007+ASWC2007), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, no. 4825, 86–99. Busan: Springer.
  19. Bruijn, J. d., E. Franconi, and S. Tessaris. 2005. Logical reconstruction of normative RDF. In OWL: experiences and directions workshop (OWLED-2005), Galway, Ireland.
  20. Caldwell, B., M. Cooper, L. G. Reid, and G. Vanderheiden. 2008. Web content accessibility guidelines (wcag) 2.0. W3C Recommendation,
  21. Calimeri, F., S. Cozza, G. Ianni, and N. Leone. 2009. Magic sets for the bottom-up evaluation of finitely recursive programs. In Logic programming and nonmonotonic reasoning, 10th international conference (LPNMR 2009). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, ed. E. Erdem, F. Lin, and T. Schaub, vol. 5753, 71–86. Potsdam: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Calvanese, D., G. D. Giacomo, D. Lembo, M. Lenzerini, and R. Rosati. 2007. Tractable reasoning and efficient query answering in description logics: The dl-lite family. Journal of Automated Reasoning 39(3): 385–429.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Chamberlin, D., J. Robie, S. Boag, M. F. Fernández, J. Siméon, and D. Florescu. 2007. XQuery 1.0: An XML Query Language. W3C Recommendation, W3C. Available at
  24. Cranor, L., B. Dobbs, S. Egelman, G. Hogben, J. Humphrey, M. Langheinrich, M. Marchiori, M. Presler-Marshall, J. Reagle, M. Schunter, D. A. Stampley, and R. Wenning. 2006. The platform for privacy preferences 1.1 (P3P1.1) specification. W3C Working Group Note. Available at
  25. de Bruijn, J. 2010. RIF RDF and OWL compatibility. W3C Propose Recommendation, W3C. Available at
  26. de Bruijn, J., A. Polleres, R. Lara, and D. Fensel. 2005. OWL − . Final draft d20.1v0.2, WSML.Google Scholar
  27. de Sainte Marie, C., G. Hallmark, and A. Paschke. 2010. RIF production rule dialect. W3C Proposed Recommendation, W3C. Available at
  28. Eiter, T., G. Ianni, A. Polleres, R. Schindlauer, and H. Tompits. 2006a. Reasoning with rules and ontologies. In Reasoning Web 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, ed. P. Barahona, et al., vol. 4126, 93–127. Berline/Heidelberg: Springer.
  29. Eiter, T., G. Ianni, R. Schindlauer, and H. Tompits. 2006b. Effective integration of declarative rules with external evaluations for semantic-web reasoning. In Proceedings of the 3rd European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC2006). LNCS, vol. 4011, 273–287. Budva: Montenegro.Google Scholar
  30. Eiter, T., G. Ianni, T. Krennwallner, and A. Polleres. 2008. Rules and ontologies for the semantic web. In Reasoning Web 2008. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, ed. C. Baroglio, P. A. Bonatti, J. Maluszynski, M. Marchiori, A. Polleres, and S. Schaffert, vol. 5224, 1–53. Venice: Springer.
  31. Eiter, T., and M. Simkus. 2010. FDNC: Decidable nonmonotonic disjunctive logic programs with function symbols. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 11(2): 1–45.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Euzenat, J., and P. Shvaiko. 2007. Ontology matching. Heidelberg: Springer.MATHGoogle Scholar
  33. Fensel, D., H. Lausen, A. Polleres, J. de Bruijn, M. Stollberg, D. Roman, and J. Domingue. 2006. Enabling semantic web services : The web service modeling Ontology. Berlin/New York: Springer.
  34. Grosof, B. N., I. Horrocks, R. Volz, and S. Decker. 2003. Description logic programs: Combining logic programs with description logic. In 12th international conference on world wide web (WWW’03), 48–57. Budapest: ACM.Google Scholar
  35. Gutiérrez, C., C. A. Hurtado, A. O. Mendelzon. 2004. Foundations of semantic web databases. In Proceedings of the twenty-third acm sigact-sigmod-sigart symposium on principles of database systems (PODS 2004), 95–106. Paris: ACM.Google Scholar
  36. Harth, A., J. Umbrich, A. Hogan, and S. Decker. 2007. YARS2: A federated repository for querying graph structured data from the web. In 6th international semantic web conference, 2nd Asian semantic web conference, 211–224. Berlin/New York: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  37. Hayes, P. 2004. RDF semantics, W3C Recommendation 10 February 2004. W3C Recommendation, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).
  38. Hitzler, P., M. Krötzsch, B. Parsia, P. F. Patel-Schneider, and S. Rudolph. 2009. OWL 2 web ontology language primer. W3c recommendation, W3C. Available at
  39. Horrocks, I., and P. F. Patel-Schneider. 2004. Reducing owl entailment to description logic satisfiability. Journal of Web Semantics 1(4): 345–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Horrocks, I., P. F. Patel-Schneider, H. Boley, S. Tabet, B. Grosof, and M. Dean. 2004. SWRL: A semantic web rule language combining OWL and RuleML. W3C Member Submission.
  41. Horrocks, I., O. Kutz, and U. Sattler. 2006. The even more irresistible sroiq. In Proceedings of the tenth international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR’06), 57–67. Lake District of the United Kingdom: AAAI.Google Scholar
  42. Ianni, G., A. Martello, C. Panetta, and G. Terracina. 2009. Efficiently querying RDF(S) ontologies with Answer Set Programming. Journal of Logic and Computation (Special issue) 19(4): 671–695. doi:10.1093/logcom/exn043.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. Kay, M. 2007. XSL transformations (XSLT) version 2.0. W3C Recommendation, W3C. Available at
  44. Kifer, M., G. Lausen, and J. Wu. 1995. Logical foundations of object-oriented and frame-based languages. Journal of the ACM 42(4): 741–843.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Krötzsch, M., S. Rudolph, and P. Hitzler. 2007. Complexity boundaries for horn description logics. In Proceedings of the twenty-second aaai conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI), Vancouver, 452–457.Google Scholar
  46. Moses, T. 2005. eXtensible access control markup language (XACML) version 2.0. OASIS StandardGoogle Scholar
  47. Motik, B., B. C. Grau, I. Horrocks, Z. Wu, A. Fokoue, C. Lutz, D. Calvanese, J. Carroll, G. D. Giacomo, J. Hendler, I. Herman, B. Parsia, P. F. Patel-Schneider, A. Ruttenberg, U. Sattler, and M. Schneider. 2009. OWL 2 web ontology language profiles. W3c recommendation, W3C. Available at
  48. Muñoz, S., J. Pérez, and C. Gutiérrez. 2007. Minimal deductive systems for rdf. In Proceedings of the 4th European semantic web conference (ESWC2007), ed. E. Franconi, M. Kifer, and W. May. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4519, 53–67. Innsbruck: Springer.Google Scholar
  49. Paschke, A., D. Hirtle, A. Ginsberg, P. L. Patranjan, F. McCabe. 2008. RIF use cases and requirements. W3C Working Draft. Available at
  50. Pérez, J., M. Arenas, and C. Gutierrez. 2006. Semantics and complexity of SPARQL. In International semantic web conference (ISWC 2006), 30–43. Berlin/New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  51. Pérez, J., M. Arenas, and C. Gutierrez. 2009. Semantics and complexity of SPARQL. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 34(3): Article 16, 45p.Google Scholar
  52. Pichler, R., A. Polleres, F. Wei, and S. Woltran. 2008. Entailment for domain-restricted RDF. In Proceedings of the 5th European semantic web conference (ESWC2008), 200–214. Tenerife: Springer.
  53. Polleres, A. 2006. SPARQL rules!. Tech. Rep. GIA-TR-2006-11-28. Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Móstoles. Available at
  54. Polleres, A. 2007. From SPARQL to rules (and back). In Proceedings of the 16th world wide web conference (WWW2007), 787–796. Banff: ACM. Available at
  55. Polleres, A., H. Boley, and M. Kifer. 2010. RIF datatypes and Built-Ins 1.0. W3C Proposed Recommendation, W3C. Available at
  56. Polleres, A., and D. Huynh (eds.). 2009. Special issue: The web of data. Journal of Web Semantics 7(3): 135. Elsevier.Google Scholar
  57. Prudhommeaux, E., and A. Seaborne. 2008. SPARQL query language for RDF. W3c Recommendation, W3C. Available at
  58. Schindlauer, R. 2006. Answer-set programming for the semantic web. Ph.D. thesis, Vienna University of Technology.Google Scholar
  59. Schmidt, M., M. Meier, and G. Lausen. 2010. Foundations of SPARQL query optimization. In 13th international conference on database theory (ICDT2010), Lausanne.Google Scholar
  60. Smith, M. K., C. Welty, D. L. McGuinness. 2004. OWL web ontology language guide. W3c Recommendation, W3C. Available at
  61. SQL-99. 1999. Information technology – database language SQL- Part 3: call level interface (SQL/CLI). Tech. Rep. INCITS/ISO/IEC 9075-3, INCITS/ISO/IEC. Standard Specification.Google Scholar
  62. ter Horst, H. J. 2005. Completeness, decidability and complexity of entailment for rdf schema and a semantic extension involving the owl vocabulary. Journal of Web Semantics 3: 79–115.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Thompson, H. S., D. Beech, M. Maloney, and N. Mendelsohn. 2004. XML schema Part 1: Structures, 2nd ed. W3C Recommendation, W3C. Available at
  64. Weitzner, D. 2004. W3c patent policy. Available at

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Siemens AG ÖsterreichViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations