|
|
|
|
|
| Dictionary, Thesaurus or Ontology? Disentangling Our Choices in the Semantic Web Jungle |
| Armando Stellato |
| Department of Enterprise Engineering, University of Tor Vergata, Rome 00133, Italy |
|
|
|
摘要 The Semantic Web seems finally close to maintaining its promise about a real world-wide graph of interconnected resources. The SPARQL query language and protocols and the Linked Open Data initiative have laid the way for endless data endpoints sparse around the globe. However, for the Semantic Web to really happen, it does not suffice to get billions of triples out there: these must be shareable, interlinked and conform to widely accepted vocabularies. While more and more data are converted from already available large knowledge repositories of companies and organizations, the question whether these should be carefully converted to semantically consistent ontology vocabularies or find other shallow representations for their content naturally arises. The danger is to come up with massive amounts of useless data, a boomerang which could result to be contradictory for the success of the web of data. In this paper, I provide some insights on common problems which may arise when porting huge amount of existing data or conceptual schemes (very common in the agriculture domain) to resource description framwork (RDF), and will address different modeling choices, by discussing in particular the relationship between the two main modeling vocabularies offered by W3C: OWL and SKOS.
Abstract The Semantic Web seems finally close to maintaining its promise about a real world-wide graph of interconnected resources. The SPARQL query language and protocols and the Linked Open Data initiative have laid the way for endless data endpoints sparse around the globe. However, for the Semantic Web to really happen, it does not suffice to get billions of triples out there: these must be shareable, interlinked and conform to widely accepted vocabularies. While more and more data are converted from already available large knowledge repositories of companies and organizations, the question whether these should be carefully converted to semantically consistent ontology vocabularies or find other shallow representations for their content naturally arises. The danger is to come up with massive amounts of useless data, a boomerang which could result to be contradictory for the success of the web of data. In this paper, I provide some insights on common problems which may arise when porting huge amount of existing data or conceptual schemes (very common in the agriculture domain) to resource description framwork (RDF), and will address different modeling choices, by discussing in particular the relationship between the two main modeling vocabularies offered by W3C: OWL and SKOS.
|
|
Received: 28 June 2011
Accepted:
|
|
Corresponding Authors:
Correspondence Armando Stellato, Tel: +39-06-72597330, E-mail: stellato@info.uniroma2.it
E-mail: stellato@info.uniroma2.it
|
| About author: Armando Stellato, Tel: +39-06-72597330, E-mail: stellato@info.uniroma2.it |
Cite this article:
Armando Stellato.
2012.
Dictionary, Thesaurus or Ontology? Disentangling Our Choices in the Semantic Web Jungle. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 11(5): 710-719.
|
| [1]Berners-Lee T, Hendler J A, Lassila O. 2001. The semantic web: A new form of web content that is meaningful to computers will unleash a revolution of new possibilities. Scientific American, 279, 34-43. [2]Bizer C, Heath T, Berners-Lee T. 2009. Linked data-The story so far. International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems (IJSWIS), Special Issue on Linked Data, 5, 1-22. [3]Brickley D, Guha R V. 2004. In: McBride B, ed., RDF Vocabulary Description Language 1.0: RDF Schema. [2011-3-22]. Rretrieved from World Wide Web Consortium (W3C): http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfschema/ [4]Fensel D, Horrocks I, van Harmelen F, Decker S, Erdmann M, Klein M. 2000. OIL in a nutshell. In: Dieng R, ed., K n o w l e d g e A c q u i s i t i o n , M o d e l i n g , a n d Management, Proceedings of the European Knowledge Acquisition Conference (EKAW-2000), Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, LNAI. Springer-Verlag, [5]Berlin. Gennari J, Musen M, Fergerson R, Grosso W, Crubézy M, Eriksson H. 2003. The evolution of Protégé-2000: An environment for knowledge-based systems development. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58, 89-123. [6]Guarino N, Welty C. 2004. An overview of ontoClean. In: Staab S, Studer R, eds., The Handbook on Ontologies. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. pp. 151-172. [7]Hendler J, McGuinness D L. 2000. The DARPA Agent Markup Ontology Language. IEEE Intelligent Systems, Trends and Controversies. November/December. pp. 6-7. [8]Ide N, Véronis J, Cedex A. 1994. Machine readable dictionaries: What have we learned, where do we go. In: Proceedings of the Post-COLING ‘94 International Workshop on Directions of Lexical Research. Beijing. pp. 137-146. [9]Jupp S, Bechhofer S, Stevens R. 2008. SKOS with OWL: Don’t be Full-ish! In: Dolbear C, Ruttenberg A, Sattler U, eds., OWLED.432. [2009-2-15]. [10]http://CEUR-WS. org McGuinness D L, Fikes R, Hendler J, Stein L A. 2002. DAML+OIL: An ontology language for the semantic web. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 17, 72-80. [11]Minsky M. 1975. A framework for representing knowledge. In: Winston P H, ed., The Psychology of Computer Vision. McGraw-Hill. Prud’hommeaux E, Seaborne A. 2008. SPARQL Query Language for RDF. [2011-3-22]. Retrieved from World Wide Web Consortium-Web Standards: http://www. w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/ [12]Sowa J F. 1992. Semantic networks. In: Shapiro S C, ed., Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, USA. Sowa J F. 2000. Knowledge Representation: Logical, Philosophical and Computational Foundations. Brooks Cole Publishing Co., Pacific Grove, California, United Sates. W3C. 2004, February 10. OWL Web Ontology Language. [2011-3-22]. [13]Retrieved from World Wide Web Consortium (W3C): http://www.w3.org/TR/owlfeatures/ W3C. 2004. Resource Description Framework (RDF). [2012-4-18]. [14]Retrieved from http://www.w3.org/RDF/ W3C. 2009, October 27. OWL 2 Web Ontology Language. Retrieved from World Wide Web Consortium (W3C): http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-overview-20091027/ W3C. 2009, August 18. SKOS Simple Knowledge Organization System Reference. [2011-3-22]. [15]Retrieved from World Wide Web Consortium (W3C): http://www. w3.org/TR/skos-reference/ Welty C. 2006. OntOWLClean: Cleaning OWL Ontologies with OWL. In: Bennet B, Fellbaum C, ed., Proceedings of FOIS-2006. IOS Press. |
| No Suggested Reading articles found! |
|
|
Viewed |
|
|
|
Full text
|
|
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
|
|
Cited |
|
|
|
|
| |
Shared |
|
|
|
|
| |
Discussed |
|
|
|
|
