Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Figures
Introduction
Metadata Descriptions Present Two Big Advantages
Chapter 1. Introduction
Chapter 1. Introduction 20
Summary
Classification of Semantic Annotation Methods
Critical Analysis
Research Hypothesis
Precise vs. Approximate Results
Semantic Annotation as Software Code Analysis
Discussion
Experimental Setup
Case Studies
Analysis of the Results
Conclusion
Chapter 7 7. Conclusions and Future Work
Chapter 7. Conclusions and Future Work
Directions for Future Work
References

TOOL SUPPORT FOR SEMANTIC ANNOTATION

Profile image of John MylopoulosJohn Mylopoulos

2006

Abstract

Abstract The focus of this thesis is semantic annotation of text documents in the context of the Semantic Web. Semantic annotation is the annotation of a World-Wide Web or other natural language document in order to assign explicit real-world meaning to its elements. The transition to the Semantic Web requires the development of robust and scalable tools largely automating the semantic annotation process.

Figures (65)
International Doctorate School in Information and Communication Technologies DIT - University of Trento TOOL SUPPORT FOR SEMANTIC ANNOTATION Nadzeya Kiyavitskaya
International Doctorate School in Information and Communication Technologies DIT - University of Trento TOOL SUPPORT FOR SEMANTIC ANNOTATION Nadzeya Kiyavitskaya
Table 1-1. Approximate processing time on a single Pentium 4 - 2.5GHz machine for 1 Tb text corpus The obtained estimates lead us to conclusion that, given the state of the art for NLP systems, heavyweight tools are incapable of supporting large-scale semantic annotation. Instead, it might be a rational solution to adopt a lightweight approach that can be tai- lored to particular analysis tasks and scale up. Moreover, such
Table 1-1. Approximate processing time on a single Pentium 4 - 2.5GHz machine for 1 Tb text corpus The obtained estimates lead us to conclusion that, given the state of the art for NLP systems, heavyweight tools are incapable of supporting large-scale semantic annotation. Instead, it might be a rational solution to adopt a lightweight approach that can be tai- lored to particular analysis tasks and scale up. Moreover, such
Figure 4-1. The TXL paradigm
Figure 4-1. The TXL paradigm
Figure 4-2. The structure of a TXL program
Figure 4-2. The structure of a TXL program
TXL engine automatically tokenizes and parses input according to the specified grammar resulting in a parse tree represented in- ternally, as in the example shown in Figure 4-6. TXL has two kinds of transformation rules, called respectively functions and rules. Functions transform one occurrence of their pattern, whereas rules transform many occurrences of their pat- tern. Each transformation rule specifies a target type to the trans- formed, a pattern — an example-like form of the particular in- stance of the type we are interested in replacing — and a replacement — an example-like form of the result we would like when we replace such an instance. The nonterminal type of the pattern is given at the beginning of the rule, and the replacement is implicitly constrained to be of the same type. Replacement re- sults in a new scope tree. See an explanatory example in Figure 4-7.
TXL engine automatically tokenizes and parses input according to the specified grammar resulting in a parse tree represented in- ternally, as in the example shown in Figure 4-6. TXL has two kinds of transformation rules, called respectively functions and rules. Functions transform one occurrence of their pattern, whereas rules transform many occurrences of their pat- tern. Each transformation rule specifies a target type to the trans- formed, a pattern — an example-like form of the particular in- stance of the type we are interested in replacing — and a replacement — an example-like form of the result we would like when we replace such an instance. The nonterminal type of the pattern is given at the beginning of the rule, and the replacement is implicitly constrained to be of the same type. Replacement re- sults in a new scope tree. See an explanatory example in Figure 4-7.
The execution of transformation rule is performed in the fol- lowing way: the scope of the rule matching the pattern tree is found and substituted by a copy of the replacement tree. The process is repeated on the result until no new matches can be found.
The execution of transformation rule is performed in the fol- lowing way: the scope of the rule matching the pattern tree is found and substituted by a copy of the replacement tree. The process is repeated on the result until no new matches can be found.
Figure 4-8. Architecture of the semantic annotation process Figure 4-8 demonstrates the framework of the entire process.
Figure 4-8. Architecture of the semantic annotation process Figure 4-8 demonstrates the framework of the entire process.
Figure 4-10. A part of the parse tree produced on the first stage The input is parsed into a sequence of ads separated by empty lines (“newline”), each ad consists of sentences, each sentences is a sequence of words and spaces. Word can be an identifier (“id”), number or object (“phone”).
Figure 4-10. A part of the parse tree produced on the first stage The input is parsed into a sequence of ads separated by empty lines (“newline”), each ad consists of sentences, each sentences is a sequence of words and spaces. Word can be an identifier (“id”), number or object (“phone”).
Figure 4-14. Database template schema for accommodation ads Figure 4-14. The schema is derived from the semantic model for he target domain. Sentences and phrases with multiple markups are cloned using TXL source transformation to appear as multiple copies, one for each different markup, before populating the data- base. In this way, we do not prejudice one interpretation as being preferred; rather we assume that a single sentence or phrase may in fact be a reasonable answer for all of the semantic categories it is marked as. The products of the process are both the XML marked-up text as shown earlier in Figure 4-13, and the populated database — see Figure 4-15. The populated database can be then queried by < standard SQL database engine. In the present work, we used Mi- crosoft Office Access 2003 for storing and querying annotated text fragments.
Figure 4-14. Database template schema for accommodation ads Figure 4-14. The schema is derived from the semantic model for he target domain. Sentences and phrases with multiple markups are cloned using TXL source transformation to appear as multiple copies, one for each different markup, before populating the data- base. In this way, we do not prejudice one interpretation as being preferred; rather we assume that a single sentence or phrase may in fact be a reasonable answer for all of the semantic categories it is marked as. The products of the process are both the XML marked-up text as shown earlier in Figure 4-13, and the populated database — see Figure 4-15. The populated database can be then queried by < standard SQL database engine. In the present work, we used Mi- crosoft Office Access 2003 for storing and querying annotated text fragments.
Figure 5-2. Conceptual model for accommodation ads To annotate these ads, we designed a conceptual model which represents the information needs of a tourist, provided in Figure 5-2.
Figure 5-2. Conceptual model for accommodation ads To annotate these ads, we designed a conceptual model which represents the information needs of a tourist, provided in Figure 5-2.
Figure 5-4. Semantic category definition for Tourist websites To adapt the annotation framework to this specific task, we had to replace the domain-de pose, the initial d ism experts was was constructed using ogy editor’ and s mode conce mantic relations. The fragmen RDFGravity” too pendix C. The picture s placement in the in Ap pts in total, omain-speci transformed ored in RDF arranged in , is depicted hierarchy, re he means of . The model c o a hierarchy of this mode in Figure 5-5. hows semantic information, such as he Protégé 3 See the RD ationships, at information, i.e., keywords or object patterns, associa conce pts. pendent components. For this pur- fic knowledge provided by the tour- into a rich semantic model. The .0 ontol- onsisted of about 130 and connected by se- , visualized using the F source ributes, and syntactic ed with
Figure 5-4. Semantic category definition for Tourist websites To adapt the annotation framework to this specific task, we had to replace the domain-de pose, the initial d ism experts was was constructed using ogy editor’ and s mode conce mantic relations. The fragmen RDFGravity” too pendix C. The picture s placement in the in Ap pts in total, omain-speci transformed ored in RDF arranged in , is depicted hierarchy, re he means of . The model c o a hierarchy of this mode in Figure 5-5. hows semantic information, such as he Protégé 3 See the RD ationships, at information, i.e., keywords or object patterns, associa conce pts. pendent components. For this pur- fic knowledge provided by the tour- into a rich semantic model. The .0 ontol- onsisted of about 130 and connected by se- , visualized using the F source ributes, and syntactic ed with
Figure 5-9. A fragment of the program realizing refinement rules Then, the TXL program realizing the whole set of the refine- ment rules was implemented. Its fragment is shown in Figure 5-9. In this step, the analysis is carried out as follows: first, the pro- gram detects a text fragment marked with one of the category la- bels previously; then for the given category the program searches for the refinement patterns related to this category. If the match is found, the word combination is marked with the appropriate label.
Figure 5-9. A fragment of the program realizing refinement rules Then, the TXL program realizing the whole set of the refine- ment rules was implemented. Its fragment is shown in Figure 5-9. In this step, the analysis is carried out as follows: first, the pro- gram detects a text fragment marked with one of the category la- bels previously; then for the given category the program searches for the refinement patterns related to this category. If the match is found, the word combination is marked with the appropriate label.
Figure 6-3. The evaluation tool in testing and validation process evaluation of output produced by any semantic annotation system. The tool can be exploited not only to access and compare the quality of existing annotation tools, but also when devising new tools in order to check the quality of results in different stages of development, as shown in Figure 6-3.
Figure 6-3. The evaluation tool in testing and validation process evaluation of output produced by any semantic annotation system. The tool can be exploited not only to access and compare the quality of existing annotation tools, but also when devising new tools in order to check the quality of results in different stages of development, as shown in Figure 6-3.
Figure 6-4. The interface of the evaluation tool The screenshot shows the tags used for a case study not included in this dis- sertation, as this new application of Cerno is a part of an other PhD thesis [Zeni 2006]
Figure 6-4. The interface of the evaluation tool The screenshot shows the tags used for a case study not included in this dis- sertation, as this new application of Cerno is a part of an other PhD thesis [Zeni 2006]
Figure 6-5. An example of the output table
Figure 6-5. An example of the output table
Table 6-2. Evaluating system annotation vs. human Annotator 2 Let’s analyze in detail these two tables. As we could expect, detection of Contact entities is very good. This concept is associ- ated with structured patterns: e-mail, webaddress, and phone number, which easily allow identifying related phrases. More- over, meaning of this particular concept is unambiguous for hu- man annotators, this way reducing the probability of disagreement to minimum. The results of evaluating system performance against assisted human opinions, shown in Table 6-7, confirm that the tool performs well on this entity.
Table 6-2. Evaluating system annotation vs. human Annotator 2 Let’s analyze in detail these two tables. As we could expect, detection of Contact entities is very good. This concept is associ- ated with structured patterns: e-mail, webaddress, and phone number, which easily allow identifying related phrases. More- over, meaning of this particular concept is unambiguous for hu- man annotators, this way reducing the probability of disagreement to minimum. The results of evaluating system performance against assisted human opinions, shown in Table 6-7, confirm that the tool performs well on this entity.
Table 6-1. Evaluating system annotation vs. human Annotator 1!
Table 6-1. Evaluating system annotation vs. human Annotator 1!
Table 6-3. Comparing total system results vs. human (10 ads) These estimates show that compared to each of the human an- notators the tool demonstrated higher recall, but lower precision. Thus, automatic annotation by Cerno is greedy. In more detail, by comparison with these two human annotators, the system exhib- ited a high level of recall: about 92% compared to either human, higher than either human compared to the other, but a lower level of precision: about 74 and 76% compared to each human, whereas they each exhibit about 88-91% compared to the other. However, the system was able to show a 90-92% accuracy rating compared to either human, extremely high for a first prototype.
Table 6-3. Comparing total system results vs. human (10 ads) These estimates show that compared to each of the human an- notators the tool demonstrated higher recall, but lower precision. Thus, automatic annotation by Cerno is greedy. In more detail, by comparison with these two human annotators, the system exhib- ited a high level of recall: about 92% compared to either human, higher than either human compared to the other, but a lower level of precision: about 74 and 76% compared to each human, whereas they each exhibit about 88-91% compared to the other. However, the system was able to show a 90-92% accuracy rating compared to either human, extremely high for a first prototype.
Table 6-4. Evaluating total system performance vs. assisted human opinions Concerning the ads from Rome, we can observe that the tool demonstrated similar performance on the new set of 10 ads com- pared to the initial set used for tuning, and maintained good qual- ity rates for the entire set of 100 ads. In the new set from Venice, he total accuracy was measured as over 95% with similar recall o the Rome test set and lower precision. The same tendency, with even a bigger difference in recall, is seen in the set of Paris. A drop in precision is the result indicative of locality effects from he original training set.
Table 6-4. Evaluating total system performance vs. assisted human opinions Concerning the ads from Rome, we can observe that the tool demonstrated similar performance on the new set of 10 ads com- pared to the initial set used for tuning, and maintained good qual- ity rates for the entire set of 100 ads. In the new set from Venice, he total accuracy was measured as over 95% with similar recall o the Rome test set and lower precision. The same tendency, with even a bigger difference in recall, is seen in the set of Paris. A drop in precision is the result indicative of locality effects from he original training set.
Table 6-5. Evaluating tool annotation (Paris, 10 ads)
Table 6-5. Evaluating tool annotation (Paris, 10 ads)
Table 6-6. Evaluating tool annotation (Venice, 10 ads)
Table 6-6. Evaluating tool annotation (Venice, 10 ads)
Table 6-7. Evaluating system performance vs. assisted human opinions for Rome, 100 ads, Test Set 1
Table 6-7. Evaluating system performance vs. assisted human opinions for Rome, 100 ads, Test Set 1
Table 6-8. Evaluating system annotation on the annotation on which both humans agreed (10 ads)
Table 6-8. Evaluating system annotation on the annotation on which both humans agreed (10 ads)
Table 6-10. Evaluating system annotation vs. human Annotator 2 Table 6-11. Summary of the evaluation results
Table 6-10. Evaluating system annotation vs. human Annotator 2 Table 6-11. Summary of the evaluation results
Table 6-9. Evaluating system annotation vs. human Annotator |
Table 6-9. Evaluating system annotation vs. human Annotator |
As we can observe from these results, for the given annotation schema the task turned out to be difficult both for the system and for the humans. One reason for this shortcoming is the absence of structural patterns for all of the semantic categories. Another rea- son is that ambiguities occur frequently in such tourism docu- ments, as they contain arbitrary information from a broad spec- trum of topics, which are not always independent. For example, text about local food may be associated with either or both of the Local Products category and the Food and Refreshment category,
As we can observe from these results, for the given annotation schema the task turned out to be difficult both for the system and for the humans. One reason for this shortcoming is the absence of structural patterns for all of the semantic categories. Another rea- son is that ambiguities occur frequently in such tourism docu- ments, as they contain arbitrary information from a broad spec- trum of topics, which are not always independent. For example, text about local food may be associated with either or both of the Local Products category and the Food and Refreshment category,
Table 6-12. Comparing system results vs. human annotators, total scores By comparison with these two human annotators, the system exhibited a 65-76% level of recall whereas they each exhibit about 55-76% compared to the other, and a 55-90% level of pre- cision yet higher than either human compared to the other. Still, even the absolute recall and precision rates are higher than those superior limits reported by MUC, as described in Section 6.2.
Table 6-12. Comparing system results vs. human annotators, total scores By comparison with these two human annotators, the system exhibited a 65-76% level of recall whereas they each exhibit about 55-76% compared to the other, and a 55-90% level of pre- cision yet higher than either human compared to the other. Still, even the absolute recall and precision rates are higher than those superior limits reported by MUC, as described in Section 6.2.
Table 6-14. Evaluating system annotation vs. human Annotator 2 as as- sisted by the tool Table 6-15. Summary of the evaluation results for human assisted opin- ions
Table 6-14. Evaluating system annotation vs. human Annotator 2 as as- sisted by the tool Table 6-15. Summary of the evaluation results for human assisted opin- ions
Table 6-13. Evaluating system annotation vs. human Annotator | as as- sisted by the tool
Table 6-13. Evaluating system annotation vs. human Annotator | as as- sisted by the tool
Observing the calculations vs. human assisted opinions, we note high performance of the tool: both precision and recall measures show very high scores, reaching 100% for some items; fallout is very low for all items, thus demonstrating that the tool is not misled with the large quantity of irrelevant information; error rate is also fairly low; and accuracy reaches almost 100% rate.
Observing the calculations vs. human assisted opinions, we note high performance of the tool: both precision and recall measures show very high scores, reaching 100% for some items; fallout is very low for all items, thus demonstrating that the tool is not misled with the large quantity of irrelevant information; error rate is also fairly low; and accuracy reaches almost 100% rate.
List of indicators for the categories in the first experimental study involving the accommodation ads documents.
List of indicators for the categories in the first experimental study involving the accommodation ads documents.
List of the relevant semantic categories for the second experimen- tal case study in the domain of Tourist Boards websites and their descriptions.
List of the relevant semantic categories for the second experimen- tal case study in the domain of Tourist Boards websites and their descriptions.
The RDF(S) source of the conceptual model fragment for th Sport category.
The RDF(S) source of the conceptual model fragment for th Sport category.
List of indicators for the categories in the second experimental study involving the Tourist Board websites.
List of indicators for the categories in the second experimental study involving the Tourist Board websites.

Related papers

Automation of the semantic annotation of web resources
Anis JEDIDI

International Journal of Internet Technology and Secured Transactions, 2014

The annotation of a web page allows us to associate a semantic to the content of this page. But with the great mass of pages managed through the world, and especially with the advent of the web, their manual annotation is not feasible. In this paper, we will focus on the semiautomatic annotation of the web pages. We will propose an approach and a component (entitled 'Querying Web') for semantic annotation of web pages. The proposal of this component aims at improving the interrogation process in the semantic web environment. Our solution is an enhancement of the first result of annotation done by the 'Semantic Radar' plug-in on the web resources, by new annotations using an enriched domain ontology. Finally, we will present in this paper an evaluation of the automation made by our component.

View PDFchevron_right
A Flexible Approach to Semantic Annotation Systems for Web Content
A. Stellato

Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, 2015

In this paper we propose a flexible approach that supports heterogeneous requirements on systems for the semantic annotation of web content. The flexibility of the approach originates from a model based on the definition of abstract events, which captures at the logical level the main interactions occurring in a system for combined management of ontologies and web content. Application-specific semantics is then provided operationally as an assignment of handlers to these events. While the abstract events are rather coarse-grained to reduce prior commitment, preconditions on the handlers express application-specific distinctions based on contextual information associated with each specific event. Although the possibility to define completely new handlers guarantees the generality of our approach, we foster convention over configuration by providing a set of default handlers, which can be customized by filling their extension points. The use of customizable handlers, whether or not the default ones, reduces the development effort and guarantees consistent user experience despite evolving requirements. A comprehensive framework for semantic annotation of web content has been realized and will be hereafter introduced.

View PDFchevron_right
A Comprehensive Framework for Semantic Annotation of Web Content
A. Stellato

2013

Studies on Semantic Annotation reveal how trying to match heterogeneous requirements leads to divergent methodologies, models and processes for annotation management and exchange. Community efforts towards the development of shared solutions are important to reduce the &quot;entropy&quot; of the field; nonetheless, any agreement on the ultimate annotation system is unlikely to be achieved. We propose a solution to this problem by defining a comprehensive framework, unbound to any specific design/annotation model, and instantiable into concrete system implementations, to meet different requirements. Towards this goal, we commit to fairly general assumptions, valid across disparate systems and not excessively constraining. Firstly, most systems deal with combined management of ontologies and Web content. Secondly, these systems can be described through a common behavioural model, in terms of an assignment of handlers to predetermined events. This behavioural model can be then enriched...

View PDFchevron_right
Semi-automatic semantic annotations for web documents
John Mylopoulos

2005

Abstract. Semantic annotation of the web documents is the only way to make the Semantic Web vision a reality. Considering the scale and dynamics of worldwide web, the largest knowledge base ever built, it becomes clear that we cannot afford to annotate web documents manually. In this work we propose a generic domain-independent architecture for semi-automatic semantic annotation, basing on the lightweight and robust techniques, proven effective in source code processing for software analysis field.

View PDFchevron_right
From manual to semi-automatic semantic annotation: About ontology-based text annotation tools
Alexander Maedche

Proceedings of the …, 2001

View PDFchevron_right
Benchmarking textual annotation tools for the semantic web
Diana Maynard

2008

This paper investigates the state of the art in automatic textual annotation tools, and examines the extent to which they are ready for use in the real world. We define some benchmarking criteria for measuring the usability of annotation tools, and examine those factors which are particularly important for a real user to be able to determine which is the most suitable tool for their use. We discuss factors such as usability, accessibility, interoperability and scalability, and evaluate a set of annotation tools according to these factors. Finally, we draw some conclusions about the current state of research in annotation and make some suggestions for the future.

View PDFchevron_right
Semantic Annotation of Documents: A Compar- ative Study
Ijaems Journal

—Semantic annotation, which is considered one of the semantic web applicative aspects, has been adopted by researchers from different communities as a paramount solution that improves searching and retrieval of information by promoting the richness of the content. However, researchers are facing challenges concerning both the quality and the relevance of the semantic annotations attached to the annotated document against its content as well as its semantics, without ignoring those regarding automation process which is supposed to ensure an optimal system for information indexing and retrieval. In this article, we will introduce the semantic annotation concept by presenting a state of the art including definitions , features and a classification of annotation systems. Systems and proposed approaches in the field will be cited, as well as a study of some existing annotation tools. This study will also pinpoint various problems and limitations related to the annotation in order to offer solutions for our future work.

View PDFchevron_right
A Survey on Semantic Annotation of Text
Gurinder Gosal

The semantic annotation with manual means is an expensive process and often does not consider the multiple perspectives of a data source. The automation of the annotation process is essential to provide the scalability needed to annotate existing documents and reduce the burden of annotating new documents considering we have to deal with large collections of data. The automatic annotations bring with them the benefits of improved information retrieval and enhanced interoperability. In this paper the issues related to automatic representation and uses of the semantic annotation have been looked at and some important semantic works and platforms are investigated.

View PDFchevron_right
A Web-based Tool for the Integrated Annotation of Semantic and Syntactic Structures
Seid Muhie Yimam

2016

We introduce the third major release of WebAnno, a generic web-based annotation tool for distributed teams. New features in this release focus on semantic annotation tasks (e.g. semantic role labelling or event annotation) and allow the tight integration of semantic annotations with syntactic annotations. In particular, we introduce the concept of slot features, a novel constraint mechanism that allows modelling the interaction between semantic and syntactic annotations, as well as a new annotation user interface. The new features were developed and used in an annotation project for semantic roles on German texts. The paper briefly introduces this project and reports on experiences performing annotations with the new tool. On a comparative evaluation, our tool reaches significant speedups over WebAnno 2 for a semantic annotation task.

View PDFchevron_right
A Survey on Semantic Annotation Tools for Knowledge Management
pooja kherwa

International Journal of Engineering Applied Sciences and Technology

Support for information and knowledge exchange is a key issue in the information society. To reduce the time wasted in searching and to reduce associated user frustration much more selective user access is needed. This is possible by semantic information processing of online documents.Knowledge management in an organisation are used for managing knowledge resources in order to facilitate access and reuse of knowledge.Semantic annotation is about assigning to the entities in the text, links to their semantic descriptions. This sort of metadata provides both class and instance information about the entities. Semantic annotation is applicable for any type of textweb pages, regular documents etc. For semantic annotation, there are various manual, semiautomatic and full automatic tools are developed by various organizations like mindswap.org, ontotext.org etc. In this paper, we are presenting analysis and review of some of these tools according to their applicability for an application d...

View PDFchevron_right

References (61)

  1. Abolhassani et al. 2003] Abolhassani, M., Fuhr, N., & Gövert, N.: Information Extraction and Automatic Markup for XML documents. In: H.M. Blanken, T. Grabs, H.-J. Schek, R. Schenkel, G. Weikum (Eds.), Intelligent Search on XML Data. Applications, Languages, Models, Implementations, and Benchmarks, Springer, Berlin, 2003, Vol. 2818, pp. 159- 174. [Alani et al. 2003] Alani, H., Kim, S., Millard, D.E., Weal, M.J., Hall, W., Lewis, P.H., & Shadbolt, N.R.: Automatic Ontol- ogy-Based Knowledge Extraction from Web Documents. IEEE Intelligent Systems (2003), Vol. 18(1), pp. 14-21.
  2. Ashish & Knoblock 1997] Ashish, N. & Knoblock, C.A.: Wrap- per Generation for Semi-structured Internet Sources. SIGMOD Record, Vol. 26 (4), December 1997, pp. 8-15.
  3. Baeza-Yates & Ribeiro-Neto 1999] Baeza-Yates, R. & Ribeiro- Neto, B.: Modern Information Retrieval. Addison-Wesley, 1999. [Baumgartner et al. 2001] Baumgartner, R., Flesca, S., & Gottlob, G.: Visual Web Information Extraction with Lixto. In Proc. of 27 th conference on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB 2001), Rome, Italy, 11-14 September 2001, pp. 119-128.
  4. Benjamins et al. 1999] Benjamins, V.R., Fensel, D., Decker, S., & Gómez-Pérez, A.: (KA)2: Building Ontologies for the Internet: a Mid Term Report. Int. Journal of Human- Computer Studies (IJHCS), Vol. 51, pp. 687-712, 1999.
  5. Berners-Lee et al. 2001] Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., Lassila, O.: The Semantic Web. Scientific American, Vol. 284 (5), pp. 34-43, 2001.
  6. Biggerstaff 1989] Biggerstaff, T.: Design recovery for mainte- nance and reuse. IEEE Computer, Vol. 22 (1989), pp. 36-49.
  7. Biggerstaff 1989] Biggerstaff, T.J.: Design Recovery for Main- tenance and Reuse. IEEE Computer, Vol. 22(7), 1989, pp. 36-49.
  8. Bontcheva et al. 2004] Bontcheva, K., Tablan, V., Maynard, D., & Cunningham, H.: Evolving GATE to Meet New Chal- lenges in Language Engineering. Journal of Natural Lan- guage Engineering, Vol. 10 (3/4), pp. 349-373, 2004. [Boguraev et al. 1995] Boguraev, B.K., Garigliano, R., & Tait, J.I.: Editorial. Natural Language Engineering, Vol. 1(1), pp. 1-7, 1995, ISSN: 1351-3249(199503)1:1;1-F. [Buitelaar & Ramaka 2005] Buitelaar, P. & Ramaka, S.: Unsu- pervised Ontology-based Semantic Tagging for Knowledge Markup. In Proc. of the Workshop on Learning in Web Search at the International Conference on Machine Learning, Bonn, Germany, August 2005. [Cardie et al. 2000] Cardie C., Ng, V., Pierce, D., & Buckley, C.: Examining the role of statistical and linguistic knowledge sources in a general-knowledge question-answering system. In Proc. of the 6 th conference on Applied natural language processing, Seattle, Washington, 2000, pp. 180-187.
  9. Ciravegna et al. 2002] Ciravegna, F., Dingli, A., Petrelli, D., & Wilks, Y.: User-System Cooperation in Document Annota- tion based on Information Extraction. In: Asuncion Gomez- Perez, V. Richard Benjamins (eds.): Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (Ontologies and the Semantic Web), Proc. of the 13 th Int. Conference on Knowledge Engi- neering and Knowledge Management (EKAW 02), 1-4 Octo- ber 2002, Siguenza, Spain, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelli- gence, Vol. 2473, Springer Verlag, pp. 122-137.
  10. Ciravegna et al. 2004] Ciravegna, F., Chapman, S., Dingli, A., & Wilks, Y.: Learning to Harvest Information for the Semantic Web. In Proc. of the 1st European Semantic Web Symposium (ESWS 2004), Heraklion, Greece, May 10-12, 2004.
  11. Cordy & Shukla 1992] Cordy, J.R. & Shukla, M.: Practical Metaprogramming, In Proc. CASCON'92, IBM Centre for Advanced Studies 1992 Conference, Toronto, November 1992, pp. 215-224.
  12. Cordy 2006a] Cordy, J.R.: The TXL Source Transformation Language. Science of Computer Programming, Vol. 61 (3), August 2006, pp. 190-210.
  13. Cordy 2006b] Cordy, J.R.: Source Transformation, Analysis and Generation in TXL. In Proc. of PEPM'06, ACM SIG- PLAN 2006, Workshop on Partial Evaluation and Program Manipulation, Charleston, South Carolina, January 2006, pp. 1-11 (Keynote paper).
  14. Cordy et al. 2001] Cordy, J.R., Schneider, K., Dean, T., & Mal- ton, A.: HSML: Design-directed source code hotspots. In Proc. of 9th Int. Workshop on Program Comprehension (2001), pp. 145-154.
  15. Cordy et al. 2002] Cordy, J., Dean, T., Malton, A., & Schneider, K.: Source transformation in software engineering using the TXL transformation system. Information and Software Te- chnology Journal, Vol. 44 (2002), pp. 827-837.
  16. Coulleri 2006] Coulleri, C.: L'annotazione semantica dei siti Web: valutazione dell'efficacia comunicativa di siti per la promozione turistica. Tesi di Laurea Specialistica, Economics Faculty, University of Trento, 2006. [Crescenzi et al. 2001] Crescenzi, V., Mecca, G., & Merialdo, P.: RoadRunner: Towards automatic data extraction from large Web sites. In Proc. of the 27 th Int. Conf. on Very Large Data Bases, Rome, Italy, September 11-14, 2001, pp. 109-118. [Cunningham et al. 2002] Cunningham, H., Maynard, D., Bontcheva, K., & Tablan, V.: GATE: A Framework and Graphical Development Environment for Robust NLP Tools and Applications. In Proc. of the 40th Anniversary Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL'02), Philadelphia, US, 2002. [Dean et al. 2001] Dean, T., Cordy, J., Schneider, K., & Malton, A.: Experience using design recovery techniques to transform legacy systems. In Proc. of 17th Int. Conf. on Software Main- tenance, pp. 622-631, 2001. BIBLIOGRAPHY
  17. Dean et al. 2003] Dean, T., Cordy, J.R., Malton, A., & Schnei- der, K.: Agile parsing in TXL. Journal of Automated Soft- ware Engineering, Vol. 10 (2003), pp. 311-336.
  18. Dell'Erba et al. 2002] Dell'Erba, M., Fodor, O., Ricci, F., & Wer- thner, H.: Harmonise: A Solution for Data Interoperability. In Proc. of the 2 nd IFIP Conference on Towards The Knowledge Society: E-Commerce, E-Business, E-Government (I3E 2002), Lisbon, October 7-9, 2002.
  19. Dempsey & Heery 2004] Dempsey L. & Heery, R.: A review of metadata: a survey of current resource description formats. The DESIRE project deliverable, 2004, www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/desire/overview/rev_01.htm [July 24, 2006] [Dill et al. 2003] Dill, S., Eiron, N., Gibson, D., Gruhl, D., Guha, R., Jhingran, A., Kanungo, T., McCurley, K.S., Rajagopalan, S., Tomkins, A., Tomlin, J.A., & Zienberer, J.Y.: A Case for Automated Large Scale Semantic Annotation. Journal of Web Semantics, Vol. 1 (1), December 2003. [Dingli et al. 2003] Dingli, A., Ciravegna, F., & Wilks, Y.: Automatic Semantic Annotation using Unsupervised Infor- mation Extraction and Integration. In Proc. of the Workshop on Knowledge Markup and Semantic Annotation (K- CAP 2003), Sanibel, Florida, October 26, 2003. [Dingli et al. 2003] Dingli, A., Ciravegna, F., & Wilks, Y.: Automatic Semantic Annotation using Unsupervised Infor- mation Extraction and Integration. In Proc. of the Workshop on Knowledge Markup and Semantic Annotation (K- CAP 2003), Sanibel, Florida, October 26, 2003. [Domingue et al. 2003] Domingue, J., Dzbor, M., & Motta, E.: Semantic Layering with Magpie. In: Staab, S. & Studer, R. (eds.), Handbook on Ontologies in Information Systems, Springer, Verlag, 2003. [Domingue et al. 2004] Domingue, J.B., Dzbor, M., & Motta, E.: Collaborative Semantic Web Browsing with Magpie. In Proc. of the 1st European Semantic Web Symposium (ESWS), May 2004, Greece.
  20. Embley et al. 1999] Embley, D.W., Campbell, D.M., Jiang, Y.S., Liddle, S.W., Lonsdale, D.W., Ng, Y.-K., & Smith, R.D.: Conceptual-model-based data extraction from multiple-record Web pages. Data & Knowledge Engineering, Vol. 31 (3) , November 1999, pp. 227-251.
  21. Etzioni et al. 2005] Etzioni, O., Cafarella, M.J., Downey, D., Popescu, A.-M., Shaked, T., Soderland, S., Weld, D.S., & Yates, A.: Unsupervised named-entity extraction from the web: An experimental study. Artificial Intelligence, 2005, Vol. 165(1), pp. 91-134.
  22. Fellbaum 1998] Fellbaum, C.: WordNet, an electronic lexical da- tabase. MIT Press, 1998. [Fensel et al. 1998] Fensel, D., Decker, S., Erdmann, M., & Studer, R.: Ontobroker: The Very High Idea. In Proc. of the 11th Int. Flairs Conference (FLAIRS-98), Sanibel Island, Florida, May, 1998
  23. Freitag & Kushmerick 2000] Freitag, D. & Kushmerick, N.: Boosted wrapper induction. In Proc. of 17th National Conf. on Artificial Intelligence and 12th Conf. on Innovative Appli- cations of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI/IAAI-00), Austin, pp. 577-583, 2000.
  24. Freitag 1998] Freitag, D.: Machine Learning for Information Ex- traction in Informal Domains. PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, 1998.
  25. Goble et al. 2001] Goble, C., Bechhofer, S., Carr, L., De Roure, D., & Hall, W.: Conceptual Open Hypermedia = The Seman- tic Web? In Proc. of the 2nd Int. Workshop on the Semantic Web (SemWeb2001), Hong Kong, May 2001. [Hachey et al. 2003] Hachey, B., Grover, C., Karkaletsis, V., Valarakos, A., Pazienza, M.T., Vindigni, M., Cartier, E., & Coch, J.: Use of Ontologies for Cross-lingual Information Management in the Web. In Proc. of the Ontologies and In- formation Extraction Int. Workshop (EUROLAN 2003), Bu- carest, Romania, July 28 -August 8, 2003. [Hammer et al. 1997] Hammer, J., Garcia-Molina, H., Nestorov, S., Yerneni, R., Breunig, M., & Vassalos, V.: Template-based BIBLIOGRAPHY 122 wrappers in the Tsimmis system. In Proc. of the 26 th ACM SIGMOD Int. Conf. on Management of Data, Tucson, Ari- zona, May 12-17, 1997, pp. 532-535. [Handschuh et al. 2001] Handschuh, S., Staab, S., & Maedche, A.: CREAM -Creating Relational Metadata with a Compo- nent-Based, Ontology-Driven Framework. In Proc. of the 1st Int. Conf. on Knowledge Capture (K-CAP 2001), Victoria B.C., Canada, pp. 76-83, October 2001. [Handschuh et al. 2003] Handschuh, S., Staab, S., & Studer, R.: Leveraging metadata creation for the Semantic Web with CREAM. In: R. Kruse et al. (eds.), KI 2003 -Advances in Ar- tificial Intelligence, Proc. of the Annual German Conference on AI, Vol. 2821, pp. 19-33, Springer, Berlin, September 2003. [Hawking et al. 1999] Hawking, D., Craswell, N., Thistlewaite, P., & Harman, D.: Results and Challenges in Web Search Evaluation, In Proc. of the 8th Int. Conf. on World Wide Web, Toronto, Canada, 1999, pp. 1321-1330.
  26. Helfin et al. 1999] Heflin, J., Hendler, J., & Luke, S.: Applying Ontology to the Web: A Case Study, In: J. Mira, J. Sanchez- Andres (Eds.), Proc. of Int. Work-Conference on Artificial and Natural Neural Networks (IWANN'99), Springer, Berlin, 1999, Vol. II, pp. 715-724.
  27. Hepp et al. 2006] Hepp, M., Siorpaes, K., & Bachlechner, D.: Towards the Semantic Web in E-Tourism: Can Annotation Do the Trick? In Proc. of the 14th European Conf. on Infor- mation System (ECIS 2006), June 12-14, 2006, Gothenburg, Sweden.
  28. Holi & Hyvönen 2005] Holi, M. & Hyvönen, E.: Modeling De- grees of Conceptual Overlap in Semantic Web Ontologies. In Proc. of the ISWC Workshop on Uncertainty Reasoning for the Semantic Web, Galway, Ireland, November 7, 2005, pp. 98-99.
  29. Holloway 1994] Holloway, J.C.: The Hospitality Sector: Ac- commodation and Catering Services. In The Business of Tourism (4th ed.), pp. 117-129, London: Pitman, 1994. [Isakowitz et al. 1998] Isakowitz, T., Bieber, M., & Vitali, F.: Web Information Systems. Communications of the ACM, Vol. 41(1), 78-80, 1998.
  30. Jokela et al. 2000] Jokela, S., Sulonen, R., & Turpeinen, M.: On- tology Development for Flexible Content. In Proc. of the 33rd Hawaii Int. Conf. on System Sciences, Vol. 6, January 4- 7, 2000, Maui, Hawaii, p. 6056. [Kahan et al. 2001] Kahan, J., Koivunen, M.-R., Prud'Hom- meaux, E., & Swick, R.R.: Annotea: An Open RDF Infra- structure for Shared Web Annotations. In Proc. of the 10th International World Wide Web Conference (2001), Hong Kong, ACM Press, May 1-5, 2001, pp. 623-632.
  31. Kifer & Lausen 1989] Kifer, M. & Lausen, G.: F-Logic: A Higher-Order Language for Reasoning about Objects, Inheri- tance and Scheme. In Proc. ACM SIGMOD Int. Conference on Management of Data, pp. 134-146, Portland, 1989. [Kiryakov et al. 2003] Kiryakov, A., Popov, B., Ognyanoff, D., Manov, D., Kirilov, A., & Goranov, M.: Semantic Annota- tion, Indexing, and Retrieval. In Proc. of the 2nd Int. Seman- tic Web Conf. (ISWC 2003), 20-23 October 2003, Florida, USA, LNAI Vol. 2870, pp. 484-499, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003. [Kiyavitskaya et al. 2006] Kiyavitskaya, N., Zeni, N., Mich, L., & Mylopoulos, J.: Semi-Automatic Generation of Domain Specifications for Semantic Annotation Systems. Submitted to the 11th Int. Conf. on Applications of Natural Language to Information Systems (NLDB'2006).
  32. Kogut & Holmes 2001] Kogut, P. & Holmes, W.: AeroDAML: Applying Information Extraction to Generate DAML Annota- tions from Web Pages. In Proc. of the 1st Int. Conf. on Knowledge Capture (K-CAP 2001), Workshop on Knowledge Markup and Semantic Annotation, Victoria B.C., Canada, 2001. [Kushmerick et al. 1997] Kushmerick, N., Weld, D., & Dooren- bos, R.: Wrapper induction for information extraction. In BIBLIOGRAPHY
  33. Proc. of the 15 th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, Nagoya, Japan, 1997, pp. 729-737.
  34. Lauriston 1995] Lauriston, A.: Criteria for Measuring Term Recognition. European Chapter Meeting of the ACL. In Proc. of 7th Conf. on European chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Dublin, Ireland, 1995, pp. 17-22 [Leidner 2003] Leidner, J.L.: Current Issues in Software Engi- neering for Natural Language Processing. In Proc. of the Workshop on Software Engineering and Architecture of Lan- guage Technology Systems (SEALTS), the Joint Conf. for Human Language Technology and the Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics (HLT/NAACL'03), Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 2003, pp. 45-50.
  35. Lyman et al. 2003] Lyman, P., Varian, H.R., Dunn, J., Strygin, A., & Swearingen, K.: How much information? Technical re- port, Sims Berkeley, 2003.
  36. Maedche & Staab 2002] Maedche, A. & Staab S.: Applying Se- mantic Web Technologies for Tourism Information Systems. In: K. Wöber, A. Frew, M. Hitz (eds.), Proc. 9th Int. Conf. for Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism (ENTER 2002), Innsbruck, Austria, 2002.
  37. Maynard et al. 2006] Maynard, D., Peters, W., & Li, Y.: Metrics for Evaluation of Ontology-based Information Extraction. In the 4th Int. Evaluation of Ontologies for the Web Workshop (EON 2006), the 15th Int. World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2006), Edinburgh, United Kingdom, May 22, 2006. [McDowell et al. 2003] McDowell, L., Etzioni, E., Gribble, S., Halevy, A., Levy, H., Pentney, W., Verma, D., & Vlasseva, S.: Mangrove: Enticing Ordinary People onto the Semantic Web via Instant Gratification. In Proc. of the 2 nd Int. Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2003), October 2003, pp. 754-770.
  38. Mich & Franch 2005] Mich, L. & Franch M.: Instantiating Web Sites Quality Models: an Ontologies driven Approach. In Proc. of the CAISE'05 Workshop on Web Oriented Software Technologies (IWWOST'05), Porto, Portugal, June 13, 2005. [Muslea et al. 2003] Muslea, I., Minton, S., & Knoblock, C.A.: Active learning with strong and weak views: A case study on wrapper induction. In Proc. of 18th Int. Joint Conf. on Artifi- cial Intelligence (IJCAI 2003), pp. 415-420, 2003. [Nelson 1996] Nelson, M.L.: A Survey of Reverse Engineering and Program Comprehension, 1996. [Oertel et al. 2004] Oertel, C., O'Shea, S., Bodnar, A., & Blostein, D.: Using the Web to Validate Document Recogni- tion Results: Experiments with Business Cards. In Proc. of the SPIE, Vol. 5676, pp. 17-27, 2004.
  39. Oliveira, E.C.: Towards a new authoring envi- ronment: overview of some ontology-based systems. In Proc. of the 8th ICCC Conf. on Electronic Publishing (ElPub '04), June 2004, Brasilia, Brazil.
  40. Popov et al. 2003] Popov, B., Kiryakov, A., Kirilov, A., Manov, D., Ognyanoff, D., & Goranov, M.: KIM -Semantic Annota- tion Platform. In Proc. of 2nd Int. Semantic Web Conf. (ISWC 2003), 20-23 October 2003, Florida, USA, Springer- Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2003, Vol. 2870, pp. 834-849.
  41. Ravichandran et al. 2004] Ravichandran, D., Pantel, P., & Hovy, E.: The Terascale Challenge. In Proc. of KDD Workshop on Mining for and from the Semantic Web (MSW-04), the 10th International ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Dis- covery and Data Mining KDD 2004, 22 August 2004, Seattle, WA, USA, 2004, pp. 1-11.
  42. Reeve & Han 2005] Reeve, L. & Han, H.: Survey of semantic annotation platforms. In Proc. of the 2005 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, Santa Fe, New Mexico, March 13-17, 2005, L.M. Liebrock (ed.) SAC'05. ACM Press, New York, NY, pp. 1634-1638.
  43. Sheth 1999] Sheth, A.: Changing Focus on Interoperability in In- formation Systems: from System, Syntax, Structure to Se- mantics. In: Goodchild M.F., Egenhofer, M.J., Fegeas, R., Koffman, C.A. (eds.), Interoperating Geographic Information Systems, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 1999, pp. 5- 29. BIBLIOGRAPHY
  44. Sheth 2003] Sheth, A.: Semantic Meta Data for Enterprise In- formation Integration. DM Review, Vol. 13, No. 7, July 2003, pp. 52-54.
  45. Sheth et al. 2002] Sheth, A., Bertram, C., Avant, D., Hammond, B., Kochut, K., & Warke, Y.: Managing Semantic Content for the Web. IEEE Internet Computing (2002), Vol. 6(4), pp. 80- 87. [Sivashanmugam et al. 2003] Sivashanmugam, K., Sheth, A.P., Miller, J.A., Verma, K., Aggarwal, R., & Rajasekaran, P.: Metadata and Semantics for Web Services and Processes, In: Benn et al (eds.), Datenbanken und Informationssysteme: Festschrift zum 60-Geburtstag von Gunter Schlageter, Book Chapter, Praktische Informatik I, Hagen, October 2003, pp. 245-272.
  46. Spohrer & Riecken 2006] Spohrer, J. & Riecken, D. (eds.) Spei- cal issue on Services science, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 49 (7), July 2006, ACM Press, New York, NY, USA. [UNCTAD 2005] United Nations Conference on Trade and De- velopment (UNCTAD): The Information Economy Report 2005. [Uren et al. 2006] Uren, V., Cimiano, P., Iria, J., Handschuh, S., Vargas-Vera, M., Motta, E., & Ciravegna, F.: Semantic An- notation for Knowledge Management: Requirements and a Survey of the State of the Art. Journal of Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, Vol. 4 (1), pp. 14-28, 2006. [Vasilakopoulos et al. 2004] Vasilakopoulos, A., Bersani, M., & Black, W.J.: A Suite of Tools for Marking Up Textual Data for Temporal Text Mining Scenarios. In Proc. of the 4th Int. Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2004), Lisbon, 24-30 May 2004. [Wessman et al. 2005] Wessman, A., Liddle, S.W., & Embley, D.W.: A generalized framework for an ontology-based data- extraction system. In Proc. of 4th Int. Conf. on Information Systems Technology and its Applications (2005), pp. 239- 253. [Will 1993] Will, C.A.: Comparing human and machine perform- ance for natural language information extraction: results for English microelectronics from the MUC-5 evaluation. In Proc. of the Fifth Message Understanding Conference (MUC- 5), August 1993.
  47. Yang 1999] Yang, Y.: An evaluation of statistical approaches to text categorization. Journal of Information Retrieval (1999), Vol. 1, no. 1/2, pp. 67-88.
  48. Zanibbi et al. 2002] Zanibbi, R., Blostein, D., & Cordy, J.R.: Recognizing Mathematical Expressions Using Tree Trans- formation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Ma- chine Intelligence, Vol. 24 (11), pp. 1455-1467, 2002. [Zanibbi et al. 2004] Zanibbi, R., Blostein, D., & Cordy, J.R.: A Survey of Table Recognition: Models, Observations, Trans- formations, and Inferences. Int. Journal of Document Analy- sis and Recognition, Vol. 7 (1), pp. 1-16, Sept. 2004. [Zeni 2006] Zeni, N.: Designing Semantic Annotation Systems. PhD thesis in progress, University of Trento, 2006.
  49. <?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?> <!DOCTYPE rdf:RDF [ <!ENTITY rdf 'http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#'> <!ENTITY a 'http://protege.stanford.edu/system#'> <!ENTITY kb 'http://protege.stanford.edu/kb#'> <!ENTITY rdfs 'http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#'> ]> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="&rdf;" xmlns:a="&a;" xmlns:kb="&kb;" xmlns:rdfs="&rdfs;"> <rdfs:Class rdf:about="&kb;:OWL-ALL-DIFFERENT" rdfs:label=":OWL-ALL-DIFFERENT"> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="&a;_system_class"/> </rdfs:Class> <rdfs:Class rdf:about="&kb;:OWL-ALL-RESTRICTION" rdfs:label=":OWL-ALL-RESTRICTION"> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="&kb;:OWL-RESTRICTION"/> </rdfs:Class> <rdf:Property rdf:about="&kb;:OWL-ANNOTATION-PROPERTY" rdfs:label=":OWL-ANNOTATION-PROPERTY"> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&rdf;Property"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdfs;Literal"/> </rdf:Property> <rdfs:Class rdf:about="&kb;:OWL-ANONYMOUS-CLASS" rdfs:label=":OWL-ANONYMOUS-CLASS"> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="&kb;:OWL-CLASS"/> </rdfs:Class> <rdfs:Class rdf:about="&kb;:OWL-ANONYMOUS-ROOT" rdfs:label=":OWL-ANONYMOUS-ROOT"> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="&a;_system_class"/> </rdfs:Class> <rdfs:Class rdf:about="&kb;:OWL-CARDI-RESTRICTION" rdfs:label=":OWL-CARDI-RESTRICTION"> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="&kb;:OWL-RESTRICTION"/> </rdfs:Class> <rdfs:Class rdf:about="&kb;:OWL-CLASS" rdfs:label=":OWL-CLASS"> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="&rdfs;Class"/> </rdfs:Class> <rdf:Property rdf:about="&kb;:OWL-CLASSIFICATION-STATUS" rdfs:label=":OWL-CLASSIFICATION-STATUS"> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&rdfs;Class"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdfs;Literal"/> </rdf:Property> <rdfs:Class rdf:about="&kb;:OWL-COMPLEMENT-CLASS" rdfs:label=":OWL-COMPLEMENT-CLASS"> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="&kb;:OWL-LOGICAL-CLASS"/> </rdfs:Class> <rdf:Property rdf:about="&kb;:OWL-DEPRECATED" rdfs:label=":OWL-DEPRECATED"> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&rdf;Property"/> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&rdfs;Class"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdfs;Literal"/> </rdf:Property> <rdf:Property rdf:about="&kb;:OWL-DISJOINT-CLASSES" rdfs:label=":OWL-DISJOINT-CLASSES"> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&kb;:OWL-CLASS"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&kb;:OWL-CLASS"/> </rdf:Property> <rdf:Property rdf:about="&kb;:OWL-DISTINCT-MEMBERS" rdfs:label=":OWL-DISTINCT-MEMBERS"> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&kb;:OWL-ALL-DIFFERENT"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&a;owl_thing"/> </rdf:Property> <rdfs:Class rdf:about="&kb;:OWL-ENUMERATION-CLASS" rdfs:label=":OWL-ENUMERATION-CLASS"> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="&kb;:OWL-ANONYMOUS- CLASS"/> </rdfs:Class> <rdf:Property rdf:about="&kb;:OWL-EQUIVALENT-SLOTS" rdfs:label=":OWL-EQUIVALENT-SLOTS"> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&rdf;Property"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdf;Property"/> </rdf:Property> <rdfs:Class rdf:about="&kb;:OWL-HAS-RESTRICTION" rdfs:label=":OWL-HAS-RESTRICTION"> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="&kb;:OWL-RESTRICTION"/> </rdfs:Class> <rdf:Property rdf:about="&kb;:OWL-INFERRED-DIRECT-TYPES" rdfs:label=":OWL-INFERRED-DIRECT-TYPES"> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdfs;Class"/> </rdf:Property> <rdf:Property rdf:about="&kb;:OWL-INFERRED-SUBCLASSES" rdfs:label=":OWL-INFERRED-SUBCLASSES"> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&rdfs;Class"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdfs;Class"/> </rdf:Property> <rdf:Property rdf:about="&kb;:OWL-INFERRED-SUPERCLASSES" rdfs:label=":OWL-INFERRED-SUPERCLASSES"> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&rdfs;Class"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdfs;Class"/> </rdf:Property> <rdfs:Class rdf:about="&kb;:OWL-INTERSECTION-CLASS" rdfs:label=":OWL-INTERSECTION-CLASS"> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="&kb;:OWL-LOGICAL-CLASS"/> </rdfs:Class> <rdf:Property rdf:about="&kb;:OWL-INVERSE-FUNCTIONAL" rdfs:label=":OWL-INVERSE-FUNCTIONAL"> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&kb;owl:DatatypeProperty"/> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&kb;owl:ObjectProperty"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdfs;Literal"/> </rdf:Property> <rdfs:Class rdf:about="&kb;:OWL-LOGICAL-CLASS" rdfs:label=":OWL-LOGICAL-CLASS"> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="&kb;:OWL-ANONYMOUS- CLASS"/> </rdfs:Class> <rdf:Property rdf:about="&kb;:OWL-LOGICAL-OPERANDS" rdfs:label=":OWL-LOGICAL-OPERANDS"> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&kb;:OWL-CLASS"/> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&kb;:OWL-LOGICAL-CLASS"/> </rdf:Property> <rdfs:Class rdf:about="&kb;:OWL-MAXCARDI-RESTRICTION" rdfs:label=":OWL-MAXCARDI-RESTRICTION"> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="&kb;:OWL-RESTRICTION"/> </rdfs:Class> <rdfs:Class rdf:about="&kb;:OWL-MINCARDI-RESTRICTION" rdfs:label=":OWL-MINCARDI-RESTRICTION"> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="&kb;:OWL-RESTRICTION"/> </rdfs:Class> <rdf:Property rdf:about="&kb;:OWL-ONTOLOGY-IMPORTS" rdfs:label=":OWL-ONTOLOGY-IMPORTS"> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&kb;owl:Ontology"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdfs;Literal"/> </rdf:Property> <rdf:Property rdf:about="&kb;:OWL-ONTOLOGY-PREFIXES" rdfs:label=":OWL-ONTOLOGY-PREFIXES"> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&kb;owl:Ontology"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdfs;Literal"/> </rdf:Property> <rdf:Property rdf:about="&kb;:OWL-ONTOLOGY-URI" rdfs:label=":OWL-ONTOLOGY-URI"> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&kb;owl:Ontology"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdfs;Literal"/> </rdf:Property> <rdf:Property rdf:about="&kb;:OWL-RESOURCE-URI" rdfs:label=":OWL-RESOURCE-URI"> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&kb;ExternalResource"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdfs;Literal"/> </rdf:Property> <rdfs:Class rdf:about="&kb;:OWL-RESTRICTION" rdfs:label=":OWL-RESTRICTION"> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="&kb;:OWL-ANONYMOUS- CLASS"/> </rdfs:Class> <rdf:Property rdf:about="&kb;:OWL-SLOT-NUMERIC-MAXIMUM- INCLUSIVE" rdfs:label=":OWL-SLOT-NUMERIC-MAXIMUM-INCLUSIVE"> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&kb;:OWL-ALL-RESTRICTION"/> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&kb;:OWL-SOME-RESTRICTION"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdfs;Literal"/> </rdf:Property> <rdf:Property rdf:about="&kb;:OWL-SLOT-NUMERIC-MINIMUM- INCLUSIVE" rdfs:label=":OWL-SLOT-NUMERIC-MINIMUM-INCLUSIVE"> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&kb;:OWL-ALL-RESTRICTION"/> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&kb;:OWL-SOME-RESTRICTION"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdfs;Literal"/> </rdf:Property> <rdfs:Class rdf:about="&kb;:OWL-SOME-RESTRICTION" rdfs:label=":OWL-SOME-RESTRICTION"> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="&kb;:OWL-RESTRICTION"/> </rdfs:Class> <rdf:Property rdf:about="&kb;:OWL-SYMMETRIC" rdfs:label=":OWL-SYMMETRIC"> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&kb;owl:ObjectProperty"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdfs;Literal"/> </rdf:Property> <rdf:Property rdf:about="&kb;:OWL-TRANSITIVE" rdfs:label=":OWL-TRANSITIVE"> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&kb;owl:ObjectProperty"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdfs;Literal"/> </rdf:Property> <rdfs:Class rdf:about="&kb;:OWL-UNION-CLASS" rdfs:label=":OWL-UNION-CLASS"> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="&kb;:OWL-LOGICAL-CLASS"/> </rdfs:Class> <rdf:Property rdf:about="&kb;:OWL-XML-SCHEMA-DATATYPE" rdfs:label=":OWL-XML-SCHEMA-DATATYPE"> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&rdf;Property"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdfs;Literal"/> </rdf:Property> <rdf:Description rdf:about="&kb;Association" rdfs:comment="FIFA; association;" rdfs:label="Association"> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="&kb;Sport_Organization"/> <rdf:type rdf:resource="&kb;owl:Class"/> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Description rdf:about="&kb;Building" rdfs:label="Building"> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="&kb;Sport_Infrastructure"/> <rdf:type rdf:resource="&kb;owl:Class"/> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Description rdf:about="&kb;Cable_Road" rdfs:label="Cable_Road"> <rdfs:comment>ropeway; ropeways; rope-way; rope-ways; fu- nicular; cable; cable-car; cable-cars; cable-road; cable- roads; ski-tow; ski-lift; chair-lift; ski-lifts; chair- lifts; lift; lifts; rope-tow; cableway; chairlift; chair- lifts;
  50. </rdfs:comment> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="&kb;Road"/> <rdf:type rdf:resource="&kb;owl:Class"/> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Description rdf:about="&kb;Club" rdfs:comment="club;" rdfs:label="Club"> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="&kb;Sport_Organization"/> <rdf:type rdf:resource="&kb;owl:Class"/> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Description rdf:about="&kb;Court" rdfs:comment="court; courts;" rdfs:label="Court"> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="&kb;Building"/> <rdf:type rdf:resource="&kb;owl:Class"/> </rdf:Description> <rdfs:Class rdf:about="&kb;ExternalResource" rdfs:label="ExternalResource"> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="&a;owl_thing"/> </rdfs:Class> <rdf:Description rdf:about="&kb;League" rdfs:comment="league; NHL; " rdfs:label="League"> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="&kb;Sport_Organization"/> <rdf:type rdf:resource="&kb;owl:Class"/> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Description rdf:about="&kb;Road" rdfs:label="Road"> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="&kb;Sport_Infrastructure"/> <rdf:type rdf:resource="&kb;owl:Class"/> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Description rdf:about="&kb;School" rdfs:comment="school; courses;" rdfs:label="School"> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="&kb;Sport_Organization"/> <rdf:type rdf:resource="&kb;owl:Class"/> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Description rdf:about="&kb;Sport_Activity" rdfs:comment="activity; activities; exercises;" rdfs:label="Sport_Activity"> <rdf:type rdf:resource="&kb;owl:Class"/> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="&a;owl_thing"/> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Description rdf:about="&kb;Sport_Event" rdfs:label="Sport_Event"> <rdfs:comment>championship; competition; competitions; contest; contests; emulation; cup;
  51. </rdfs:comment> <rdf:type rdf:resource="&kb;owl:Class"/> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="&a;owl_thing"/> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Description rdf:about="&kb;Sport_Infrastructure" rdfs:label="Sport_Infrastructure"> <rdf:type rdf:resource="&kb;owl:Class"/> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="&a;owl_thing"/> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Description rdf:about="&kb;Sport_Organization" rdfs:label="Sport_Organization"> <rdf:type rdf:resource="&kb;owl:Class"/> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="&a;owl_thing"/> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Description rdf:about="&kb;Stadium" rdfs:label="Stadium"> <rdfs:comment>gym; gymnasium; stadium; arena; hippodrome; rink; turf; ground; </rdfs:comment> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="&kb;Building"/> <rdf:type rdf:resource="&kb;owl:Class"/> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Description rdf:about="&kb;SwimmingPool" rdfs:comment="pool; swimming-pool;" rdfs:label="SwimmingPool"> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="&kb;Building"/> <rdf:type rdf:resource="&kb;owl:Class"/> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Description rdf:about="&kb;Track" rdfs:label="Track"> <rdfs:comment>track; tracks; trackway; trackways; race- track; racetracks; piste; path; paths;
  52. </rdfs:comment> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="&kb;Road"/> <rdf:type rdf:resource="&kb;owl:Class"/> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Description rdf:about="&kb;address" rdfs:label="address"> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&kb;Building"/> <rdf:type rdf:resource="&kb;owl:DatatypeProperty"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdfs;Literal"/> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Description rdf:about="&kb;building_name" rdfs:label="building_name"> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&kb;Building"/> <rdf:type rdf:resource="&kb;owl:DatatypeProperty"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdfs;Literal"/> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Description rdf:about="&kb;date" kb::OWL-XML-SCHEMA-DATATYPE="date" rdfs:label="date"> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&kb;Sport_Event"/> <rdf:type rdf:resource="&kb;owl:DatatypeProperty"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdfs;Literal"/> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Description rdf:about="&kb;endingTime" kb::OWL-XML-SCHEMA-DATATYPE="time" rdfs:label="endingTime"> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&kb;Sport_Event"/> <rdf:type rdf:resource="&kb;owl:DatatypeProperty"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdfs;Literal"/> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Description rdf:about="&kb;equipment" rdfs:label="equipment"> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&kb;Sport_Activity"/> <rdf:type rdf:resource="&kb;owl:DatatypeProperty"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdfs;Literal"/> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Description rdf:about="&kb;length" kb::OWL-XML-SCHEMA-DATATYPE="float" rdfs:label="length"> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&kb;Road"/> <rdf:type rdf:resource="&kb;owl:DatatypeProperty"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdfs;Literal"/> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Description rdf:about="&kb;owl:Class" rdfs:label="owl:Class"> <rdf:type rdf:resource="&kb;owl:Class"/> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="&rdfs;Class"/> </rdf:Description> <rdfs:Class rdf:about="&kb;owl:DataRange" rdfs:label="owl:DataRange"> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="&a;owl_thing"/> </rdfs:Class> <rdf:Description rdf:about="&kb;owl:DatatypeProperty" rdfs:label="owl:DatatypeProperty"> <rdf:type rdf:resource="&kb;owl:Class"/> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="&rdf;Property"/> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Description rdf:about="&kb;owl:Nothing" rdfs:label="owl:Nothing"> <rdf:type rdf:resource="&kb;owl:Class"/> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="&a;owl_thing"/> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Description rdf:about="&kb;owl:ObjectProperty" rdfs:label="owl:ObjectProperty"> <rdf:type rdf:resource="&kb;owl:Class"/> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="&rdf;Property"/> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Description rdf:about="&kb;owl:Ontology" rdfs:label="owl:Ontology"> <rdf:type rdf:resource="&kb;owl:Class"/> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="&a;_system_class"/> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Property rdf:about="&kb;owl:allValuesFrom" rdfs:label="owl:allValuesFrom"> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&kb;:OWL-ALL-RESTRICTION"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdfs;Literal"/> </rdf:Property> <rdf:Description rdf:about="&kb;owl:backwardCompatibleWith" kb::OWL-ANNOTATION-PROPERTY="true" rdfs:label="owl:backwardCompatibleWith"> <rdf:type rdf:resource="&kb;owl:DatatypeProperty"/> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&kb;owl:Ontology"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdfs;Literal"/> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Property rdf:about="&kb;owl:cardinality" rdfs:label="owl:cardinality"> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&kb;:OWL-CARDI-RESTRICTION"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdfs;Literal"/> </rdf:Property> <rdf:Property rdf:about="&kb;owl:differentFrom" rdfs:label="owl:differentFrom"> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&a;owl_thing"/> </rdf:Property> <rdf:Property rdf:about="&kb;owl:hasValue" rdfs:label="owl:hasValue"> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&kb;:OWL-HAS-RESTRICTION"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdfs;Literal"/> </rdf:Property> <rdf:Description rdf:about="&kb;owl:incompatibleWith" kb::OWL-ANNOTATION-PROPERTY="true" rdfs:label="owl:incompatibleWith"> <rdf:type rdf:resource="&kb;owl:DatatypeProperty"/> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&kb;owl:Ontology"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdfs;Literal"/> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Property rdf:about="&kb;owl:maxCardinality" rdfs:label="owl:maxCardinality"> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&kb;:OWL-MAXCARDI- RESTRICTION"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdfs;Literal"/> </rdf:Property> <rdf:Property rdf:about="&kb;owl:minCardinality" rdfs:label="owl:minCardinality"> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&kb;:OWL-MINCARDI- RESTRICTION"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdfs;Literal"/> </rdf:Property> <rdf:Property rdf:about="&kb;owl:onProperty" rdfs:label="owl:onProperty"> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&kb;:OWL-RESTRICTION"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdf;Property"/> </rdf:Property> <rdf:Property rdf:about="&kb;owl:oneOf" rdfs:label="owl:oneOf"> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&kb;owl:DataRange"/> </rdf:Property> <rdf:Description rdf:about="&kb;owl:priorVersion" kb::OWL-ANNOTATION-PROPERTY="true" rdfs:label="owl:priorVersion"> <rdf:type rdf:resource="&kb;owl:DatatypeProperty"/> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&kb;owl:Ontology"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdfs;Literal"/> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Property rdf:about="&kb;owl:sameAs" rdfs:label="owl:sameAs"> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&a;owl_thing"/> </rdf:Property> <rdf:Property rdf:about="&kb;owl:someValuesFrom" rdfs:label="owl:someValuesFrom"> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&kb;:OWL-SOME-RESTRICTION"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdfs;Literal"/> </rdf:Property> <rdf:Description rdf:about="&kb;owl:versionInfo" kb::OWL-ANNOTATION-PROPERTY="true" rdfs:label="owl:versionInfo"> <rdf:type rdf:resource="&kb;owl:DatatypeProperty"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdfs;Literal"/> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Description rdf:about="&kb;season" rdfs:label="season"> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&kb;Sport_Activity"/> <rdf:type rdf:resource="&kb;owl:DatatypeProperty"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdfs;Literal"/> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Description rdf:about="&kb;startingTime" kb::OWL-XML-SCHEMA-DATATYPE="time" rdfs:label="startingTime"> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&kb;Sport_Event"/> <rdf:type rdf:resource="&kb;owl:DatatypeProperty"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdfs;Literal"/> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Property rdf:about="&rdf;first" rdfs:label="rdf:first"> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&rdf;List"/> </rdf:Property> <rdf:Property rdf:about="&rdf;object" rdfs:label="rdf:object"> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&rdf;Statement"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdfs;Resource"/> </rdf:Property> <rdf:Property rdf:about="&rdf;predicate" rdfs:label="rdf:predicate"> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&rdf;Statement"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdfs;Resource"/> </rdf:Property> <rdf:Property rdf:about="&rdf;rest" rdfs:label="rdf:rest"> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdf;List"/> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&rdf;List"/> </rdf:Property> <rdf:Property rdf:about="&rdf;subject" rdfs:label="rdf:subject"> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&rdf;Statement"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdfs;Resource"/> </rdf:Property> <rdf:Property rdf:about="&rdf;type" rdfs:label="rdf:type"> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdfs;Class"/> </rdf:Property> <rdf:Property rdf:about="&rdf;value" rdfs:label="rdf:value"/> <rdf:Description rdf:about="&rdfs;comment" kb::OWL-ANNOTATION-PROPERTY="true" rdfs:label="rdfs:comment"> <rdf:type rdf:resource="&kb;owl:DatatypeProperty"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdfs;Literal"/> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Description rdf:about="&rdfs;isDefinedBy" kb::OWL-ANNOTATION-PROPERTY="true" rdfs:label="rdfs:isDefinedBy"> <rdf:type rdf:resource="&kb;owl:ObjectProperty"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdfs;Resource"/> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Description rdf:about="&rdfs;label" kb::OWL-ANNOTATION-PROPERTY="true" rdfs:label="rdfs:label"> <rdf:type rdf:resource="&kb;owl:DatatypeProperty"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdfs;Literal"/> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Property rdf:about="&rdfs;member" rdfs:label="rdfs:member"> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdfs;Resource"/> </rdf:Property> <rdf:Description rdf:about="&rdfs;seeAlso" kb::OWL-ANNOTATION-PROPERTY="true" rdfs:label="rdfs:seeAlso"> <rdf:type rdf:resource="&kb;owl:ObjectProperty"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdfs;Resource"/> </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF> http://www.apt.trento.it/English/ ENG_Home.htm 2 Azienda per il Turismo San Martino di Castrozza, Primiero e Vanoi (July 6, 2006) http://www.sanmartino.com/estat e/index_uk.html http://www.sanmartino.com/inve rno/index.html
  53. A.P.T. Valle di Fiemme (June 30, 2005) http://www.valfiemme.net/En/In dex.htm
  54. A.P.T. degli Altipiani di Folgaria, Lavarone e Lu- cerna (June 28, 2005) http://www.trentino.to/it/guide/8 5202sy,en,SCH1/objectId,RGN1 0643it,curr,EUR,season,at1,selec tedEntry,home.html/home.html 5 Azienda per il Turismo. Terme di Comano- Dolomiti di Brenta (June 28, 2005) http://www.comano.to/ing/home/ home.php?where=home
  55. A.P.T. delle Valli di Sole, Pejo e Rabbi (June 30, 2005) http://www.valdisole.net/ing/inv/ Welcome.html
  56. A.P.T. Dolomiti di Brenta -Altopiano della Paga- nella (July 1, 2005) http://www.aptdolomitipaganella. com/home_eng.html 8 Azienda per il Turismo Rovereto e Vallagarina (July 1, 2005) http://www.apt.rovereto.tn.it/wel come.htm
  57. 9 Azienda per il Turismo della Val di Fassa (June http://www.fassa.com/uk/index.a sp APPENDIX E 152 29, 2005)
  58. A.P.T. dell' Altopiano di Pinè e valle di Cembra (June 28, 2005) http://www.aptpinecembra.it/ho me.aspx?L=ENG
  59. Ingarda Trentino s.p.a. (July 1, 2005) http://www.gardatrentinonline.it/ default.aspx?IDL=2
  60. Madonna di Campiglio - Pinzolo -Val Rendena Azienda per il Turismo S.P.A (June 28, 2005) http://www.campiglio.to/ing/pagi ne_pinzolo/home.html?PHPSES SID=06343f430157dc91729e65d dc4951641
  61. A.P.T.Valle di Non (July 6, 2005) http://www.valledinon.tn.it/Ingle se/index.htm

Related papers

An annotation framework for the semantic web
Siegfried Handschuh

2001

View PDFchevron_right
Cerno: Light-weight tool support for semantic annotation of textual documents
John Mylopoulos

2009

Enrichment of text documents with semantic metadata reflecting their meaning facilitates document organization, indexing and retrieval. However, most web data remain unstructured because of the difficulty and the cost of manually annotating text. In this work, we present Cerno, a framework for semi-automatic semantic annotation of textual documents according to a domain-specific semantic model.

View PDFchevron_right
Tool-Supported Process for Semantic Annotation: An Experimental Evaluation
John Mylopoulos

2005

Abstract. The Semantic Web vision cannot be achieved without large-scale automation in the semantic annotation process. In this paper we describe a toolsupported process and present an experimental evaluation framework as well as extensive experimental results on the effectiveness of the process. Our proposal is based on techniques and technologies traditionally used in software analysis and reverse engineering for large-scale legacy code bases.

View PDFchevron_right
Semi-Automatic Approach for Semantic Annotation
Mohammad Yasrebi

The third phase of web means semantic web requires many web pages which are annotated with metadata. Thus, a crucial question is where to acquire these metadata. In this paper we propose our approach, a semi-automatic method to annotate the texts of documents and web pages and employs with a quite comprehensive knowledge base to categorize instances with regard to ontology. The approach is evaluated against the manual annotations and one of the most popular annotation tools which works the same as our tool. The approach is implemented in .net framework and uses the WordNet for knowledge base, an annotation tool for the Semantic Web.

View PDFchevron_right
Semantic Annotation: The Mainstay of Semantic Web
Thabet Slimani

International Journal of Computer Applications Technology and Research, 2013

Given that semantic Web realization is based on the critical mass of metadata accessibility and the representation of data with formal knowledge, it needs to generate metadata that is specific, easy to understand and well-defined. However, semantic annotation of the web documents is the successful way to make the Semantic Web vision a reality. This paper introduces the Semantic Web and its vision (stack layers) with regard to some concept definitions that helps the understanding of semantic annotation. Additionally, this paper introduces the semantic annotation categories, tools, domains and models.

View PDFchevron_right
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved