Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Figures
Introduction
Discussion
Conclusion
References
All Topics
Philosophy
Metaphysics

Patterns for the Pragmatic Web

Profile image of Aldo de MoorAldo de Moor

2005

https://doi.org/10.1007/11524564_1
visibility

…

description

18 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

The Semantic Web is a significant improvement of the original World Wide Web. It models shared meanings with ontologies, and uses these to provide many different kinds of web services. However, shared meaning is not enough. If the Semantic Web is to have an impact in the real world, with its multiple, changing, and imperfect sources of meaning, adequately modeling context is essential. Context of use is the focus of the Pragmatic Web and is all-important to deal with issues like information overload and relevance of information. Still, great confusion remains about how to model context and which role it should play in the Pragmatic Web. We propose an approach to put ontologies in context by using pragmatic patterns in meaning negotiation processes, among other meaning evolution processes. It then becomes possible to better deal with partial, contradicting, and evolving ontologies. Such an approach can help address some of the complexities experienced in many current ontology engineering efforts.

Figures (6)
Meaning plays a central role in connecting the various Webs. Meaning assignment takes place when syntactic resources are semantically enriched, such as by XML-tags being added to HTML-pages. Meaning alignment has to do with interoperability between ontologies: to what extent do their semantic models agree? How can (parts of) ontologies be meaningfully linked? How to deal with definitions that partially overlap in meaning? Much recent work addresses these — very hard — issues, e.g. [24,4]. Such meaning alignment problems mostly focus on modeling representational and evolutionary aspects of ontologies. However, as we have seen what needs separate attention are issues of ontology use. In other words: how can the process of meaning negotiation be improved? Meanings evolve not in the ontologies themselves, but in the pragmatic contexts where they are being used. Thus, a strong involvement of the community in ontology engineering processes is required, ensuring that individual and community changes in meaning are represented adequately in the ontologies.
Meaning plays a central role in connecting the various Webs. Meaning assignment takes place when syntactic resources are semantically enriched, such as by XML-tags being added to HTML-pages. Meaning alignment has to do with interoperability between ontologies: to what extent do their semantic models agree? How can (parts of) ontologies be meaningfully linked? How to deal with definitions that partially overlap in meaning? Much recent work addresses these — very hard — issues, e.g. [24,4]. Such meaning alignment problems mostly focus on modeling representational and evolutionary aspects of ontologies. However, as we have seen what needs separate attention are issues of ontology use. In other words: how can the process of meaning negotiation be improved? Meanings evolve not in the ontologies themselves, but in the pragmatic contexts where they are being used. Thus, a strong involvement of the community in ontology engineering processes is required, ensuring that individual and community changes in meaning are represented adequately in the ontologies.
Charles decides to look for potential customers using the WYO=WTW (WhatY ouOffer-is-WhatTheyWant) e-business broker. This broker is a web service that maximizes precision of advertising by using the latest Pragmatic Web- technologies. In particular, it mediates in meaning negotiation between sellers and prospective buyers by intelligent use of pragmatic pattern matching. The following type hierarchy is part of the WYO=WTW community context ontology (Fig.2): A most relevant concept in any advertising process is the object for sale. One important property of these objects, which is often discussed in the business negotiations of this particular community, is the size of the object being offered. Two important size indicators are the minimum and the maximum length of the object. Two communication roles in an e-business transaction are the seller and the consumer,
Charles decides to look for potential customers using the WYO=WTW (WhatY ouOffer-is-WhatTheyWant) e-business broker. This broker is a web service that maximizes precision of advertising by using the latest Pragmatic Web- technologies. In particular, it mediates in meaning negotiation between sellers and prospective buyers by intelligent use of pragmatic pattern matching. The following type hierarchy is part of the WYO=WTW community context ontology (Fig.2): A most relevant concept in any advertising process is the object for sale. One important property of these objects, which is often discussed in the business negotiations of this particular community, is the size of the object being offered. Two important size indicators are the minimum and the maximum length of the object. Two communication roles in an e-business transaction are the seller and the consumer,
MatMakers has its own corporate ontology, from which Charles imports the Mat and Size-concepts (including their positions in the type hierarchy) into the individual context ontology of MatMakers for the WYO=WTW service. He also adds the Cat- concept, since that is what he wants to focus his particular potential customer search on. Since the maximum length of the mats produced by MatMakers is one meter, Charles adds to his individual context ontology the required pattern that to be of interest for an advertisement any cat for which the mat is bought should be at most one meter long (Fig.3): Fig. 3. The Individual Context Ontology of MatMakers for the WYO-WTW Service
MatMakers has its own corporate ontology, from which Charles imports the Mat and Size-concepts (including their positions in the type hierarchy) into the individual context ontology of MatMakers for the WYO=WTW service. He also adds the Cat- concept, since that is what he wants to focus his particular potential customer search on. Since the maximum length of the mats produced by MatMakers is one meter, Charles adds to his individual context ontology the required pattern that to be of interest for an advertisement any cat for which the mat is bought should be at most one meter long (Fig.3): Fig. 3. The Individual Context Ontology of MatMakers for the WYO-WTW Service
Fig. 4. The Individual Context Ontology of CLAW for the WYO-WTW Service To find potential customers, Charles first sends a query identical to his required pattern to the web service (Fig.5):
Fig. 4. The Individual Context Ontology of CLAW for the WYO-WTW Service To find potential customers, Charles first sends a query identical to his required pattern to the web service (Fig.5):
The fact in ADW’s ontology that matches with the query (i.e. is a specialization) is the following (Fig. 10):
The fact in ADW’s ontology that matches with the query (i.e. is a specialization) is the following (Fig. 10):
Fig 12. Meaning Negotiation on the Pragmatic Web
Fig 12. Meaning Negotiation on the Pragmatic Web

Related papers

Context on the Semantic Web: Why and How
Loris Bozzato

ARCOE-12, 2012

Dealing with context is one of the most interesting and important problems faced in Artificial Intelligence (AI). Traditional AI applications often require to model, store, retrieve and reason about knowledge that holds within certain circumstances-the context. Without considering this contextual information, reasoning can easily run into problems such as: inconsistency, when considering knowledge in the wrong context; inefficiency, by considering knowledge irrelevant for a certain context; incompleteness, since an inference may depend on knowledge assumed to hold for a context but which is not explicitly stated. Contextual information is also relevant in knowledge representation and reasoning and it represents a strategic aspect to deal with inconsistency, ambiguity, uncertainty, knowledge base evolution, and commonsense reasoning, among others.

View PDFchevron_right
Domain Modeling for the Semantic Web: Assessing the Pragmatics of Ontologies
Veda Storey

2017

The Semantic Web requires the ability to express information in a precise-interpretable form so that software sharing data can also gain an understanding of the meaning of the terms describing the data. Referred to as the third component of the Semantic Web, ontologies are the means by which separate web components can share a common language and communicate in order to work together efficiently. However, there is a lack of understanding of ontology quality, specifically as it relates to selecting or creating an ontology for a Semantic Web application. Quality assessment systems are needed which include a way to assess the pragmatics, or usefulness, of a domain ontology for its intended purpose. This research analyzes the pragmatics of domain ontologies with respect to consistency, coverage, and usability to derive a set of evaluation metrics, which are represented in a framework. An empirical evaluation illustrates the usefulness of the metrics.

View PDFchevron_right
Context dependency management in on-tology engineering
Robert Meersman

2006

A viable ontology engineering methodology requires supporting domain experts in gradually building and managing increasingly complex versions of ontological elements and their converging and diverging interrelationships. Contexts are necessary to formalise and reason about such a dynamic wealth of knowledge. However, context dependencies introduce many complexities. In this article, we introduce a formal framework for supporting context dependency management processes, based on the DOGMA framework and methodology for scalable ontology engineering. Key notions are a set of context dependency operators, which can be combined to manage complex context dependencies like articulation, application, specialisation, and revision dependencies. In turn, these dependencies can be used in context-driven ontology engineering processes tailored to the specific requirements of collaborative communities. This is illustrated by a real-world case of interorganisational competency ontology engineering.

View PDFchevron_right
Taking "pragmatic dimensions" of ontologies into account
Brigitte Denis

Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Semantic Systems - I-Semantics '11, 2011

A major aim of the Pragmatic Web is-to support communities to put ontologies in context‖. As a contribution to this aim, we present the framework we developed to analyze the way we attempted to contextualize the ontologies underlying a set of semantic knowledge services dedicated to communities of practice. The framework was derived from the-Ontology Framework‖ elaborated by members of the Ontology Engineering community during the Ontology Summit 2007. Both frameworks define a series of-pragmatic dimensions‖ of ontologies. Because our derived framework does not cover all possible dimensions, we propose to complement it, by relying on existing work from the Ontology Engineering community in general, and from the Pragmatic Web community in particular. In conclusion, we invite the Pragmatic Web community to pursue such a work by jointly elaborating a consensual-Pragmatic Ontology Framework‖.

View PDFchevron_right
Ontology and context
Alexandre Rademaker

… , 2008. PerCom 2008. …, 2008

This paper considers a formal framework to contextualize ontologies and presents a formal algebra to manipulate these entities providing several ways of composing ontologies, contexts or both. The algebra gives the flexibility that is required to model applications where the meaning of an entity depends on environment constraints or where dynamic changes in the environment must be considered.

View PDFchevron_right
Context-aware access to ontologies on the Web
Alejandro Llaves

Domain vocabularies capture the ontology engineer's contextspecific perspective on reality. Existing solutions for serving such ontologies often lack intuitive means to avoid conflicts due to logically inconsistent concept descriptions. In addition, no efficient and simple techniques for selecting only relevant terms from extensive vocabularies exist. We present an implementation of a concept repository which shifts the focus from ontologies towards individual concept descriptions. The description's identity is defined by its title and an optional set of subjects. We introduce the notion of profiling concept descriptions to distinguish between context-independent and context-specific (and potentially conflicting) properties. A flexible approach for constructing the concept identifiers supports context-aware access. Furthermore, an extensible set of query actions allows for retrieving certain parts of ontologies, e.g. the neighbourhood of one particular concept or all concepts associated with a certain subject. We illustrate the findings with an implementation of an ontology repository.

View PDFchevron_right
Contextual Ontology Modeling Language to Facilitate the use of enabling Semantic Web Technologies
Maria Rosa Galli

Web Semantics & Ontology

A common approach to represent semantics on Semantic Web area is to use an ontology. However, there is an emerging approach that combines an ontology with its context definition. So, the misunderstanding can be avoided if the context is explicitly defined. The resulting structure is called contextual ontology. To process a contextual ontology at run time, it has to be expressed in a machine processable language. However, for the analysis and design phase of a Web domain, a more appropriate ontology modeling language is needed. To this aim, this chapter presents a metamodel for modeling explicit and formal contextual ontologies that assists Web domain designers in modeling contextual ontologies. Furthermore, the relationship between XML specifications and ontologies in order to add formal and explicit semantics to Web domain designs is analyzed.

View PDFchevron_right
Using Semantic Web Tools for Context Interchange
Mihai Lupu

The COntext INterchange Strategy (COIN) is an approach to solving the problem of interoperability of semantically heterogeneous data sources through context mediation. The existing implementation of COIN uses its own notation and syntax for representing ontologies. More recently, the OWL Web Ontology Language is becoming established as the W3C recommended ontology language. A bridge is needed between these two areas and an explanation on how each of the two approaches can learn from each other. We propose the use of the COIN strategy to solve context disparity and ontology interoperability problems in the emerging Semantic Web both at the ontology level and at the data level. In this work we showcase how the problems that arise from context-dependant representation of facts can be mitigated by Semantic Web techniques, as tools of the conceptual framework developed over 15 years of COIN research.

View PDFchevron_right
Dynamic semantics ontological framework for web semantics
Taniana Rodriguez

In this article a Dynamic Semantic Ontological Framework (MODS) is proposed for web semantics to permit the interpretation and formalizing a query carried out by a user in natural language. As such, MODS permit user queries in natural language. To do so, MOD transforms the query in a format that represents the meaning of the query (RSC) utilizing their different components: lexicon, linguistic task ontology, and the ontology of the domain. This way, MODS use mechanisms of ontological semantics and tools for processing natural language for processing the user's query. The RSC is transformed in an ontological language (OWL) to later be used by the web semantics. In this work, the MOD architecture is presented.

View PDFchevron_right
Combining contexts and ontologies: A case study and a conceptual proposal
Mariela Galván Rico

ECAI workshop: Contexts …

Today, there is an increasing interest on combining context and on-tology to define information semantics. The effort for combining both approaches could be classified according to the objectives to be achieved in works focused on: modelling and knowledge repre-sentation [1], [2]; ...

View PDFchevron_right

References (31)

  1. Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J. and Lassila, O. (2001), The Semantic Web, Scientific American, May 2001: 35-43.
  2. Buchler, J. (1955), Philosophical Writings of Peirce. Dover Publ., New York.
  3. Carlile, P. R. (2002), A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development, Organization Science, 13(4): 442-455.
  4. Corbett, D. (2004), Interoperability of Ontologies Using Conceptual Graph Theory. In Proc. of the 12th Intl. Conference on Conceptual Structures (ICCS 2004), Huntsville, AL, USA, July 2004, LNAI 3127. Springer, Berlin, pp. 375-387.
  5. Delugach, H. S. (2003), Towards Building Active Knowledge Systems With Conceptual Graphs, in Proc. of the 11th Intl. Conf. on Conceptual Structures (ICCS 2003), Dresden, Germany, July 2003, LNAI 2746. Springer, Berlin, pp. 296-308
  6. de Moor, A. (2004), Improving the Testbed Development Process in Collaboratories. In Proc. of the 12th Intl. Conference on Conceptual Structures (ICCS 2004), Huntsville, AL, USA, July 2004, LNAI 3127. Springer, Berlin, pp. 261-274.
  7. de Moor, A., Keeler, M. and Richmond, G. (2002), Towards a Pragmatic Web. In Proc. of the 10th Intl. Conference On Conceptual Structures (ICCS 2002), Borovets, Bulgaria, July 2002, LNAI 2393. Springer, Berlin, pp. 235-249.
  8. de Moor, A. and Weigand, H. (2004), Business Negotiation Support: Theory and Practice, International Negotiation, 9(1):31-57.
  9. Fillies, C., Wood-Albrecht, G. and Weichhardt, F. (2003), Pragmatic Applications of the Semantic Web Using SemTalk, Computer Networks, 42: 599-615.
  10. Gruber, T. (1994), Towards Principles for the Design of Ontologies Used for Knowledge Sharing. In N. Guarino and R. Poli (eds.) Formal Ontology in Conceptual Analysis and Knowledge Representation. Kluwer.
  11. Habermas, J. (1981) Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns (2 vols.). Suhrkamp, Frankfurt.
  12. Harper, L.W., and Delugach, H.S. (2004), Using Conceptual Graphs to Represent Agent Semantic Constituents. In Proc. Of the 12th Intl. Conference on Conceptual Structures (ICCS 2004), Huntsville, AL, USA, July 2004, LNAI 3127. Springer, Berlin pp. 325-338.
  13. Kim, H. and Dong, A. (2002), Pragmatics of the Semantic Web. In Semantic Web Workshop 2002, Hawaii.
  14. Kreuz, R. J. and Roberts, R. M. (1993), When Collaboration Fails: Consequences of Pragmatic Errors in Conversation, Journal of Pragmatics, 19: 239-252.
  15. Kurtz, C. F. and Snowden, D. J. (2003), The New Dynamics of Strategy: Sense-Making in a Complex and Complicated World, IBM Systems Journal, 42(3): 462-483.
  16. McCarthy, J. (1996), Elephant 2000: A Programming Language Based on Speech Acts, Technical Report, Stanford University.
  17. McLaughlin, W. S. (2003), The Use of the Internet for Political Action by Non-State Dissident Actors in the Middle East, First Monday, 8(11).
  18. Mey, J. L. (2003), Context and (Dis)ambiguity: a Pragmatic View, Journal of Pragmatics, 35: 331-347.
  19. Meyer, J. J.-C. and Wieringa, R., eds. (1993), Deontic Logic in Computer Science: Normative System Specification. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
  20. Mineau, G.W. and Gerbe, O. (1997). Contexts: A Formal Definition of Worlds of Assertions. In Proc. of the 5th Intl. Conference on Conceptual Structures (ICCS 1997), Seattle, Washington, USA, August 1997, LNCS 1257. Springer, Berlin, pp.80-94.
  21. Nonaka, I., Reinmoeller, P. and Senoo, D. (1998), The ' ART' of Knowledge: Systems to Capitalize on Market Knowledge, European Management Journal, 16(6): 673-684.
  22. Repenning, A. and Sullivan, J. (2003), The Pragmatic Web: Agent-Based Multimodal Web Interaction with no Browser in Sight. In Human-Computer Interaction -INTERACT'03. IOS Press, IFIP, pp. 212-219.
  23. Schuler, D. (2002), A Pattern Language for Living Communication. In Participatory Design Conference (PDC'02), Malmo, Sweden, June 2002.
  24. Shanks, G., Tansley, E. and Weber, R. (2003), Using Ontology to Validate Conceptual Models, Communications of the ACM, 46(10): 85-89.
  25. Singh, M. P. (2002a), The Pragmatic Web, IEEE Internet Computing, May/June: 4-5.
  26. Singh, M. P. (2002b), The Pragmatic Web: Preliminary Thoughts. In Proc. of the NSF-EU Workshop on Database and Information Systems Research for Semantic Web and Enterprises, April 3-5, Amicalolo Falls and State Park, Georgia.
  27. Skagestad, P. (1993), Thinking with Machines: Intelligence Automation, Evolutionary Epistemology, and Semiotic, Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems, 16(2): 157-180.
  28. Sowa, J. (2002), Architectures for Intelligent Systems, IBM Syst. Journal, 41(3):331-349.
  29. Spyns, P. and Meersman, R. A. (2003), From Knowledge to Interaction: from the Semantic to the Pragmatic Web. Technical Report STAR-2003-05, STARLab , Brussels.
  30. Spyns, P., Meersman, R. A. and Jarrar, M. (2002), Data Modelling versus Ontology Engineering, ACM SIGMOD Record, 31(4): 12-17.
  31. Weigand, H. and de Moor, A. (2003), Workflow Analysis with Communication Norms, Data & Knowledge Engineering, 47(3):349-369.

Related papers

A devolved ontology model for the pragmatic web
Iain Stalker

1

View PDFchevron_right
Context Dependency Management In Ontology Engineering: a Formal Approach
Robert Meersman

Journal on data semantics VIII, 2007

View PDFchevron_right
Building a Pragmatic Semantic Web
Harith Alani

IEEE Intelligent Systems, 2008

Web technologies enables large organizations to share data while achieving clear private as well as public reuse benefits.

View PDFchevron_right
Contextual Ontologies for the Semantic Web - An Enabling Technology
Maria Laura Caliusco

2005

To realize the goals of the semantic Web, there is a need of working on approaches focused on the machine processing semantics and approaches to systematically define conceptual models about data semantics. Ontologies are a primary means to deploy the semantic Web vision, but managing the context-dependent semantics remains an open problem. In this paper we discuss the role of contexts on the semantic Web and, present a contextual ontology modeling language called C-OML.

View PDFchevron_right
Some remarks on the relationship between the semantic and the pragmatic web
Allwood Jens

Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on the Pragmatic Web Innovating the Interactive Society - ICPW '08, 2008

This paper discusses the relations between the semantic and the pragmatic web. After recapitulating some characterizations and definitions of the semantic and the pragmatic web two main tasks of pragmatics and of the pragmatic web are distinguished. The nature of the first of these tasks is then briefly discussed, leaving a further explication for future work. The paper ends by relating both tasks of the pragmatic web to the semantic web..

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Ontology
  • Pragmatics
  • Semantics
  • Ontology Engineering
  • Information Overload
  • Context of Use
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved