Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Data Integration in Collaborative Environments
Co-Design and Design Processes
Conclusions
References
All Topics
Computer Science
Information Systems

Semantic Web computing in industry

Profile image of Alexandre PassantAlexandre Passant

2010, Computers in Industry

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPIND.2010.05.002
visibility

…

description

13 pages

link

1 file

Abstract
sparkles

AI

The Semantic Web is evolving as a critical area in computer science, with various industries beginning to adopt its technologies for enhanced service delivery. As a growing branch of Web Science, the Semantic Web enables better interoperability and organization of web data through standards like RDF, OWL, and SPARQL. The paper explores how these technologies are being utilized within industrial contexts, examining current applications, challenges, and opportunities, while highlighting the importance of Semantic Web solutions in both open and closed environments.

Related papers

SEMANTIC WEB TECHNOLOGIES: AN OVERVIEW
IJESRT Journal

The term " Semantic Web " is often used more specifically to refer to the formats and technologies that enable it. These technologies include the Resource Description Framework (RDF), a variety of data substitution formats, and notations such as RDF Schema and the Web Ontology Language, all of which are intended to provide a formal description of concepts, terms, and relationships within a given knowledge domain. In the last decade the increasing popularity of the World Wide Web has lead to an exponential growth in the number of pages available on the Web. This huge number of Web pages makes it increasingly difficult for users to send required information. To enable machines to support the user in solving information problems, the Semantic Web proposes an extension to the existing Web that makes the semantics of the Web pages machine process able. The Semantic Web is well recognized as an effective infrastructure to enhance visibility of knowledge on the Web. The foundation of the Semantic Web is ontology , which is used to unambiguously represent our conceptualizations. Ontology engineering in the Semantic Web is primarily supported by languages such as RDF, RDFS and OWL. This article discusses the requirements of ontology's in the context of the Web, compares the above three languages with existing knowledge representation formalisms, and surveys tools for managing and applying ontology's.

View PDFchevron_right
Understanding Semantic Web Applications
Riichiro Mizoguchi

Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2008

Ten years have passed since the concept of the semantic web was proposed by Tim Berners-Lee. For these years, basic technologies for them such as RDF(S) and OWL were published. As a result, many systems using semantic technologies have been developed. Some of them are not prototype systems for researches but real systems for practical use. The authors analyzed semantic web applications published in the semantic web conferences (ISWC, ESWC, ASWC) and classified them based on ontological engineering. This paper is a review of application papers published in Semantic Web conferences. We discuss a trend and the future view of them using the results.

View PDFchevron_right
Semantic Web Services, Part 2
Amit Sheth, Steve Battle

IEEE Intelligent Systems, 2000

View PDFchevron_right
Semantic Web Services: A Study of Existing Technologies, Tools and Projects
Biswanath Dutta

DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology

Semantic web service (SWS) is an extension of the web service with an explicit representation of meanings. It promises to increase the level of automation and has ability to integrate and reuse diverse information resources relevant to a given situation in a cost-effective way. It has the potentiality to change the way knowledge and business services are consumed and provided on the web. This paper presents state-of-the-art of current enabling SWS technologies. Discusses about the exiting important initiatives for SWS approaches and gives a comparative study between two important SWS approaches. It also discusses about some of the established tools and projects on different facets of SWS.

View PDFchevron_right
On The Move To Semantic Web Services
Jorge cardoso

2007

Semantic Web services will enable the semiautomatic and automatic annotation, advertisement, discovery, selection, composition, and execution of inter-organization business logic, making the Internet become a common global platform where organizations and individuals communicate with each other to carry out various commercial activities and to provide value-added services. There is a growing consensus that Web services alone will not be sufficient to develop valuable solutions due the degree of heterogeneity, autonomy, and distribution of the Web. This paper deals with two of the hottest R&D and technology areas currently associated with the Web – Web services and the Semantic Web. It presents the synergies that can be created between Web Services and Semantic Web technologies to provide a new generation of eservices.

View PDFchevron_right
Semantic Web Applications
Nishant Kumar

DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, 2011

With changing technology, the Internet has taken a pivotal role in all kinds of applications in our daily lives. To handle flood of information on the Internet, smarter Web technology is also required. This requirement has led to the advent of newer, smarter and better Web technology called 'Semantic Web'. Semantic Web is the next step in Web evolution. High usability of Semantic Web has found significant applications in the field of life sciences, crime investigation, scientific research, literary analysis, social networking, electronic commerce, knowledge management, digital libraries, defence, e-government, energy sector, financial services, healthcare, oil and gas industry, publishing, website back-ends, multimedia, etc. This paper discusses the most prominent areas for application of Semantic Web technology. http://dx.doi.org/10.14429/djlit.31.4.1113

View PDFchevron_right
Semantic Web Services, Part 1
Michael L Brodie

IEEE Intelligent Systems, 2007

View PDFchevron_right
Semantic Web Technologies
Parimal Sudas

Semantics is seen as the key ingredient in the next phase of the Web infrastructure as well as the next generation of information systems applications. In this context, we review some of the reservations expressed about the viability of the Semantic Web. We respond to these by identifying a Semantic Technology that supports the key capabilities also needed to realize the Semantic Web vision, namely representing, acquiring and utilizing knowledge.

View PDFchevron_right
Semantic Web
Ian Horrocks

2008

The Semantic Web aims to explicate the meaning of Web content by adding semantic annotations that describe the content and function of resources. Providing shareable annotations requires the use of ontologies that describe a common model of a domain. The Web Ontology Language OWL has been defined in order to support representation of ontologies, and their manipulation through the use of reasoning.

View PDFchevron_right
Chapter 1 REAL WORLD APPLICATIONS OF SEMANTIC WEB... TECHNOLOGY AND ONTOLOGIES
Jorge Cardoso
View PDFchevron_right

References (103)

  1. J. Markoff, Entrepreneurs see a web guided by common sense, New York Times (2006).
  2. J. Cardoso, The Semantic Web vision: where are we? IEEE Intelligent Systems 22 (5) (2007) 84-88.
  3. P. Mika, Microsearch: an interface for semantic search, in: Proceedings of the SemSearch, 2008, pp. 79-88.
  4. T. Berners-Lee, J.A. Hendler, O. Lassila, The Semantic Web, Scientific American 284 (May (5)) (2001) 34-43.
  5. T.R. Gruber, A translation approach to portable ontology specifications, Knowl- edge Acquisition 5 (1993) 199-220.
  6. D. Bearman, E. Miller, G. Rust, J. Trant, S. Weibel, A common model to support interoperable metadata, D-Lib Magazine (January) (1999) http://www.dlib.org/ dlib/january99/bearman/01bearman.html.
  7. O. Lassila, R. Swick, Resource description framework (RDF) model and syntax specification, W3C Recommendation (February) (1999).
  8. D. Brickley, R. Guha, RDF vocabulary description language 1.0: RDF schema, W3C Recommendation (February) (2004) http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/.
  9. D. Brickley, L. Miller, FOAF Vocabulary Specification, 2004 http://xmlns.com/ foaf/spec.
  10. C. Bizer, R. Cyganiak, T. Heath, How to Publish Linked Data on the Web, Tutorial, 2007 http://www4.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/bizer/pub/LinkedDataTutorial.
  11. D. McGuinness, F. van Harmelen, OWL Web Ontology Language Overview, 2004 http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/.
  12. E. Prud'hommeaux, A. Seaborne, ''SPARQL Query Language for RDF'' and ''SPARQL Protocol for RDF'', W3C Recommendations, January, 2008, http://www.w3.org/ TR/rdf-sparql-query/ and http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-protocol/.
  13. K. Kjernsmo, A. Passant, SPARQL New Features and Rationale, 2009 http:// www.w3.org/TR/sparql-features/.
  14. E. Miller, Reuse, repurpose, remix, in: Proceedings of the Semantic Technologies Conference 2008, San Jose, CA, May, 2008.
  15. T. Berners-Lee, Linked data, W3C Design Issues. http://www.w3.org/DesignIs sues/LinkedData.html.
  16. D. Martin, M. Burstein, J. Hobbs, O. Lassila, D. McDermott, S. McIlraith, S. Narayanan, M. Paolucci, B. Parsia, T. Payne, E. Sirin, N. Srinivasan, K. Sycara, OWL-S-Semantic Markup for Web Services, 2004 http://www.w3.org/Submis sion/OWL-S/.
  17. D. Roman, H. Lausen, U. Keller, Web Service Modelling Ontology, 2005 http:// www.wsmo.org/TR/d2/v1.3/.
  18. F. Baader, D. Calvanese, D.L. McGuinness, D. Nardi, P.F. Patel-Schneider, The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, Applications, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2003.
  19. F. Wiedijk, J. Zwanenburg, First Order Logic with Domain Conditions, Theorem Proving in Higher Order Logics, Springer, Berlin, 2003.
  20. J.W. Lloyd, Foundations of Logic Programming, 2nd ed., Springer, 1987.
  21. OWL-S W3C Member Submission. http://www.w3.org/Submission/OWL-S/.
  22. B. Motic, Reasoning in description logics using resolution and deductive data- bases, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, Germany, January, 2006.
  23. IRIS reasoner. http://www.iris-reasoner.org/.
  24. DIP project. http://dip.semanticweb.org/index.html.
  25. SWING project. http://www.swing-project.org/.
  26. SUPER project. http://www.ip-super.org/.
  27. A. McAfee, Enterprise 2.0: the dawn of emergent collaboration, MIT Sloan Management Review 47 (3) (2006) 21-28.
  28. P. Kolari, T. Finin, K. Lyons, Y. Yesha, Y. Yesha, S. Perelgut, J. Hawkins, On the structure, properties and utility of internal corporate blogs, in: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM 2007), Boulder, CO, 2007.
  29. A. Majchrzak, C. Wagner, D. Yates, Corporate Wiki users: results of a survey, in: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Wikis, 2006.
  30. B. Libert, J. Spector, D. Tapscott, We Are Smarter Than Me: How to Unleash the Power of Crowds in Your Business, Wharton School Publishing, 2007.
  31. A. Passant, Case study: enhancement and integration of corporate social soft- ware using the semantic web, in: Semantic Web Use Cases and Case Studies, W3C Semantic Web Education and Outreach Interest Group, 2008 http:// www.w3.org/2001/sw/sweo/public/UseCases/EDF/.
  32. D.R. Karger, D. Quan, What would it mean to blog on the semantic web? in: Proceedings of the 3rd International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2004), Hiroshima, Japan, November, 2004.
  33. K. Mo ¨ller, U. Boja ¯rs, J.G. Breslin, Using semantics to enhance the blogging experience, in: Proceedings of the 3rd European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC' 06), LNCS vol. 4011, Budva, Montenegro, June, (2006), pp. 679-696.
  34. D. Quan, D. Huynh, D.R. Karger, Haystack: a platform for authoring end user semantic web applications, in: Proceedings of the Second International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2003), LNCS vol. 2870, Sanibel Island, FL, USA, (2003), pp. 738-753, ISBN: 3-540-20362-1.
  35. A. Passant, T. Hastrup, U. Bojars, J.G. Breslin, Microblogging: a semantic web and distributed approach, in: Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Scripting for the Semantic Web at the 5th European Semantic Web Conference, Tenerife, Spain, June, 2008.
  36. R. Newmann, ''The Tag Ontology''. http://www.holygoat.co.uk/projects/tags/.
  37. H.L. Kim, S.K. Yang, J.G. Breslin, H.G. Kim, Simple algorithms for representing tag frequencies in the SCOT exporter, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/WIC/ACM Inter- national Conference on Intelligent Agent Technology, Fremont, CA, USA, (2007), pp. 536-539.
  38. A. Passant, P. Laublet, Meaning of a tag: a collaborative approach to bridge the gap between tagging and linked data, in: Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Linked Data On the Web (LDOW 2008), Beijing, China, 2008.
  39. M. Grove, A. Schain, NASA's expertise location service powered by semantic web technologies, in: W3C Semantic Web Use Cases and Case Studies, 2008 http:// www.w3.org/2001/sw/sweo/public/UseCases/Nasa/.
  40. M. Kro ¨tzsch, D. Vrandecic, M. Vo ¨lkel, Semantic MediaWiki, in: Proceedings of the 5th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2006), LNCS, vol. 4273, Georgia, USA, (2006), pp. 935-942.
  41. S. Schaffert, IkeWiki: a semantic Wiki for collaborative knowledge management, in: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Semantic Technologies in Collaborative Applications (STICA '06), Manchester, UK, June, 2006.
  42. S. Auer, S. Dietzold, T. Riechert, OntoWiki-a tool for social, semantic collabora- tion, in: Proceedings of the 5th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2006), LNCS vol. 4273, Athens, GA, USA, November, (2006), pp. 736-749.
  43. S. Schaffert, J. Eder, S. Gru ¨nwald, T. Kurz, M. Radulescu, KiWi-a platform for semantic social software, demonstration session, in: Proceedings of the 6th European Semantic Web Conference, Heraklion, Greece, June, (2009), pp. 888-892.
  44. A. Passant, P. Laublet, Combining structure and semantics for ontology-based corporate Wikis, in: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Busi- ness Information Systems (BIS 2008), Innsbruck, Austria, May, (2008), pp. 58-69.
  45. C. Bizer, T. Heath, T. Berners-Lee, Linked data-the story so far, in: T. Heath, M. Hepp, C. Bizer (Eds.), Special Issue on Linked Data, International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems, 2009.
  46. C. Christl, C. Ghidini, J. Guss, V. Pammer, S. Lindstaedt, P. Scheir, L. Serafini, M. Rospocher, Deploying semantic web technologies for work integrated learning in industry. A comparison: SME vs. large sized company, in: In Use Track, Proceedings of the 7th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2008), 2008.
  47. A. Bernardi, S. Decker, L. van Elst, G. Grimnes, T. Groza, S. Handschuh, M. Jazayeri, C. Mesnage, K. Mo ¨ller, G. Reif, M. Sintek, The social semantic desktop: a new paradigm towards deploying the semantic web on the desktop, in: J. Cardoso, M.D. Lytras (Eds.), Semantic Web Engineering in the Knowledge Society, IGI Global, 2008.
  48. S. Scerri, B. Davis, S. Handschuh, M. Hauswirth, Semanta-semantic email made easy, in: Proceedings of the 6th European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC 2009), Heraklion, Greece, 2009.
  49. L. Dragan, S. Handschuh, SemNotes-note-taking on the semantic desktop, in: Proceedings of the 6th European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC 2009), Poster Session, Heraklion, Greece, 2009.
  50. J. Wissner, N. Spivack, Case study: twine, in: W3C Semantic Web Use Cases and Case Studies, 2009 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/sweo/public/UseCases/Twine/.
  51. V. Milic ˇic ´, Case study: semantic tags, in: W3C Semantic Web Use Cases and Case Studies, 2008 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/sweo/public/UseCases/Faviki/.
  52. G. Wiederhold, Mediators in the architecture of future information systems, IEEE Computer 25 (3) (1992) 38-49.
  53. S. Decker, M. Erdmann, D. Fensel, R. Studer, Ontobroker: ontology-based access to distributed and semi-structured information, in: Database Semantics: Se- mantic Issues in Multimedia Systems, 1999, pp. 351-369.
  54. A.P. Sheth, C. Bertram, D. Avant, B. Hammond, K. Kochut, Y.S. Warke, Managing semantic content for the web, IEEE Internet Computing 6 (4) (2002) 80-87.
  55. A. Maedche, B. Motik, L. Stojanovic, R. Studer, R. Volz, Ontologies for enterprise knowledge management, IEEE Intelligent Systems 18 (2) (2003) 26-33.
  56. C. Bizer, A. Seaborne, D2RQ-treating non-RDF databases as virtual RDF graphs, in: Proceedings of the 3rd International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2004), Poster Session, November, 2004.
  57. S. Sahoo, W. Halb, S. Hellmann, K. Idehen, T. Thibodeau Jr., S. Auer, J. Sequeda, A. Ezzat, A Survey of Current Approaches for Mapping of Relational Databases to RDF, W3C RDF2RDB XG, 2009 http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/rdb2rdf/ RDB2RDF_SurveyReport.pdf.
  58. A. Malhotra, W3C RDB2RDF XG Report, 2009 http://www.w3.org/2005/Incuba tor/rdb2rdf/XGR/.
  59. W. Akhtar, J. Kopecky, T. Krennwallner, A. Polleres, XSPARQL: travelling between the XML and RDF worlds-and avoiding the XSLT pilgrimage, in: Proceedings of the 5th European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC 2008), 2008.
  60. D. Connolly, Gleaning resource descriptions from dialects of languages (GRDDL), W3C Recommendation (September) (2007) http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl/.
  61. S. Stephens, Prioritization of biological targets for drug discovery, in: W3C Semantic Web Use Cases and Case Studies, 2007 http://www.w3.org/2001/ sw/sweo/public/UseCases/Lilly/.
  62. A. Duke, B2B integration with semantic mediation, in: W3C Semantic Web Use Cases and Case Studies, 2007 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/sweo/public/Use- Cases/BT/.
  63. J.G. Breslin, S. Decker, The future of social networks on the internet: the need for semantics, IEEE Internet Computing 11 (November-December) (2007) 86-90.
  64. J.G. Breslin, A. Harth, U. Boja ¯rs, S. Decker, Towards semantically-interlinked online communities, in: Proceedings of the 2nd European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC 2005), LNCS vol. 3532, Heraklion, Greece, May, (2005), pp. 500-514.
  65. T. Berners-Lee, Putting the web back in semantic web, in: Proceedings of the 4th International Semantic Web Conference, Wrap-Up Session and RuleML Kickoff Sessions, Galway, Ireland, 2005 http://www.w3.org/2005/Talks/1110-iswc-tbl/.
  66. A. Passant, Technologies du Web Semantique pour l'Entreprise 2.0 (Semantic Web Technologies for Enterprise 2.0), Ph.D. Thesis, 2009.
  67. U. Boja ¯rs, J.G. Breslin, V. Peristeras, G. Tummarello, S. Decker, Interlinking the social web with semantics, IEEE Intelligent Systems 23 (May (3)) (2008).
  68. W. Abramowicz, K. Haniewicz, M. Kaczmarek, D. Zyskowski, E-Marketplace for semantic web services, in: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing, Sydney, Australia, 2008.
  69. S. Boddy, Y. Rezgui, G.S. Cooper, M. Wetherill, Computer integrated construction: a review and proposals for future direction, Advances in Engineering Software 38 (10) (2007) 677-687.
  70. H. Chen, J. Ma, Y. Wang, Z. Wu, A survey on semantic e-science applications, Computing and Informatics 27 (1) (2008) 5-20.
  71. A. Le ´ger, J. Heinecke, L.J.B. Nixon, P. Shvaiko, J. Charlet, P. Hobson, F. Goasdoue ´, The semantic web from an industry perspective, in: Proceedings of the 2nd Reasoning Web Summer School, 2006, pp. 232-268.
  72. C. Legner, B. Lebreton, Preface to the focus theme section: business interopera- bility; business interoperability research: present achievements and upcoming challenges, Electronic Markets 17 (3) (2007) 176-186.
  73. H. Schevers, R. Drogemuller, Converting the industry foundation classes to the web ontology language, in: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Semantics, Knowledge and Grid (SKG' 05), 2005.
  74. C. Brewster, AKTive food: semantic web based knowledge conduits for the organic food industry, in: Workshop on Semantic Web Case Studies and Best Practices for eBusiness (SWCASE' 05), Galway, Ireland, 2005.
  75. A. Duke, J. Davies, M. Richardson, N. Kings, A semantic service orientated architecture for the telecommunications industry, Intelligence in Communica- tion Systems (2004) 236-245.
  76. F. Gandon, O. Corby, A. Giboin, N. Gronnier, C. Guigard, Graph-based inferences in a semantic web server for the cartography of competencies in a telecom valley, in: Proceedings of the 4th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2005), Galway, Ireland, 2005.
  77. J.A. Gulla, S.L. Tomassen, D. Strasunskas, Semantic interoperability in the Nor- wegian petroleum industry, in: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Information Systems Technology and its Applications (ISTA 2006), 2006, pp. 81-94.
  78. D. Norheim, R. Fjellheim, AKSIO-active knowledge management in the petro- leum industry, industry forum, in: Proceedings of the 3rd European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC' 06), Budva, Montenegro, 2006.
  79. V. Venkatasubramanian, C. Zhao, G. Joglekar, A. Jain, L. Hailemariam, P. Suresh, P. Akkisetty, K. Morris, G.V. Reklaitis, Ontological informatics infrastructure for pharmaceutical product development and manufacturing, Computers and Chemical Engineering 30 (10-12) (2006) 1482-1496.
  80. C. Wroe, Is semantic web technology ready for healthcare? Industry Forum, in: Proceedings of the 3rd European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC' 06), Budva, Montenegro, 2006.
  81. H.B. Qiu, X.Y. Shao, P.G. Li, L. Gao, An agent-and service-based collaborative design architecture under a dynamic integration environment, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 35 (1) (2007) 15-25.
  82. J. Lee, K. Kim, A distributed product development architecture for engineering collaborations across ubiquitous virtual enterprises, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 33 (1) (2007) 59-70.
  83. H.K. Lin, J.A. Harding, A manufacturing system engineering ontology model on the semantic web for inter-enterprise collaboration, Computers in Industry 58 (5) (2007) 428-437.
  84. D. O'Sullivan, K. Ning, Semantic innovation management for the extended enterprise, Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering 1 (1) (2006).
  85. A.H. Badradabi, S. Mohammadi, An assistant for large scale software project management: hybrid of agents and semantic web services, in: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Management of Innovation and Technology, Bangkok, Thailand, 2008.
  86. S. Mobammadi, A. Khalili, A semantic web service-oriented model for project management, in: Proceedings of the 8th IEEE International Conference on Computer and Information Technology, Sydney, Australia, 2008.
  87. M. Tosic, V. Milicevic, M. Stankovic, Collaborative knowledge acquisition for agile project management, in: Proceedings of the International Conference on the Computer as a Tool (EUROCON 2005), 2005.
  88. H.K. Lin, J.A. Harding, M. Shahbaz, Manufacturing system engineering ontology for semantic interoperability across extended project teams, International Jour- nal of Production Research 42 (24) (2004) 5099-5118.
  89. M. Chen, D. Zhang, L. Zhou, Empowering collaborative commerce with web services enabled business process management systems, Decision Support Systems 43 (2) (2007) 530-546.
  90. D. Fensel, Y. Ding, B. Omelayenko, E. Schulten, G. Botquin, M. Brown, A. Flett, Product data integration in B2B e-commerce, Intelligent Systems 16 (4) (2001) 54-59.
  91. W. Kim, M.J. Chung, J. Lloyd, Automated outsourcing partnership management using semantic web services, Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design II (2006) 184-193.
  92. L. Li, I. Horrocks, A software framework for matchmaking based on semantic web technology, International Journal of Electronic Commerce 8 (4) (2004) 39-60.
  93. D. Moitra, J. Ganesh, Web services and flexible business processes: towards the adaptive enterprise, Information and Management 42 (7) (2005) 921-933.
  94. D. Shen, G. Yu, Y. Kou, T. Nie, Z. Zhao, Resolving heterogeneity of web-service composition in network manufacturing based on ontology, International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 20 (2) (2007) 222-233.
  95. J. Li, X. Meng, S. Liu, R. Yuan, Ontology-based resource description in manufacturing grid, in: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD 2007), 2007.
  96. F. Liu, C. Ming, D. Jingxiang, Swirrsm: a manufacturing resource discovery and ranking system, in: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Com- puter Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD 2007), 2007.
  97. E.I. Neaga, J.A. Harding, H.K. Lin, Towards a meaningful manufacturing enterprise metamodel: a semantic driven framework, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Engineering Manufacture 221 (3) (2007) 499-511.
  98. S. Lemaignan, A. Siadat, J.Y. Dantan, A. Semenenko, MASON: a proposal for an ontology of manufacturing domain, in: Proceedings of the IEEE Workshop on Distributed Intelligent Systems: Collective Intelligence and its Applications (DIS'06), 2006.
  99. F. Colace, N. Pasquino, P. Senatore, Ontology for e-business: a semantic multi- level approach, in: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Informa- tion and Communication Technologies, Damascus, Syria, 2008.
  100. Q. Thanh Tho, H. Siu Cheung, A.C.M. Fong, Automatic fuzzy ontology generation for semantic helpdesk support, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics 2 (3) (2006) 155-164.
  101. A. Dimache, L. Dimache, E. Zoldi, T. Roche, Development of a strategy tool for environmental compliance management, in: Proceedings of the 17th CIRP Design Conference, Berlin, Germany, 2007.
  102. T. Roche, The design for environmental compliance workbench tool, in: Pro- ceedings of the Advanced Summer Institute on Product Engineering, Eco-Design Technologies and Green Energy Conference, Brasov, Romania, 2004.
  103. M. Davis, Semantic Wave 2008 Report: Industry Roadmap to Web 3.0 and Multibillion Dollar Market Opportunities, http://www.researchandmarkets. com/reports/682250.

Related papers

Semantic Web Services-Concepts and Technology
Dieter Fensel

… Technology, Ontologies, and …, 2006

Abstract. Although the Internet provides a world wide infrastructure for information provision and communication, the initial web technology stack has substantial draw-backs with regard to automated web content processing. Consequently, the Semantic Web is envisioned as the next ...

View PDFchevron_right
The Semantic Web from an Industry Perspective
Johannes Heinecke

Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2006

Semantic Web technology is being increasingly applied in a large spectrum of applications in which domain knowledge is conceptualized and formalized (e.g., by means of an ontology) in order to support diversified and automated knowledge processing (e.g., reasoning) performed by a machine. Moreover, through an optimal combination of (cognitive) human reasoning and (automated) machine reasoning and processing, it is possible for humans and machines to share complementary tasks. The spectrum of applications is extremely large and to name a few: corporate portals and knowledge management, e-commerce, e-work, e-business, healthcare, e-government, natural language understanding and automated translation, information search, data and services integration, social networks and collaborative filtering, knowledge mining, business intelligence and so on. From a social and economic perspective, this emerging technology should contribute to growth in economic wealth, but it must also show clear cut value for everyday activities through technological transparency and efficiency. The penetration of Semantic Web technology in industry and in services is progressing slowly but accelerating as new success stories are reported. In this paper and lecture we present ongoing work in the cross-fertilization between industry and academia. In particular, we present a collection of application fields and use cases from enterprises which are interested in the promises of Semantic Web technology. The use cases are detailed and focused on the key knowledge processing components that will unlock the deployment of the technology in the selected application field. The paper ends with the presentation of the current technology roadmap designed by a team of Academic and Industry researchers.

View PDFchevron_right
Semantic Web applications: Fields and Business cases. The Industry challenges the research
Lyndon Nixon

IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing, 2005

Semantic Web technology is being increasingly applied in a large spectrum of applications in which domain knowledge is conceptualized and formalized (e.g., by means of an ontology) in order to support diversified knowledge processing (e.g., reasoning) by machine. Moreover, through the subtle joining of (cognitive) human reasoning and (logical) machine reasoning, it is possible for humans and machines to share complementary tasks. Some examples of application areas where these tasks arise are: corporate portals and knowledge management, e-commerce, e-work, healthcare, e-government, natural language understanding and automated translation, information search, data and services integration, social networks and collaborative filtering, knowledge mining, and so on. From a social and economic perspective, this emerging technology should contribute to growth in economic wealth, but it must also show clear cut value for everyday activities through technological transparency and efficiency. The uptake of Semantic Web technology by industry is progressing slowly. One of the problems is that academia is not always aware of the concrete problems that arise in industry. In contrast, industry is not often well informed about the academic developments that can potentially meet its needs. In this paper we present ongoing work in the cross-fertilization between industry and academy. In particular, we present a collection of application fields and use cases from enterprises which are interested in the promises of Semantic Web technology. We explain our approach by analyzing the industry needs in different application areas. We summarize industrial requirements with respect to Semantic Web technology in the form of a typology of knowledge processing tasks. These results are intended to focus academia on the development of plausible knowledge-based solutions for concrete industrial problems, and therefore, facilitate the industrial uptake of Semantic Web technology.

View PDFchevron_right
Approaches To Developing Semantic Web Services
Jorge cardoso

2008

It has been recognized that due to the autonomy and heterogeneity, of Web services and the Web itself, new approaches should be developed to describe and advertise Web services. The most notable approaches rely on the description of Web services using semantics. This new breed of Web services, termed semantic Web services, will enable the automatic annotation, advertisement, discovery, selection, composition, and execution of interorganization business logic, making the Internet become a common global platform where organizations and individuals communicate with each other to carry out various commercial activities and to provide value-added services. This paper deals with two of the hottest R&D and technology areas currently associated with the Web – Web services and the semantic Web. It describes how semantic Web services extend Web services as the semantic Web improves the current Web, and presents three different conceptual approaches to deploying semantic Web services, namely, ...

View PDFchevron_right
Semantic Web Enabled Web Services: State-of-Art and Industrial Challenges
Oleksandr Kononenko

Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2003

Semantic Web technology has a vision to define and link Web data in a way that it can be understood and used by machines for automation, integration and reuse of data across various applications. Ontological definition of every resource as it is assumed in Semantic Web, along with new techniques for semantics processing and new vision Intelligent Web Services is expected to bring Web on its new level. At present, Web Services technology is stressed by the search of a right way for further development. Combination of Semantic Web and Web Services concepts may address many of difficulties of existing technology. It is not a question of whether Semantic Web is coming or not, but a question of when it will come. However without mature standards, proof and actually working industrial cases Semantic Web has small chances to be adopted by industry. In this paper a survey of Web Services recent needs is made, state of the art of Semantic Web technology is discussed in the context of EAI and e-business solutions. Some new challenges brought by Semantic Web were observed and the industrial maintenance case of these challenges implementation was considered.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Distributed Computing
  • Knowledge Management
  • Enterprise Application Integration
  • SEMANTIC WEB TECHNOLOGY
  • Manufacturing Engineering
  • Semantic Web Service Composition

    • Cited by

    Semantic classification of business ontology while migrating business
    Ramis Ali

    Multimedia Tools and Applications, 2020

    An increase in business growth and revenue is the main objective of any business. There are various tactics to answer the problems i.e., about the growth of business and revenue. For example, one has also to answer for revising the company policies, motivational sessions for the employees, increment in salaries, and migration of business to a new place. The difference between a good and great business depends on the place of business. The purpose of migration is to expand the business where infrastructure cost is less, easily achieving business goals and need a comfortable market accordingly. The challenges occurs while migrating a business. Businesspersons can face various issues and problems. For example, how to identify the business challenges and know the basic legal rights to invest in a foreign country? To answer the problem, we have constructed a Business Migration Ontology (BMO) model to integrate information on the web accordingly. Therefore, three training sets used to construct the BMO. The training sets are semantically classified to find similarities and differences during the construction of BMO. The BMO facilitates the businesspersons to select an appropriate jurisdiction for migrating business, according to their requirements and possibilities. The BMO has semantically classified the legal acts defined by a jurisdiction, accordingly. The BMO facilitates to identify the required fields that have significance for businesspersons. The businesspersons can than determine to invest at a certain jurisdiction, accordingly. The BMO provides a complete view of different legal aspects according to various jurisdictions, which is helpful for businesspersons in the better decision while migrating their business.

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