ODESeW. Automatic Generation of Knowledge Portals for Intranets and Extranets
Organization (2003)
- ISSN: 03029743
- ISBN: 3540203621
Available from
Asunción Gómez-Pérez's profile on Mendeley.
or
Abstract
This paper presents ODESeW (Semantic Web Portal based on WebODE platform 1) as an ontology-based application that automatically generates and manages a knowledge portal for Intranets and Extranets. ODESeW is designed on the top of WebODE ontology engineering platform. This paper shows the service architecture that allows configuring the visualization of ontology-based information for different kinds of users, establishing reading and updating access policies to its content, and performing consistency checking between the portal information and the ontologies underlying it.
Available from
Asunción Gómez-Pérez's profile on Mendeley.
Page 1
ODESeW. Automatic Generation of Knowledge Portals for Intranets and Extranets
Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2870
Edited by G. Goos, J. Hartmanis, and J. van Leeuwen
Edited by G. Goos, J. Hartmanis, and J. van Leeuwen
Page 2
3Berlin
Heidelberg
New York
Hong Kong
London
Milan
Paris
Tokyo
Heidelberg
New York
Hong Kong
London
Milan
Paris
Tokyo
Page 3
Dieter Fensel Katia Sycara
John Mylopoulos (Eds.)
The Semantic Web -
ISWC 2003
Second International Semantic Web Conference
Sanibel Island, FL, USA, October 20-23, 2003
Proceedings
13
John Mylopoulos (Eds.)
The Semantic Web -
ISWC 2003
Second International Semantic Web Conference
Sanibel Island, FL, USA, October 20-23, 2003
Proceedings
13
Page 4
Series Editors
Gerhard Goos, Karlsruhe University, Germany
Juris Hartmanis, Cornell University, NY, USA
Jan van Leeuwen, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
Volume Editors
Dieter Fensel
DERI, located at the Universities of Galway and Innsbruck
E-mail: dieter.fensel@uibk.ac.at
Katia Sycara
Carnegie Mellon University, School of Computer Science
Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA
E-mail: katia@cs.cmu.edu
John Mylopoulos
University of Toronto, Department of Computer Science
40 St. George Street, rm 7266
Toronto, Canada M5S 2E4
E-mail: jm@cs.toronto.edu
Cataloging-in-Publication Data applied for
A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.
Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Bibliothek
Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;
detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at <http://dnb.ddb.de>.
CR Subject Classification (1998): C.2, H.3, H.4, H.5, F.3, I.2, K.4
ISSN 0302-9743
ISBN 3-540-20362-1 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg New York
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved, whether the whole or part of the material is
concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, re-use of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting,
reproduction on microfilms or in any other way, and storage in data banks. Duplication of this publication
or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the German Copyright Law of September 9, 1965,
in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer-Verlag. Violations are
liable for prosecution under the German Copyright Law.
Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg New York
a member of BertelsmannSpringer Science+Business Media GmbH
http://www.springeronline.com
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003
Printed in Germany
Typesetting: Camera-ready by author, data conversion by PTP Berlin GmbH
Printed on acid-free paper SPIN: 10964071 06/3142 5 4 3 2 1 0
Gerhard Goos, Karlsruhe University, Germany
Juris Hartmanis, Cornell University, NY, USA
Jan van Leeuwen, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
Volume Editors
Dieter Fensel
DERI, located at the Universities of Galway and Innsbruck
E-mail: dieter.fensel@uibk.ac.at
Katia Sycara
Carnegie Mellon University, School of Computer Science
Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA
E-mail: katia@cs.cmu.edu
John Mylopoulos
University of Toronto, Department of Computer Science
40 St. George Street, rm 7266
Toronto, Canada M5S 2E4
E-mail: jm@cs.toronto.edu
Cataloging-in-Publication Data applied for
A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.
Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Bibliothek
Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;
detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at <http://dnb.ddb.de>.
CR Subject Classification (1998): C.2, H.3, H.4, H.5, F.3, I.2, K.4
ISSN 0302-9743
ISBN 3-540-20362-1 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg New York
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved, whether the whole or part of the material is
concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, re-use of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting,
reproduction on microfilms or in any other way, and storage in data banks. Duplication of this publication
or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the German Copyright Law of September 9, 1965,
in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer-Verlag. Violations are
liable for prosecution under the German Copyright Law.
Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg New York
a member of BertelsmannSpringer Science+Business Media GmbH
http://www.springeronline.com
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003
Printed in Germany
Typesetting: Camera-ready by author, data conversion by PTP Berlin GmbH
Printed on acid-free paper SPIN: 10964071 06/3142 5 4 3 2 1 0
Page 5
Preface
These proceedings contain the papers accepted for presentation at the Second
International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2003) held on Sanibel Island,
Florida, U.S.A., October 20–23, 2003. Following the success of ISWC 2002 that
was held in Sardinia in June 2002, ISWC 2003 enjoyed a greatly increased interest
in the conference themes.
The number of submitted papers more than doubled compared with ISWC
2002 to 283. Of those, 262 were submitted to the research track and 21 to the
industrial track. With rare exceptions, each submission was evaluated by three
program committee members whose reviews were coordinated by members of
the senior program committee. This year 49 papers in the research track and 9
papers in the industrial track were accepted.
The high quality of ISWC 2003 was the result of the joint effort of many
people. First of all we would like to thank the authors for their high-quality
submissions and the members of the program committee for their reviewing and
review coordination efforts. We would like to extend special thanks to Christoph
Bussler for chairing the industrial track, to Mike Dean for his help with the
conference management software, the web site, and conference publicity, and
to Massimo Paolucci for helping with the organization of the proceedings and
arranging sponsorships. We would also like to thank Jeff Bradshaw for local
organization; Jerome Euzenat for financial organization; Asun Gomez-Perez for
organizing the tutorials; Sheila McIlraith and Dimitris Plexousakis for organizing
the workshops; Raphael Malyankar for organizing the poster sessions; Jeff Heflin
for organizing the software demonstrations; Steffen Staab for coordinating the
semantic markup; Atanas Kiryakov for handling registrations; Ying Ding for
organizing sponsorships; and the sponsors for their financial support.
October 2003 Katia Sycara, John Mylopulos, Dieter Fensel
These proceedings contain the papers accepted for presentation at the Second
International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2003) held on Sanibel Island,
Florida, U.S.A., October 20–23, 2003. Following the success of ISWC 2002 that
was held in Sardinia in June 2002, ISWC 2003 enjoyed a greatly increased interest
in the conference themes.
The number of submitted papers more than doubled compared with ISWC
2002 to 283. Of those, 262 were submitted to the research track and 21 to the
industrial track. With rare exceptions, each submission was evaluated by three
program committee members whose reviews were coordinated by members of
the senior program committee. This year 49 papers in the research track and 9
papers in the industrial track were accepted.
The high quality of ISWC 2003 was the result of the joint effort of many
people. First of all we would like to thank the authors for their high-quality
submissions and the members of the program committee for their reviewing and
review coordination efforts. We would like to extend special thanks to Christoph
Bussler for chairing the industrial track, to Mike Dean for his help with the
conference management software, the web site, and conference publicity, and
to Massimo Paolucci for helping with the organization of the proceedings and
arranging sponsorships. We would also like to thank Jeff Bradshaw for local
organization; Jerome Euzenat for financial organization; Asun Gomez-Perez for
organizing the tutorials; Sheila McIlraith and Dimitris Plexousakis for organizing
the workshops; Raphael Malyankar for organizing the poster sessions; Jeff Heflin
for organizing the software demonstrations; Steffen Staab for coordinating the
semantic markup; Atanas Kiryakov for handling registrations; Ying Ding for
organizing sponsorships; and the sponsors for their financial support.
October 2003 Katia Sycara, John Mylopulos, Dieter Fensel
Page 6
Organizing Committee
General Chair Dieter Fensel (University of Innsbruck, Austria)
Program Chair Katia Sycara (Carnegie Mellon University, USA)
Program Co-chair John Mylopoulos (University of Toronto, Canada)
Tutorial Chair Asun Gomez-Perez (Polytechnic University of
Madrid, Spain)
Workshops Chairs Sheila McIlraith (Stanford University, USA)
Dimitris Plexousakis (University of Crete, Greece)
Industrial Track Chair Christoph Bussler (Oracle, USA)
Poster Chair Raphael Malyankar (Arizona State University,
USA)
Finance Chair Jerome Euzenat (INRIA, Rhone-Alpes, France)
Publicity Chair Mike Dean (BBN, USA)
Local Arrangements Chair Jeff Bradshaw (University of West Florida, USA)
Sponsor Chairs Ying Ding (University of Innsbruck, Austria)
Massimo Paolucci (Carnegie Mellon University,
USA)
Demonstration Chair Jeff Heflin (Lehigh University, USA)
Registration Chair Atanas Kiryakov (Sirma AI, Ltd., Bulgaria)
Senior Program Committee
Paolo Atzeni (Universita` di Roma, Tre, Italy)
Sonia Bergamaschi (University of Modena, Italy)
Stefano Ceri (Politecnico di Milano, Italy)
Umesh Dayal (Hewlett-Packard, USA)
Stefan Decker (USC ISI, USA)
Oren Etzioni (University of Washington, USA)
Alon Halevy (University of Washington, USA)
Frank van Harmelen (Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
Masahiro Hori (Kansai University, Japan)
Ian Horrocks (University of Manchester, UK)
Vipul Kashyap (National Library of Medicine, USA)
Roger King (University of Colorado, USA)
Ora Lassila (Nokia, USA)
David Martin (SRI, USA)
Brian McBride (Hewlett-Packard, UK)
Robert Meersman (Vrije Universiteit, Brussels, Belgium)
Riichiro Mizoguchi (Osaka University, Japan)
Peter Patel-Schneider (Lucent, USA)
Guus Schreiber (University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
General Chair Dieter Fensel (University of Innsbruck, Austria)
Program Chair Katia Sycara (Carnegie Mellon University, USA)
Program Co-chair John Mylopoulos (University of Toronto, Canada)
Tutorial Chair Asun Gomez-Perez (Polytechnic University of
Madrid, Spain)
Workshops Chairs Sheila McIlraith (Stanford University, USA)
Dimitris Plexousakis (University of Crete, Greece)
Industrial Track Chair Christoph Bussler (Oracle, USA)
Poster Chair Raphael Malyankar (Arizona State University,
USA)
Finance Chair Jerome Euzenat (INRIA, Rhone-Alpes, France)
Publicity Chair Mike Dean (BBN, USA)
Local Arrangements Chair Jeff Bradshaw (University of West Florida, USA)
Sponsor Chairs Ying Ding (University of Innsbruck, Austria)
Massimo Paolucci (Carnegie Mellon University,
USA)
Demonstration Chair Jeff Heflin (Lehigh University, USA)
Registration Chair Atanas Kiryakov (Sirma AI, Ltd., Bulgaria)
Senior Program Committee
Paolo Atzeni (Universita` di Roma, Tre, Italy)
Sonia Bergamaschi (University of Modena, Italy)
Stefano Ceri (Politecnico di Milano, Italy)
Umesh Dayal (Hewlett-Packard, USA)
Stefan Decker (USC ISI, USA)
Oren Etzioni (University of Washington, USA)
Alon Halevy (University of Washington, USA)
Frank van Harmelen (Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
Masahiro Hori (Kansai University, Japan)
Ian Horrocks (University of Manchester, UK)
Vipul Kashyap (National Library of Medicine, USA)
Roger King (University of Colorado, USA)
Ora Lassila (Nokia, USA)
David Martin (SRI, USA)
Brian McBride (Hewlett-Packard, UK)
Robert Meersman (Vrije Universiteit, Brussels, Belgium)
Riichiro Mizoguchi (Osaka University, Japan)
Peter Patel-Schneider (Lucent, USA)
Guus Schreiber (University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
Page 7
Organization VII
Zbigniew Ras (University of North Carolina, USA)
Amit Sheth (University of Georgia, USA)
Rudi Studer (University of Karlsruhe, Germany)
Gerhard Weikum (University of Saarland, Germany)
Program Committee
Karl Aberer (E´cole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne, Switzerland)
Sudhir Agarwal (University of Karlsruhe, Germany)
Giuseppe Amato (ISTI-CNR, Italy)
Yuan An (University of Toronto, Canada)
Anjo Anjewierden (University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
Anupriya Ankolekar (Carnegie Mellon University, USA)
Budak Arpinar (University of Georgia, USA)
Andreas Becks (Fraunhofer Institute, Germany)
Domenico Beneventano (University of Modena, Italy)
Bettina Berendt (Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany)
Abraham Bernstein (University of Zurich, Switzerland)
Keith Bessette (University of Connecticut, USA)
Harold Boley (National Research Council, Canada)
Alex Borgida (Rutgers University, USA)
Omar Boucelma (LSIS-CNRS, France)
Paolo Bouquet (University of Trento, Italy)
Paolo Bresciani (ITC-IRST, Italy)
Jeen Broekstra (Aidministrator, The Netherlands)
Mark Burstein (BBN, USA)
Jorge Cardoso (University of Madeira, Portugal)
Jeremy Carroll (Hewlett-Packard, UK)
Vassilis Christophides (ICS-FORTH, Greece)
Nigel Collier (National Institute of Informatics, Japan)
Isabel Cruz (University of Illinois at Chicago, USA)
Susan Davidson (University of Pennsylvania, USA)
Maarten de Rijke (University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
Jos De Roo (Agfa-Gevaert, The Netherlands)
Mike Dean (BBN, USA)
Steven Demurjian (University of Connecticut, USA)
Thuong Doan (University of Connecticut, USA)
Chris Dollin (Hewlett-Packard, UK)
Martin Dzbor (Open University, UK)
David Embley (Brigham Young University, USA)
Skevos Evripidou (University of Cyprus, Cyprus)
Wenfei Fan (Bell Laboratories and Temple University, USA)
Richard Fikes (Stanford University, USA)
Tim Finin (University of Maryland, Baltimore County, USA)
Zbigniew Ras (University of North Carolina, USA)
Amit Sheth (University of Georgia, USA)
Rudi Studer (University of Karlsruhe, Germany)
Gerhard Weikum (University of Saarland, Germany)
Program Committee
Karl Aberer (E´cole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne, Switzerland)
Sudhir Agarwal (University of Karlsruhe, Germany)
Giuseppe Amato (ISTI-CNR, Italy)
Yuan An (University of Toronto, Canada)
Anjo Anjewierden (University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
Anupriya Ankolekar (Carnegie Mellon University, USA)
Budak Arpinar (University of Georgia, USA)
Andreas Becks (Fraunhofer Institute, Germany)
Domenico Beneventano (University of Modena, Italy)
Bettina Berendt (Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany)
Abraham Bernstein (University of Zurich, Switzerland)
Keith Bessette (University of Connecticut, USA)
Harold Boley (National Research Council, Canada)
Alex Borgida (Rutgers University, USA)
Omar Boucelma (LSIS-CNRS, France)
Paolo Bouquet (University of Trento, Italy)
Paolo Bresciani (ITC-IRST, Italy)
Jeen Broekstra (Aidministrator, The Netherlands)
Mark Burstein (BBN, USA)
Jorge Cardoso (University of Madeira, Portugal)
Jeremy Carroll (Hewlett-Packard, UK)
Vassilis Christophides (ICS-FORTH, Greece)
Nigel Collier (National Institute of Informatics, Japan)
Isabel Cruz (University of Illinois at Chicago, USA)
Susan Davidson (University of Pennsylvania, USA)
Maarten de Rijke (University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
Jos De Roo (Agfa-Gevaert, The Netherlands)
Mike Dean (BBN, USA)
Steven Demurjian (University of Connecticut, USA)
Thuong Doan (University of Connecticut, USA)
Chris Dollin (Hewlett-Packard, UK)
Martin Dzbor (Open University, UK)
David Embley (Brigham Young University, USA)
Skevos Evripidou (University of Cyprus, Cyprus)
Wenfei Fan (Bell Laboratories and Temple University, USA)
Richard Fikes (Stanford University, USA)
Tim Finin (University of Maryland, Baltimore County, USA)
Page 8
VIII Organization
Martin Frank (USC ISI, USA)
Jeremy Frumkin (University of Arizona, USA)
Norbert Fuchs (University of Zurich, Switzerland)
Avigdor Gal (Technion, Israel)
Jonathan Gelati (University of Modena, Italy)
Yolanda Gil (USC ISI, USA)
Paolo Giorgini (University of Trento, Italy)
Carole Goble (University of Manchester, UK)
Benjamin Grosof (MIT, USA)
William Grosso (SDForum, USA)
Francesco Guerra (University of Modena, Italy)
Nicola Guarino (CNR, Italy)
Siegfried Handschuh (University of Karlsruhe, Germany)
Andreas Hotho (University of Karlsruhe, Germany)
Zachary Ives (University of Pennsylvania, USA)
Anupam Joshi (University of Maryland, Baltimore County, USA)
Gerti Kappel (Vienna University of Technology, Austria)
Alfons Kemper (University of Passau, Germany)
Matthias Klusch (DFKI, Germany)
Manuel Kolp (University of Louvain, Belgium)
Donald Kossmann (Technical University of Munich, Germany)
Yannis Labrou (Fujitsu, USA)
Georg Lausen (University of Freiburg, Germany)
Alain Leger (France Telecom, France)
Chen Li (University of California, Irvine, USA)
Ling Liu (Georgia Tech, USA)
Bertram Ludaescher (University of California, San Diego, USA)
Robert MacGregor Manolescu (USC ISI, USA)
Ioana Manolescu (INRIA, France)
Ryusuke Masuoka (Fujitsu, USA)
Massimo Marchiori (W3C and University of Venice, Italy)
Frank McCabe (Fujitsu, USA)
Luke McDowell (University of Washington, USA)
Sergey Melnik (University of Leipzig, Germany)
Daniele Montanari (Enidata SpA, Italy)
Pavlos Moraitis (University of Cyprus, Cyprus)
Boris Motik (FZI, Germany)
Enrico Motta (Open University, UK)
Haralambos Mouratidis (University of Sheffield, UK)
Claire Nedellec (MIG-INRA, France)
Natasha F. Noy (Stanford University, USA)
Borys Omelayenko (Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
Massimo Paoluccci (Carnegie Mellon University, USA)
Terry Payne (University of Southampton, UK)
Adam Pease (Teknowledge, USA)
Martin Frank (USC ISI, USA)
Jeremy Frumkin (University of Arizona, USA)
Norbert Fuchs (University of Zurich, Switzerland)
Avigdor Gal (Technion, Israel)
Jonathan Gelati (University of Modena, Italy)
Yolanda Gil (USC ISI, USA)
Paolo Giorgini (University of Trento, Italy)
Carole Goble (University of Manchester, UK)
Benjamin Grosof (MIT, USA)
William Grosso (SDForum, USA)
Francesco Guerra (University of Modena, Italy)
Nicola Guarino (CNR, Italy)
Siegfried Handschuh (University of Karlsruhe, Germany)
Andreas Hotho (University of Karlsruhe, Germany)
Zachary Ives (University of Pennsylvania, USA)
Anupam Joshi (University of Maryland, Baltimore County, USA)
Gerti Kappel (Vienna University of Technology, Austria)
Alfons Kemper (University of Passau, Germany)
Matthias Klusch (DFKI, Germany)
Manuel Kolp (University of Louvain, Belgium)
Donald Kossmann (Technical University of Munich, Germany)
Yannis Labrou (Fujitsu, USA)
Georg Lausen (University of Freiburg, Germany)
Alain Leger (France Telecom, France)
Chen Li (University of California, Irvine, USA)
Ling Liu (Georgia Tech, USA)
Bertram Ludaescher (University of California, San Diego, USA)
Robert MacGregor Manolescu (USC ISI, USA)
Ioana Manolescu (INRIA, France)
Ryusuke Masuoka (Fujitsu, USA)
Massimo Marchiori (W3C and University of Venice, Italy)
Frank McCabe (Fujitsu, USA)
Luke McDowell (University of Washington, USA)
Sergey Melnik (University of Leipzig, Germany)
Daniele Montanari (Enidata SpA, Italy)
Pavlos Moraitis (University of Cyprus, Cyprus)
Boris Motik (FZI, Germany)
Enrico Motta (Open University, UK)
Haralambos Mouratidis (University of Sheffield, UK)
Claire Nedellec (MIG-INRA, France)
Natasha F. Noy (Stanford University, USA)
Borys Omelayenko (Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
Massimo Paoluccci (Carnegie Mellon University, USA)
Terry Payne (University of Southampton, UK)
Adam Pease (Teknowledge, USA)
Page 9
Organization IX
Loris Penserini (Universita` Politecnica delle Marche, Italy)
Charles Phillips (University of Connecticut, USA)
Christoph Quix (RWTH Aachen, Germany)
Erhard Rahm (University of Leipzig, Germany)
Matt Richardson (University of Washington, USA)
Thomas Russ (USC ISI, USA)
Mareike Schoop (RWTH Aachen, Germany)
Ronny Siebes (Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
Munindar Singh (North Carolina State University, USA)
Michael Sintek (DFKI, Germany)
Divesh Srivastava (Bell Laboratories, USA)
Steffen Staab (University of Karlsruhe, Germany)
Heiner Stuckenschmidt (Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
Gerd Stumme (University of Karlsruhe, Germany)
Valentina Tamma (University of Liverpool, UK)
Herman ter Horst (Philips, The Netherlands)
Walt Truszkowski (NASA, USA)
Maria Vargas-Vera (Open University, UK)
Panos Vassiliadis (University of Ioannina, Greece)
Daniel Veit (University of Karlsruhe, Germany)
Guido Vetere (IBM, Italy)
Maurizio Vincini (University of Modena, Italy)
Claude Vogel (CONVERA, USA)
Raphael Volz (University of Karlsruhe, Germany)
Gottfried Vossen (University of Muenster, Germany)
Jan Wielemaker (University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
Stuart Williams (Hewlett-Packard, UK)
Carlo Zaniolo (University of California, Los Angeles, USA)
Loris Penserini (Universita` Politecnica delle Marche, Italy)
Charles Phillips (University of Connecticut, USA)
Christoph Quix (RWTH Aachen, Germany)
Erhard Rahm (University of Leipzig, Germany)
Matt Richardson (University of Washington, USA)
Thomas Russ (USC ISI, USA)
Mareike Schoop (RWTH Aachen, Germany)
Ronny Siebes (Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
Munindar Singh (North Carolina State University, USA)
Michael Sintek (DFKI, Germany)
Divesh Srivastava (Bell Laboratories, USA)
Steffen Staab (University of Karlsruhe, Germany)
Heiner Stuckenschmidt (Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
Gerd Stumme (University of Karlsruhe, Germany)
Valentina Tamma (University of Liverpool, UK)
Herman ter Horst (Philips, The Netherlands)
Walt Truszkowski (NASA, USA)
Maria Vargas-Vera (Open University, UK)
Panos Vassiliadis (University of Ioannina, Greece)
Daniel Veit (University of Karlsruhe, Germany)
Guido Vetere (IBM, Italy)
Maurizio Vincini (University of Modena, Italy)
Claude Vogel (CONVERA, USA)
Raphael Volz (University of Karlsruhe, Germany)
Gottfried Vossen (University of Muenster, Germany)
Jan Wielemaker (University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
Stuart Williams (Hewlett-Packard, UK)
Carlo Zaniolo (University of California, Los Angeles, USA)
Page 10
XPatrons and Sponsors
Patrons
Platinum
Gold
Silver
Patrons
Platinum
Gold
Silver
Page 11
Table of Contents
Foundations
Representing the UMLS Semantic Network Using OWL
(Or “What’s in a Semantic Web Link?”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Vipul Kashyap, Alex Borgida
Reducing OWL Entailment to Description Logic Satisfiability . . . . . . . . . . 17
Ian Horrocks, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
RDFS(FA) and RDF MT: Two Semantics for RDFS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Jeff Z. Pan, Ian Horrocks
Web Ontology Reasoning with Datatype Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Jeff Z. Pan, Ian Horrocks
Merging Topics in Well-Formed XML Topic Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Richard Widhalm, Thomas A. Mueck
Semantic Processing of the Semantic Web . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Kunal Patel, Gopal Gupta
Viewing the Semantic Web through RVL Lenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Aimilia Magkanaraki, Val Tannen, Vassilis Christophides,
Dimitris Plexousakis
Infrastructure for Web Explanations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Deborah L. McGuinness, Paulo Pinheiro da Silva
Ontological Reasoning
Semantic Coordination: A New Approach and an Application . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Paolo Bouquet, Luciano Serafini, Stefano Zanobini
Interoperability on XML Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
Laks V.S. Lakshmanan, Fereidoon Sadri
C-OWL: Contextualizing Ontologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
Paolo Bouquet, Fausto Giunchiglia, Frank van Harmelen,
Luciano Serafini, Heiner Stuckenschmidt
Web Ontology Language Requirements w.r.t Expressiveness of
Taxonomy and Axioms in Medicine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
Christine Golbreich, Olivier Dameron, Bernard Gibaud, Anita Burgun
Foundations
Representing the UMLS Semantic Network Using OWL
(Or “What’s in a Semantic Web Link?”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Vipul Kashyap, Alex Borgida
Reducing OWL Entailment to Description Logic Satisfiability . . . . . . . . . . 17
Ian Horrocks, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
RDFS(FA) and RDF MT: Two Semantics for RDFS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Jeff Z. Pan, Ian Horrocks
Web Ontology Reasoning with Datatype Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Jeff Z. Pan, Ian Horrocks
Merging Topics in Well-Formed XML Topic Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Richard Widhalm, Thomas A. Mueck
Semantic Processing of the Semantic Web . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Kunal Patel, Gopal Gupta
Viewing the Semantic Web through RVL Lenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Aimilia Magkanaraki, Val Tannen, Vassilis Christophides,
Dimitris Plexousakis
Infrastructure for Web Explanations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Deborah L. McGuinness, Paulo Pinheiro da Silva
Ontological Reasoning
Semantic Coordination: A New Approach and an Application . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Paolo Bouquet, Luciano Serafini, Stefano Zanobini
Interoperability on XML Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
Laks V.S. Lakshmanan, Fereidoon Sadri
C-OWL: Contextualizing Ontologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
Paolo Bouquet, Fausto Giunchiglia, Frank van Harmelen,
Luciano Serafini, Heiner Stuckenschmidt
Web Ontology Language Requirements w.r.t Expressiveness of
Taxonomy and Axioms in Medicine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
Christine Golbreich, Olivier Dameron, Bernard Gibaud, Anita Burgun
Page 12
XII Table of Contents
Semantic Web Services
Automating DAML-S Web Services Composition Using SHOP2 . . . . . . . . . 195
Dan Wu, Bijan Parsia, Evren Sirin, James Hendler, Dana Nau
Surfing the Service Web . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
Sudhir Agarwal, Siegfried Handschuh, Steffen Staab
Adapting BPEL4WS for the Semantic Web: The Bottom-Up Approach
to Web Service Interoperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
Daniel J. Mandell, Sheila A. McIlraith
Request Rewriting-Based Web Service Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
Boualem Benatallah, Mohand-Said Hacid, Christophe Rey,
Farouk Toumani
Learning to Attach Semantic Metadata to Web Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
Andreas Heß, Nicholas Kushmerick
Semantic Markup for Semantic Web Tools: A DAML-S Description of
an RDF-Store . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
Debbie Richards, Marta Sabou
The DAML-S Virtual Machine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290
Massimo Paolucci, Anupriya Ankolekar, Naveen Srinivasan,
Katia Sycara
IRS–II: A Framework and Infrastructure for Semantic Web Services . . . . . 306
Enrico Motta, John Domingue, Liliana Cabral, Mauro Gaspari
Towards a Knowledge-Based Approach to
Semantic Service Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319
Liming Chen, Nigel R. Shadbolt, Carole Goble, Feng Tao,
Simon J. Cox, Colin Puleston, P.R. Smart
Security, Trust, and Privacy
Security for DAML Web Services: Annotation and Matchmaking . . . . . . . . 335
Grit Denker, Lalana Kagal, Tim Finin, Massimo Paolucci,
Katia Sycara
Trust Management for the Semantic Web . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351
Matthew Richardson, Rakesh Agrawal, Pedro Domingos
Signing RDF Graphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369
Jeremy J. Carroll
A Semantic E-Wallet to Reconcile Privacy and Context Awareness . . . . . . 385
Fabien L. Gandon, Norman M. Sadeh
Semantic Web Services
Automating DAML-S Web Services Composition Using SHOP2 . . . . . . . . . 195
Dan Wu, Bijan Parsia, Evren Sirin, James Hendler, Dana Nau
Surfing the Service Web . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
Sudhir Agarwal, Siegfried Handschuh, Steffen Staab
Adapting BPEL4WS for the Semantic Web: The Bottom-Up Approach
to Web Service Interoperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
Daniel J. Mandell, Sheila A. McIlraith
Request Rewriting-Based Web Service Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
Boualem Benatallah, Mohand-Said Hacid, Christophe Rey,
Farouk Toumani
Learning to Attach Semantic Metadata to Web Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
Andreas Heß, Nicholas Kushmerick
Semantic Markup for Semantic Web Tools: A DAML-S Description of
an RDF-Store . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
Debbie Richards, Marta Sabou
The DAML-S Virtual Machine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290
Massimo Paolucci, Anupriya Ankolekar, Naveen Srinivasan,
Katia Sycara
IRS–II: A Framework and Infrastructure for Semantic Web Services . . . . . 306
Enrico Motta, John Domingue, Liliana Cabral, Mauro Gaspari
Towards a Knowledge-Based Approach to
Semantic Service Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319
Liming Chen, Nigel R. Shadbolt, Carole Goble, Feng Tao,
Simon J. Cox, Colin Puleston, P.R. Smart
Security, Trust, and Privacy
Security for DAML Web Services: Annotation and Matchmaking . . . . . . . . 335
Grit Denker, Lalana Kagal, Tim Finin, Massimo Paolucci,
Katia Sycara
Trust Management for the Semantic Web . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351
Matthew Richardson, Rakesh Agrawal, Pedro Domingos
Signing RDF Graphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369
Jeremy J. Carroll
A Semantic E-Wallet to Reconcile Privacy and Context Awareness . . . . . . 385
Fabien L. Gandon, Norman M. Sadeh
Page 13
Table of Contents XIII
A Policy Based Approach to Security for the Semantic Web . . . . . . . . . . . . 402
Lalana Kagal, Tim Finin, Anupam Joshi
Agents and the Semantic Web
Semantic Web Languages for Policy Representation and Reasoning:
A Comparison of KAoS, Rei, and Ponder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419
Gianluca Tonti, Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, Renia Jeffers,
Rebecca Montanari, Niranjan Suri, Andrzej Uszok
An Agent Framework for Inter-personal Information Sharing with
an RDF-Based Repository . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 438
Koji Kamei, Sen Yoshida, Kazuhiro Kuwabara, Jun-ichi Akahani,
Tetsuji Satoh
An Environment for Distributed Ontology Development Based on
Dependency Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453
Eiichi Sunagawa, Kouji Kozaki, Yoshinobu Kitamura,
Riichiro Mizoguchi
Beyond Ontology Construction; Ontology Services as
Online Knowledge Sharing Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 469
Yang Li, Simon Thompson, Zhu Tan, Nick Giles, Hamid Gharib
Information Retrieval
Semantic Annotation, Indexing, and Retrieval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 484
Atanas Kiryakov, Borislav Popov, Damyan Ognyanoff,
Dimitar Manov, Angel Kirilov, Miroslav Goranov
An Approach for the Ranking of Query Results in the Semantic Web . . . . 500
Nenad Stojanovic, Rudi Studer, Ljiljana Stojanovic
Querying Semantic Web Resources Using TRIPLE Views . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 517
Zolta´n Miklo´s, Gustaf Neumann, Uwe Zdun, Michael Sintek
Automatic Annotation of Content-Rich HTML Documents:
Structural and Semantic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 533
Saikat Mukherjee, Guizhen Yang, I.V. Ramakrishnan
Multi-media
Semi-automatic Semantic Annotation of Images Using
Machine Learning Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 550
Oge Marques, Nitish Barman
Integrating Structure and Semantics into Audio-visual Documents . . . . . . 566
Raphae¨l Troncy
A Policy Based Approach to Security for the Semantic Web . . . . . . . . . . . . 402
Lalana Kagal, Tim Finin, Anupam Joshi
Agents and the Semantic Web
Semantic Web Languages for Policy Representation and Reasoning:
A Comparison of KAoS, Rei, and Ponder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419
Gianluca Tonti, Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, Renia Jeffers,
Rebecca Montanari, Niranjan Suri, Andrzej Uszok
An Agent Framework for Inter-personal Information Sharing with
an RDF-Based Repository . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 438
Koji Kamei, Sen Yoshida, Kazuhiro Kuwabara, Jun-ichi Akahani,
Tetsuji Satoh
An Environment for Distributed Ontology Development Based on
Dependency Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453
Eiichi Sunagawa, Kouji Kozaki, Yoshinobu Kitamura,
Riichiro Mizoguchi
Beyond Ontology Construction; Ontology Services as
Online Knowledge Sharing Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 469
Yang Li, Simon Thompson, Zhu Tan, Nick Giles, Hamid Gharib
Information Retrieval
Semantic Annotation, Indexing, and Retrieval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 484
Atanas Kiryakov, Borislav Popov, Damyan Ognyanoff,
Dimitar Manov, Angel Kirilov, Miroslav Goranov
An Approach for the Ranking of Query Results in the Semantic Web . . . . 500
Nenad Stojanovic, Rudi Studer, Ljiljana Stojanovic
Querying Semantic Web Resources Using TRIPLE Views . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 517
Zolta´n Miklo´s, Gustaf Neumann, Uwe Zdun, Michael Sintek
Automatic Annotation of Content-Rich HTML Documents:
Structural and Semantic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 533
Saikat Mukherjee, Guizhen Yang, I.V. Ramakrishnan
Multi-media
Semi-automatic Semantic Annotation of Images Using
Machine Learning Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 550
Oge Marques, Nitish Barman
Integrating Structure and Semantics into Audio-visual Documents . . . . . . 566
Raphae¨l Troncy
Page 14
XIV Table of Contents
SCULPTEUR: Towards a New Paradigm for Multimedia Museum
Information Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 582
Matthew Addis, Mike Boniface, Simon Goodall, Paul Grimwood,
Sanghee Kim, Paul Lewis, Kirk Martinez, Alison Stevenson
Towards Ontology-Driven Discourse: From Semantic Graphs to
Multimedia Presentations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 597
Joost Geurts, Stefano Bocconi, Jacco van Ossenbruggen,
Lynda Hardman
Tools and Metodologies
Benchmarking DAML+OIL Repositories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 613
Yuanbo Guo, Jeff Heflin, Zhengxiang Pan
DAMLJessKB: A Tool for Reasoning with the Semantic Web . . . . . . . . . . . 628
Joseph B. Kopena, William C. Regli
Prolog-Based Infrastructure for RDF: Scalability and Performance . . . . . . 644
Jan Wielemaker, Guus Schreiber, Bob Wielinga
Cooking the Semantic Web with the OWL API . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 659
Sean Bechhofer, Raphael Volz, Phillip Lord
Applications
WebScripter: Grass-Roots Ontology Alignment via
End-User Report Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 676
Baoshi Yan, Martin Frank, Pedro Szekely, Robert Neches, Juan Lopez
Magpie – Towards a Semantic Web Browser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 690
Martin Dzbor, John Domingue, Enrico Motta
Ontology-Based Resource Matching in the Grid – The Grid Meets
the Semantic Web . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 706
Hongsuda Tangmunarunkit, Stefan Decker, Carl Kesselman
A Q-Based Architecture for Semantic Information Interoperability on
Semantic Web . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 722
Zhen-jie Wang, Huan-ye Sheng, Peng Ding
Haystack: A Platform for Authoring End User Semantic
Web Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 738
Dennis Quan, David Huynh, David R. Karger
SCULPTEUR: Towards a New Paradigm for Multimedia Museum
Information Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 582
Matthew Addis, Mike Boniface, Simon Goodall, Paul Grimwood,
Sanghee Kim, Paul Lewis, Kirk Martinez, Alison Stevenson
Towards Ontology-Driven Discourse: From Semantic Graphs to
Multimedia Presentations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 597
Joost Geurts, Stefano Bocconi, Jacco van Ossenbruggen,
Lynda Hardman
Tools and Metodologies
Benchmarking DAML+OIL Repositories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 613
Yuanbo Guo, Jeff Heflin, Zhengxiang Pan
DAMLJessKB: A Tool for Reasoning with the Semantic Web . . . . . . . . . . . 628
Joseph B. Kopena, William C. Regli
Prolog-Based Infrastructure for RDF: Scalability and Performance . . . . . . 644
Jan Wielemaker, Guus Schreiber, Bob Wielinga
Cooking the Semantic Web with the OWL API . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 659
Sean Bechhofer, Raphael Volz, Phillip Lord
Applications
WebScripter: Grass-Roots Ontology Alignment via
End-User Report Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 676
Baoshi Yan, Martin Frank, Pedro Szekely, Robert Neches, Juan Lopez
Magpie – Towards a Semantic Web Browser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 690
Martin Dzbor, John Domingue, Enrico Motta
Ontology-Based Resource Matching in the Grid – The Grid Meets
the Semantic Web . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 706
Hongsuda Tangmunarunkit, Stefan Decker, Carl Kesselman
A Q-Based Architecture for Semantic Information Interoperability on
Semantic Web . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 722
Zhen-jie Wang, Huan-ye Sheng, Peng Ding
Haystack: A Platform for Authoring End User Semantic
Web Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 738
Dennis Quan, David Huynh, David R. Karger
Page 15
Table of Contents XV
Mangrove: Enticing Ordinary People onto the Semantic Web via
Instant Gratification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 754
Luke McDowell, Oren Etzioni, Steven D. Gribble, Alon Halevy,
Henry Levy, William Pentney, Deepak Verma, Stani Vlasseva
FrameNet Meets the Semantic Web: Lexical Semantics for the Web . . . . . . 771
Srini Narayanan, Collin Baker, Charles Fillmore, Miriam Petruck
Industrial Track
ScadaOnWeb – Web Based Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition . . . 788
Thomas Dreyer, David Leal, Andrea Schro¨der, Michael Schwan
ODESeW. Automatic Generation of Knowledge Portals for
Intranets and Extranets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 802
Oscar Corcho, Asuncio´n Go´mez-Pe´rez, Angel Lo´pez-Cima,
V. Lo´pez-Garc´ıa, Mar´ıa del Carmen Sua´rez-Figueroa
Making Business Sense of the Semantic Web . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 818
Zavisa Bjelogrlic, Dirk-Willem van Gulik, Alberto Reggiori
KIM – Semantic Annotation Platform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 834
Borislav Popov, Atanas Kiryakov, Angel Kirilov, Dimitar Manov,
Damyan Ognyanoff, Miroslav Goranov
Ontology-Oriented Programming: Static Typing for
the Inconsistent Programmer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 850
Neil M. Goldman
Task Computing – The Semantic Web Meets Pervasive Computing . . . . . . 866
Ryusuke Masuoka, Bijan Parsia, Yannis Labrou
A Semantic Infosphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 882
Michael Uschold, Peter Clark, Fred Dickey, Casey Fung, Sonia Smith,
Stephen Uczekaj, Michael Wilke, Sean Bechhofer, Ian Horrocks
Ontology-Based Information Integration in the Automotive Industry . . . . 897
Andreas Maier, Hans-Peter Schnurr, York Sure
Ontology-Based Query and Answering in Chemistry:
OntoNova @ Project Halo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913
Ju¨rgen Angele, Eddie Moench, Henrik Oppermann, Steffen Staab,
D. Wenke
Author Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 929
Mangrove: Enticing Ordinary People onto the Semantic Web via
Instant Gratification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 754
Luke McDowell, Oren Etzioni, Steven D. Gribble, Alon Halevy,
Henry Levy, William Pentney, Deepak Verma, Stani Vlasseva
FrameNet Meets the Semantic Web: Lexical Semantics for the Web . . . . . . 771
Srini Narayanan, Collin Baker, Charles Fillmore, Miriam Petruck
Industrial Track
ScadaOnWeb – Web Based Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition . . . 788
Thomas Dreyer, David Leal, Andrea Schro¨der, Michael Schwan
ODESeW. Automatic Generation of Knowledge Portals for
Intranets and Extranets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 802
Oscar Corcho, Asuncio´n Go´mez-Pe´rez, Angel Lo´pez-Cima,
V. Lo´pez-Garc´ıa, Mar´ıa del Carmen Sua´rez-Figueroa
Making Business Sense of the Semantic Web . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 818
Zavisa Bjelogrlic, Dirk-Willem van Gulik, Alberto Reggiori
KIM – Semantic Annotation Platform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 834
Borislav Popov, Atanas Kiryakov, Angel Kirilov, Dimitar Manov,
Damyan Ognyanoff, Miroslav Goranov
Ontology-Oriented Programming: Static Typing for
the Inconsistent Programmer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 850
Neil M. Goldman
Task Computing – The Semantic Web Meets Pervasive Computing . . . . . . 866
Ryusuke Masuoka, Bijan Parsia, Yannis Labrou
A Semantic Infosphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 882
Michael Uschold, Peter Clark, Fred Dickey, Casey Fung, Sonia Smith,
Stephen Uczekaj, Michael Wilke, Sean Bechhofer, Ian Horrocks
Ontology-Based Information Integration in the Automotive Industry . . . . 897
Andreas Maier, Hans-Peter Schnurr, York Sure
Ontology-Based Query and Answering in Chemistry:
OntoNova @ Project Halo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913
Ju¨rgen Angele, Eddie Moench, Henrik Oppermann, Steffen Staab,
D. Wenke
Author Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 929
Page 16
D. Fensel et al. (Eds.): ISWC 2003, LNCS 2870, pp. 802–817, 2003.
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003
ODESeW. Automatic Generation of Knowledge Portals
for Intranets and Extranets
Oscar Corcho, Asunción Gómez-Pérez, Angel López-Cima, V. López-García,
and María del Carmen Suárez-Figueroa
Laboratorio de Inteligencia Artificial
Facultad de Informática
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
Campus de Montegancedo sn.
Boadilla del Monte, 28660. Madrid, Spain
{ocorcho,asun}@fi.upm.es
{alopez,vlopez,mcsuarez}@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es
Abstract. This paper presents ODESeW (Semantic Web Portal based on
WebODE platform [1]) as an ontology-based application that automatically
generates and manages a knowledge portal for Intranets and Extranets.
ODESeW is designed on the top of WebODE ontology engineering platform.
This paper shows the service architecture that allows configuring the
visualization of ontology-based information for different kinds of users,
establishing reading and updating access policies to its content, and performing
consistency checking between the portal information and the ontologies
underlying it.
1 Introduction
The terms knowledge portal, semantic portal and community web portal can be found
in the literature ([6][10]) to indistinctly refer to knowledge-based web sites that allow
corporate access to information and applications. A good definition of what they are
can be found in [6], where they are defined as web applications that “provide the
means to select, classify and access, in a semantically meaningful and ubiquitous
way, various information resources (e.g., sites, documents, data) for diverse target
audiences (corporate, inter-enterprise, e-marketplace, etc.).” From now on, we will
use the term “knowledge portal” to refer to this kind of applications.
Knowledge portals present structured views of the web according to what it is
usually called a knowledge catalogue [6]. A knowledge catalogue holds descriptions
about the resources available to the community members, and is more flexible and
complex than conventional (relational or object) databases. Ontologies are commonly
used for this task of structuring knowledge, since they represent shared knowledge
within a community.
The process of content provision in knowledge portals is usually performed
collaboratively, normally with few resources (manpower, money) [10]. This supposes
a great effort to maintain the Web portal and to integrate the information it contains
(even if it is using ontologies to structure it). Besides, content presentation is always a
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003
ODESeW. Automatic Generation of Knowledge Portals
for Intranets and Extranets
Oscar Corcho, Asunción Gómez-Pérez, Angel López-Cima, V. López-García,
and María del Carmen Suárez-Figueroa
Laboratorio de Inteligencia Artificial
Facultad de Informática
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
Campus de Montegancedo sn.
Boadilla del Monte, 28660. Madrid, Spain
{ocorcho,asun}@fi.upm.es
{alopez,vlopez,mcsuarez}@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es
Abstract. This paper presents ODESeW (Semantic Web Portal based on
WebODE platform [1]) as an ontology-based application that automatically
generates and manages a knowledge portal for Intranets and Extranets.
ODESeW is designed on the top of WebODE ontology engineering platform.
This paper shows the service architecture that allows configuring the
visualization of ontology-based information for different kinds of users,
establishing reading and updating access policies to its content, and performing
consistency checking between the portal information and the ontologies
underlying it.
1 Introduction
The terms knowledge portal, semantic portal and community web portal can be found
in the literature ([6][10]) to indistinctly refer to knowledge-based web sites that allow
corporate access to information and applications. A good definition of what they are
can be found in [6], where they are defined as web applications that “provide the
means to select, classify and access, in a semantically meaningful and ubiquitous
way, various information resources (e.g., sites, documents, data) for diverse target
audiences (corporate, inter-enterprise, e-marketplace, etc.).” From now on, we will
use the term “knowledge portal” to refer to this kind of applications.
Knowledge portals present structured views of the web according to what it is
usually called a knowledge catalogue [6]. A knowledge catalogue holds descriptions
about the resources available to the community members, and is more flexible and
complex than conventional (relational or object) databases. Ontologies are commonly
used for this task of structuring knowledge, since they represent shared knowledge
within a community.
The process of content provision in knowledge portals is usually performed
collaboratively, normally with few resources (manpower, money) [10]. This supposes
a great effort to maintain the Web portal and to integrate the information it contains
(even if it is using ontologies to structure it). Besides, content presentation is always a
Page 17
ODESeW. Automatic Generation of Knowledge Portals for Intranets and Extranets 803
hard task, especially in knowledge-intensive web sites where content is continuously
updated. To ameliorate the hard task of knowledge portal management, we need
applications that automate these difficult knowledge workflow processes (content
provision and integration, content presentation, and content access), as well as
frameworks that support them.
Furthermore, in this knowledge intensive portals we distinguish between ontology
developers and content (knowledge asset) providers versus Intranet and Extranet
users. Ontology developers are in charged of developing the ontologies, which will be
used by the content providers as a primary piece of knowledge for describing
knowledge assets and by the end users as an index used to browse the knowledge
portal. Regarding the end users, we distinguish between Intranet and Extranet users.
Intranet users, which are also content providers, access content inserted by themselves
or by others members. Different Intranet users have different permissions either for
inserting content on the knowledge portal or for browsing the collected assets.
Finally, extranet users, who scarcely include new content, but mainly access the
allowed content by the knowledge portal administrator. Therefore, knowledge portals
must be created having in mind that they have to act both as Intranets (private
networks contained within an enterprise, whose main purpose is to share company
information and computing resources among employees) and as Extranets (defined as
collaborative extensions of an Intranet, which expands access to individuals outside
the company) 1.
In this paper, we present ODESeW, an ontology-based application built inside the
WebODE ontology engineering workbench, that allows managing knowledge-
intensive ontology-based Intranets and Extranets, providing the following functions:
• Knowledge modelling, by means of an ontology development platform that
integrates several ontology development services. As the knowledge portal will
be used on the web, is highly recommend to use an ontology server (and not a
stand-alone ontology editor) that allows to build cooperatively the ontologies as
well as to access the ontologies through the web. The use of an ontology server as
a basic infrastructure over which the knowledge portal is built will ease the
management in a sync way of the assets with respect to the ontology changes.
From a software perspective, the knowledge portal will benefit from the present
and further services provided by the ontology server.
• Content editing/provision by means of ontology instances editing. ODESeW
allows inserting, updating and removing class instances, their attributes and
relation instances, in multiple interlinked ontologies and with different editing
permissions for the portal users. As part of the instance editing functions,
ODESeW can be also used as a document management tool, which allows
handling electronic documents.
• Content presentation/visualization by means of highly-configurable user-defined
visualizations of ontology classes, relations and instances, and with different
browsing permissions for the portal users. The ontology is used for indexing the
knowledge assets and for browsing them accordingly. The ontology provides
structure on this content that helps the user find knowledge assets. The content
stored in the portal can be accessed dynamically with menus automatically
generated from ontologies according to the user’s permission, visualizing
1
Both definitions are obtained from http://www.scotsmist.co.uk/glossary_e.html
hard task, especially in knowledge-intensive web sites where content is continuously
updated. To ameliorate the hard task of knowledge portal management, we need
applications that automate these difficult knowledge workflow processes (content
provision and integration, content presentation, and content access), as well as
frameworks that support them.
Furthermore, in this knowledge intensive portals we distinguish between ontology
developers and content (knowledge asset) providers versus Intranet and Extranet
users. Ontology developers are in charged of developing the ontologies, which will be
used by the content providers as a primary piece of knowledge for describing
knowledge assets and by the end users as an index used to browse the knowledge
portal. Regarding the end users, we distinguish between Intranet and Extranet users.
Intranet users, which are also content providers, access content inserted by themselves
or by others members. Different Intranet users have different permissions either for
inserting content on the knowledge portal or for browsing the collected assets.
Finally, extranet users, who scarcely include new content, but mainly access the
allowed content by the knowledge portal administrator. Therefore, knowledge portals
must be created having in mind that they have to act both as Intranets (private
networks contained within an enterprise, whose main purpose is to share company
information and computing resources among employees) and as Extranets (defined as
collaborative extensions of an Intranet, which expands access to individuals outside
the company) 1.
In this paper, we present ODESeW, an ontology-based application built inside the
WebODE ontology engineering workbench, that allows managing knowledge-
intensive ontology-based Intranets and Extranets, providing the following functions:
• Knowledge modelling, by means of an ontology development platform that
integrates several ontology development services. As the knowledge portal will
be used on the web, is highly recommend to use an ontology server (and not a
stand-alone ontology editor) that allows to build cooperatively the ontologies as
well as to access the ontologies through the web. The use of an ontology server as
a basic infrastructure over which the knowledge portal is built will ease the
management in a sync way of the assets with respect to the ontology changes.
From a software perspective, the knowledge portal will benefit from the present
and further services provided by the ontology server.
• Content editing/provision by means of ontology instances editing. ODESeW
allows inserting, updating and removing class instances, their attributes and
relation instances, in multiple interlinked ontologies and with different editing
permissions for the portal users. As part of the instance editing functions,
ODESeW can be also used as a document management tool, which allows
handling electronic documents.
• Content presentation/visualization by means of highly-configurable user-defined
visualizations of ontology classes, relations and instances, and with different
browsing permissions for the portal users. The ontology is used for indexing the
knowledge assets and for browsing them accordingly. The ontology provides
structure on this content that helps the user find knowledge assets. The content
stored in the portal can be accessed dynamically with menus automatically
generated from ontologies according to the user’s permission, visualizing
1
Both definitions are obtained from http://www.scotsmist.co.uk/glossary_e.html
Page 18
804 O. Corcho et al.
differently the different types of information stored in the knowledge assets; an
example is the shallow natural language generation functions for Extranet users.
The knowledge portal also provides annotated markup of its assets in RDF(S),
DAML+OIL and OWL.
• Content search and querying functions, based on a hybrid approach based on
ontologies and keywords. The content search and querying modules use the
WebODE API for accessing and querying the contents of the ontologies.
• Easy web site administration services, which allow managing the knowledge
portal users, editing and visualization permissions, and several other portal
management needs. Such services are only accessed by the users belonging to the
knowledge portal administration group.
As an important advantage of ODESeW over other similar Knowledge portals (we
must cite the ontoweb portal) is the automatic synchronization between the contents
of the portal and the ontologies in which it is based. So, if an ontology is modified
with the WebODE ontology editor, the changes will be automatically seen in the
knowledge portal either for ontology conceptualization itself or for its instances.
The paper is structured as follows: section 2 presents the software architecture of
ODESeW, paying special attention to its integration with the WebODE ontology
engineering workbench. Section 3 describes the most relevant functions of ODESeW,
grouped in content editing, content presentation, content search and querying, and
portal administration. Section 4 shows a case study of the use of ODESeW in a real
application: the Intranet and Extranet of the European funded project Esperonto. In
section 5, we describe some related work, and we conclude and present further work
in sections 6.
2 ODESeW Architecture
ODESeW has been built in the framework of WebODE, a scalable ontology
engineering workbench that gives support to the ontology building methodology
METHONTOLOGY [5].
As shown in figure 1, the ODESeW portal is one of the two main front-end
applications of the WebODE workbench. The other one is the WebODE ontology
editor, which integrates all the ontology editing and management functions of the
platform.
WebODE is platform-independent, since it is completely implemented in Java. To
allow scalability and easy extensibility, it is supported by an application server, so
that services can be easily created and integrated in the workbench by means of a
management console. One important advantage of using this application server is that
it allows deciding which users or user groups may access each of the services of the
workbench.
The figure also shows the most relevant services currently available in the
WebODE workbench. The core of the WebODE’s ontology development services are:
the cache, consistency and axiom services, and the ontology access service (ODE
API), which defines an API for accessing WebODE ontologies. One of the main
advantages of this architecture is that these services can be accessed remotely from
any other application or any other instance of the WebODE workbench.
differently the different types of information stored in the knowledge assets; an
example is the shallow natural language generation functions for Extranet users.
The knowledge portal also provides annotated markup of its assets in RDF(S),
DAML+OIL and OWL.
• Content search and querying functions, based on a hybrid approach based on
ontologies and keywords. The content search and querying modules use the
WebODE API for accessing and querying the contents of the ontologies.
• Easy web site administration services, which allow managing the knowledge
portal users, editing and visualization permissions, and several other portal
management needs. Such services are only accessed by the users belonging to the
knowledge portal administration group.
As an important advantage of ODESeW over other similar Knowledge portals (we
must cite the ontoweb portal) is the automatic synchronization between the contents
of the portal and the ontologies in which it is based. So, if an ontology is modified
with the WebODE ontology editor, the changes will be automatically seen in the
knowledge portal either for ontology conceptualization itself or for its instances.
The paper is structured as follows: section 2 presents the software architecture of
ODESeW, paying special attention to its integration with the WebODE ontology
engineering workbench. Section 3 describes the most relevant functions of ODESeW,
grouped in content editing, content presentation, content search and querying, and
portal administration. Section 4 shows a case study of the use of ODESeW in a real
application: the Intranet and Extranet of the European funded project Esperonto. In
section 5, we describe some related work, and we conclude and present further work
in sections 6.
2 ODESeW Architecture
ODESeW has been built in the framework of WebODE, a scalable ontology
engineering workbench that gives support to the ontology building methodology
METHONTOLOGY [5].
As shown in figure 1, the ODESeW portal is one of the two main front-end
applications of the WebODE workbench. The other one is the WebODE ontology
editor, which integrates all the ontology editing and management functions of the
platform.
WebODE is platform-independent, since it is completely implemented in Java. To
allow scalability and easy extensibility, it is supported by an application server, so
that services can be easily created and integrated in the workbench by means of a
management console. One important advantage of using this application server is that
it allows deciding which users or user groups may access each of the services of the
workbench.
The figure also shows the most relevant services currently available in the
WebODE workbench. The core of the WebODE’s ontology development services are:
the cache, consistency and axiom services, and the ontology access service (ODE
API), which defines an API for accessing WebODE ontologies. One of the main
advantages of this architecture is that these services can be accessed remotely from
any other application or any other instance of the WebODE workbench.
Page 19
ODESeW. Automatic Generation of Knowledge Portals for Intranets and Extranets 805
Fig. 1. WebODE ontology engineering workbench architecture.
Furthermore, ontologies are stored in a relational database, so they can manage
huge ontologies quite efficiently. And it is also easily extensible, so that the database
manager can be changed, or any backend system can be plugged in the bottom of the
architecture. Finally, WebODE also provides backup management functions for the
ontologies stored in the server.
The figure shows that the import, export and evaluation services are running on top
of the ontology access service. These services import ontologies from XML,
XCARIN, RDF(S)[3][7], DAML+OIL [11], and OWL [4]; and export ontologies to
XML, FLogic, XCARIN, RDF(S), OIL, DAML+OIL, and OWL. Ontologies are also
exported to languages that are not specifically created for defining ontologies, such as
Prolog, Jess, and Java. For instance, the Prolog export service is used as a basis of the
WebODE’s inference engine. WebODE also evaluates ontologies written in RDF(S),
DAML+OIL, and OWL.
Once described the main characteristics of the WebODE workbench, we will
proceed to describe the services used by the ODESeW application. To implement
ODESeW, we have built three more services on top of the ODE API, as shown in the
right of the figure: ODESearch, permission and SeW.
• ODESearch allows querying the WebODE ontologies, by means of keywords or
using the attributes of the ontology concepts as templates, as will be explained in
section 3.3.
• The permission service is in charge of managing security in the access to the
concepts, instances and attributes of the ontologies. It will manage both read and
write access permissions to the content stored.
Fig. 1. WebODE ontology engineering workbench architecture.
Furthermore, ontologies are stored in a relational database, so they can manage
huge ontologies quite efficiently. And it is also easily extensible, so that the database
manager can be changed, or any backend system can be plugged in the bottom of the
architecture. Finally, WebODE also provides backup management functions for the
ontologies stored in the server.
The figure shows that the import, export and evaluation services are running on top
of the ontology access service. These services import ontologies from XML,
XCARIN, RDF(S)[3][7], DAML+OIL [11], and OWL [4]; and export ontologies to
XML, FLogic, XCARIN, RDF(S), OIL, DAML+OIL, and OWL. Ontologies are also
exported to languages that are not specifically created for defining ontologies, such as
Prolog, Jess, and Java. For instance, the Prolog export service is used as a basis of the
WebODE’s inference engine. WebODE also evaluates ontologies written in RDF(S),
DAML+OIL, and OWL.
Once described the main characteristics of the WebODE workbench, we will
proceed to describe the services used by the ODESeW application. To implement
ODESeW, we have built three more services on top of the ODE API, as shown in the
right of the figure: ODESearch, permission and SeW.
• ODESearch allows querying the WebODE ontologies, by means of keywords or
using the attributes of the ontology concepts as templates, as will be explained in
section 3.3.
• The permission service is in charge of managing security in the access to the
concepts, instances and attributes of the ontologies. It will manage both read and
write access permissions to the content stored.
Page 20
806 O. Corcho et al.
• SeW gives support to the administration functions of the ODESeW application. It
allows selecting which ontologies will be published in the portal, which types of
users can access it (administrators, guest users, etc.), how instances in the ontology
will be visualized in the portal, etc. These functions are described in section 3.4.
There are many advantages of having built ODESeW on top of the WebODE
workbench. First of all, ODESeW can use any of the WebODE workbench services.
For example, with the ontology import services we can import other ontologies in the
workbench, and these new ontologies can be easily selected for publication in the
ODESeW portal. Consequently, we can create a complete new knowledge portal
(including its Intranet and its Extranet) in a very short period of time.
Another advantage is that we can edit any of the ontologies published with
ODESeW using the WebODE ontology editor, and observe at run-time the
modifications in the knowledge portal, which means that there is auto-synching of the
portal with respect to the ontology.
3 ODESeW Functions
ODESeW generates automatically knowledge portals for Intranets and Extranets, both
of which use the same assets and knowledge. The knowledge portal provides different
functions in each case:
• If the knowledge portal is being used as an Intranet, corporate users will be able
to insert and update content in the portal as content providers, browse the content
that they have inserted or that other corporate members have inserted there, and
perform searches and queries on that content. The ontologies issues either for
indexing knowledge asset or for searching them more efficiently.
• If the knowledge portal is being used as an Extranet, external users will usually
be able to edit very restricted parts of the content stored in the portal, and browse,
query and search only the content identified as public content by the content
providers.
Apart from these content provision, visualization, and access functions, ODESeW
provides management services that allow configuring them.
In this section, we will present the main functionalities of ODESeW, grouped in
the four categories of: content editing/provision, content presentation/visualization,
content querying and search, and administration services.
Another interesting function in a knowledge portal is the possibility to modify the
published ontologies. ODESeW does not give support to this function, since for this
task the WebODE ontology editor can be used. All the changes done to ontologies
with the WebODE ontology editor are viewed in run-time execution in ODESeW,
with no need to restart the web server.
3.1 Content Editing/Provision
In an ontology-based knowledge portal, the provision of content mainly consists of
editing concept instances, that is, inserting, updating and removing instances of
• SeW gives support to the administration functions of the ODESeW application. It
allows selecting which ontologies will be published in the portal, which types of
users can access it (administrators, guest users, etc.), how instances in the ontology
will be visualized in the portal, etc. These functions are described in section 3.4.
There are many advantages of having built ODESeW on top of the WebODE
workbench. First of all, ODESeW can use any of the WebODE workbench services.
For example, with the ontology import services we can import other ontologies in the
workbench, and these new ontologies can be easily selected for publication in the
ODESeW portal. Consequently, we can create a complete new knowledge portal
(including its Intranet and its Extranet) in a very short period of time.
Another advantage is that we can edit any of the ontologies published with
ODESeW using the WebODE ontology editor, and observe at run-time the
modifications in the knowledge portal, which means that there is auto-synching of the
portal with respect to the ontology.
3 ODESeW Functions
ODESeW generates automatically knowledge portals for Intranets and Extranets, both
of which use the same assets and knowledge. The knowledge portal provides different
functions in each case:
• If the knowledge portal is being used as an Intranet, corporate users will be able
to insert and update content in the portal as content providers, browse the content
that they have inserted or that other corporate members have inserted there, and
perform searches and queries on that content. The ontologies issues either for
indexing knowledge asset or for searching them more efficiently.
• If the knowledge portal is being used as an Extranet, external users will usually
be able to edit very restricted parts of the content stored in the portal, and browse,
query and search only the content identified as public content by the content
providers.
Apart from these content provision, visualization, and access functions, ODESeW
provides management services that allow configuring them.
In this section, we will present the main functionalities of ODESeW, grouped in
the four categories of: content editing/provision, content presentation/visualization,
content querying and search, and administration services.
Another interesting function in a knowledge portal is the possibility to modify the
published ontologies. ODESeW does not give support to this function, since for this
task the WebODE ontology editor can be used. All the changes done to ontologies
with the WebODE ontology editor are viewed in run-time execution in ODESeW,
with no need to restart the web server.
3.1 Content Editing/Provision
In an ontology-based knowledge portal, the provision of content mainly consists of
editing concept instances, that is, inserting, updating and removing instances of
Page 21
ODESeW. Automatic Generation of Knowledge Portals for Intranets and Extranets 807
ontology concepts. ODESeW gives support to this task by allowing users to edit
concept instances and the values of their attributes, and to connect such instances by
means of relations, even if they belong to different ontologies. The ontology
conceptualization editing is delegating to the WebODE application.
This content provision task in ODESeW is mainly performed by Intranet users,
although ODESeW does not restrict it to Extranet users (the administrator of the
knowledge portal may decide whether to give Extranet users editing permissions to
specific parts of the ontologies published in the portal).
ODESeW gives support to the following content provision functions:
• Instance creation and removal. Users can create instances of any concept in any
of the ontologies published in ODESeW, provided that the users have enough
permissions to create such instances. The same occurs with the removal of
concept instances.
• Instance editing. To edit instances, users are presented with the attributes of the
concept from which the instance is instance of, as well as the attributes inherited
through the concept taxonomy (multiple inheritance is allowed in ODESeW).
Figure 2 shows the instance editing form for the instance Angel López-Cima of
the concept PhD Student. The user can insert one or several values of any of
these attributes, provided that their maximum cardinality and value type
constraints are respected. All these constraints are checked by the WebODE
platform.
Depending on the attribute types, ODESeW gives different fields to insert and
update their values. For instance, if the value type of an attribute is Date,
ODESeW will present a calendar from where the user can select a specific date.
In figure 2, the attribute Date Of Birth has a link to a calendar next to the Add
Value button.
If the value type is URL, the user can either insert directly a URL or upload a file
(an image, a PDF document, etc.) that is converted to a URL inside the
knowledge portal. In the example of figure 2, we could insert the URL
http://delicias.dia.fi.upm.es/~alopez as a value of the attribute Homepage, and we
have inserted an image file as a value for the attribute Photo.
• Relation instance editing. The bottom of the instance editing form shows the
relations that can be applied to the instance being edited. In figure 2, we can see
that a PhD Student can belong to an Organization and could be the contact
Person of an Organization. These relations appear in the form because their
domain is the concept Person, which is a superclass of PhD Student.
If a user decides to create any of these relation instances, (s)he will be shown a
list of candidate instances from the same or from other ontologies that are
instances of the concept that is the range of the relation. For instance, if we
selected the relation belong to in figure 2, we would be shown a list of instances
of the concept Organization or any of its subclasses. WebODE also checks the
integrity constraints of these relations.
3.2 Content Presentation/Visualization
Content visualization in an ontology-based knowledge portal mainly consists of
showing the ontology concepts and their related instances, presenting the details of
ontology concepts. ODESeW gives support to this task by allowing users to edit
concept instances and the values of their attributes, and to connect such instances by
means of relations, even if they belong to different ontologies. The ontology
conceptualization editing is delegating to the WebODE application.
This content provision task in ODESeW is mainly performed by Intranet users,
although ODESeW does not restrict it to Extranet users (the administrator of the
knowledge portal may decide whether to give Extranet users editing permissions to
specific parts of the ontologies published in the portal).
ODESeW gives support to the following content provision functions:
• Instance creation and removal. Users can create instances of any concept in any
of the ontologies published in ODESeW, provided that the users have enough
permissions to create such instances. The same occurs with the removal of
concept instances.
• Instance editing. To edit instances, users are presented with the attributes of the
concept from which the instance is instance of, as well as the attributes inherited
through the concept taxonomy (multiple inheritance is allowed in ODESeW).
Figure 2 shows the instance editing form for the instance Angel López-Cima of
the concept PhD Student. The user can insert one or several values of any of
these attributes, provided that their maximum cardinality and value type
constraints are respected. All these constraints are checked by the WebODE
platform.
Depending on the attribute types, ODESeW gives different fields to insert and
update their values. For instance, if the value type of an attribute is Date,
ODESeW will present a calendar from where the user can select a specific date.
In figure 2, the attribute Date Of Birth has a link to a calendar next to the Add
Value button.
If the value type is URL, the user can either insert directly a URL or upload a file
(an image, a PDF document, etc.) that is converted to a URL inside the
knowledge portal. In the example of figure 2, we could insert the URL
http://delicias.dia.fi.upm.es/~alopez as a value of the attribute Homepage, and we
have inserted an image file as a value for the attribute Photo.
• Relation instance editing. The bottom of the instance editing form shows the
relations that can be applied to the instance being edited. In figure 2, we can see
that a PhD Student can belong to an Organization and could be the contact
Person of an Organization. These relations appear in the form because their
domain is the concept Person, which is a superclass of PhD Student.
If a user decides to create any of these relation instances, (s)he will be shown a
list of candidate instances from the same or from other ontologies that are
instances of the concept that is the range of the relation. For instance, if we
selected the relation belong to in figure 2, we would be shown a list of instances
of the concept Organization or any of its subclasses. WebODE also checks the
integrity constraints of these relations.
3.2 Content Presentation/Visualization
Content visualization in an ontology-based knowledge portal mainly consists of
showing the ontology concepts and their related instances, presenting the details of
Page 22
808 O. Corcho et al.
Fig. 2. Editing form for the instance Angel López-Cima of the concept Phd Student in an
ontology about persons.
ontology instances and their relations with other instances, and allowing the
navigation through these relations and between the different ontologies published in
the portal. Although not related to the human-consumption, content visualization also
consists of producing the annotated markup of all the knowledge stored in the portal.
It is important to mention again that the content is the same for Extranet and
Intranet users, but ODESeW visualize differently depending on the two types of
users.
On the one hand, if ODESeW is being used as an Extranet, that is, the user has not
logged in the portal (from now on, we will refer to non-logged users as guest users),
the portal “hides” all the knowledge representation terminology (words such as
‘ontology’, ‘concept’, ‘instance’, etc). So, external users do not need to know that the
knowledge portal is internally based on ontologies. In fact, they do not need to know
the terminology used in the knowledge representation field to use the portal. To
present the content in a mode user-friendly way, ODESeW includes a shallow natural
language generation functions.
On the other hand, if ODESeW is being used as an Intranet, that is, the user has
logged in the portal, the portal shows all the information that the user has access to,
Fig. 2. Editing form for the instance Angel López-Cima of the concept Phd Student in an
ontology about persons.
ontology instances and their relations with other instances, and allowing the
navigation through these relations and between the different ontologies published in
the portal. Although not related to the human-consumption, content visualization also
consists of producing the annotated markup of all the knowledge stored in the portal.
It is important to mention again that the content is the same for Extranet and
Intranet users, but ODESeW visualize differently depending on the two types of
users.
On the one hand, if ODESeW is being used as an Extranet, that is, the user has not
logged in the portal (from now on, we will refer to non-logged users as guest users),
the portal “hides” all the knowledge representation terminology (words such as
‘ontology’, ‘concept’, ‘instance’, etc). So, external users do not need to know that the
knowledge portal is internally based on ontologies. In fact, they do not need to know
the terminology used in the knowledge representation field to use the portal. To
present the content in a mode user-friendly way, ODESeW includes a shallow natural
language generation functions.
On the other hand, if ODESeW is being used as an Intranet, that is, the user has
logged in the portal, the portal shows all the information that the user has access to,
Page 23
ODESeW. Automatic Generation of Knowledge Portals for Intranets and Extranets 809
Fig. 3. Instance detail for the Extranet.
without hiding the knowledge representation terminology nor using natural language
generation functions. Since different users may have different access and write
permissions for the content in the portal, we can consider that there are as many
different views of the information as type of users of the Intranet.
Figures 3 and 4 show different visualizations of the same instance (a deliverable in
the European project Esperonto) at the Extranet and the Intranet, respectively. In
figure 4, the Intranet user can see and access to the information of the attribute On-
line version, but a guest user can not see the attribute as shows in figure 3 because this
is a private attribute.
Apart from the previous functions, ODESeW has the following content provision
features:
• Automatically generated menus to access the ontologies published in the portal.
• Automatic generation of concept taxonomies from ontologies to browse each of
the published ontologies according to the permissions defined for each user. For
Extranet users, apart from taking into account read permissions, the concept
taxonomy will not show concepts that have not instances avoiding to the users
access to a concept without any information (instances).
• Instance lists visualization. The instances of a concept (direct instances) and all
its subconcepts (indirect instances) are shown by selecting the concept in the
previous concept taxonomies. Each of the listed instances may have a description
based on one or more of its attributes (as described in section 3.4). The portal
only shows accessible instances according to the user read permissions. Figure 5
shows an example of an instance list where the instances of the concept
Organization are described by their full name and their logo.
Fig. 3. Instance detail for the Extranet.
without hiding the knowledge representation terminology nor using natural language
generation functions. Since different users may have different access and write
permissions for the content in the portal, we can consider that there are as many
different views of the information as type of users of the Intranet.
Figures 3 and 4 show different visualizations of the same instance (a deliverable in
the European project Esperonto) at the Extranet and the Intranet, respectively. In
figure 4, the Intranet user can see and access to the information of the attribute On-
line version, but a guest user can not see the attribute as shows in figure 3 because this
is a private attribute.
Apart from the previous functions, ODESeW has the following content provision
features:
• Automatically generated menus to access the ontologies published in the portal.
• Automatic generation of concept taxonomies from ontologies to browse each of
the published ontologies according to the permissions defined for each user. For
Extranet users, apart from taking into account read permissions, the concept
taxonomy will not show concepts that have not instances avoiding to the users
access to a concept without any information (instances).
• Instance lists visualization. The instances of a concept (direct instances) and all
its subconcepts (indirect instances) are shown by selecting the concept in the
previous concept taxonomies. Each of the listed instances may have a description
based on one or more of its attributes (as described in section 3.4). The portal
only shows accessible instances according to the user read permissions. Figure 5
shows an example of an instance list where the instances of the concept
Organization are described by their full name and their logo.
Page 24
810 O. Corcho et al.
Fig. 4. Instance view for Intranets.
• Instance details visualization. When visualizing an instance, users can see the
attributes and relation instances for which they have read permissions. The
visualization of each attribute is different depending on its value type (String,
Date, URL, etc.). For instance, in figure 3 and 4, the URLs appear as links and
the rest of attribute values appear as text boxes. URL attributes that contain an
image file are visualized as images, as was shown in the editing form of figure 2.
Besides, the portal administrator can set the order in which the attributes of
instances will be visualized, as we explain in section 3.4. By default, attributes
are presented in alphabetical order.
• Annotated ontology markup. All the content visualized by the ODESeW is
automatically generated as RDF code, and can refer to ontologies implemented in
RDFS, DAML+OIL and OWL. To obtain this annotated markup, ODESeW uses
the WebODE export services to these languages.
3.3 Content Search and Querying
In a data-intensive web-site, it is usually very difficult to find a specific piece of
information, even in the case that content inside the portal is well structured. This
problem is even more important in the case of the Extranet, since guest users do not
need to have a clear idea of how the portal is structured.
For this reason, ODESeW includes a search engine that allows querying for
information in one ontology or in all the ontologies of the portal. The search engine
allows two kinds of search:
Fig. 4. Instance view for Intranets.
• Instance details visualization. When visualizing an instance, users can see the
attributes and relation instances for which they have read permissions. The
visualization of each attribute is different depending on its value type (String,
Date, URL, etc.). For instance, in figure 3 and 4, the URLs appear as links and
the rest of attribute values appear as text boxes. URL attributes that contain an
image file are visualized as images, as was shown in the editing form of figure 2.
Besides, the portal administrator can set the order in which the attributes of
instances will be visualized, as we explain in section 3.4. By default, attributes
are presented in alphabetical order.
• Annotated ontology markup. All the content visualized by the ODESeW is
automatically generated as RDF code, and can refer to ontologies implemented in
RDFS, DAML+OIL and OWL. To obtain this annotated markup, ODESeW uses
the WebODE export services to these languages.
3.3 Content Search and Querying
In a data-intensive web-site, it is usually very difficult to find a specific piece of
information, even in the case that content inside the portal is well structured. This
problem is even more important in the case of the Extranet, since guest users do not
need to have a clear idea of how the portal is structured.
For this reason, ODESeW includes a search engine that allows querying for
information in one ontology or in all the ontologies of the portal. The search engine
allows two kinds of search:
Page 25
ODESeW. Automatic Generation of Knowledge Portals for Intranets and Extranets 811
Fig. 5. Instance list visualization.
• Keyword-based. As in other conventional search tools, the search engine looks
for instances or concept names that contain the keywords specified in the query.
• Ontology-based. ODESEW provides advanced search functions by means of a
query form. The fields to be filled in at the query form are attributes and relations
taken from the ontology. Once the user introduces the values (s)he is looking for,
the search engines returns those instances that satisfy the conditions imposed in
the attributes values specified in the form.
Though these are the most useful search and query facilities from the point of view
of human-consumption, we must take into account that ODESeW also generates
annotations in RDF for the content that it visualizes. This would allow other sites or
agents to read the annotations and use that content in other environments.
3.4 Web Site Administration Functions
ODESeW provides a set of management tools that can only be accessed by the
administrator user. This tool suite gives support to the basic management functions
needed to maintain the knowledge portal, namely user management, permission
management (security), ontology publication management, attribute ordering and
instance list descriptions.
• User management. With this function, the knowledge portal administrator can
insert, remove or modify the users of the Intranet.
Fig. 5. Instance list visualization.
• Keyword-based. As in other conventional search tools, the search engine looks
for instances or concept names that contain the keywords specified in the query.
• Ontology-based. ODESEW provides advanced search functions by means of a
query form. The fields to be filled in at the query form are attributes and relations
taken from the ontology. Once the user introduces the values (s)he is looking for,
the search engines returns those instances that satisfy the conditions imposed in
the attributes values specified in the form.
Though these are the most useful search and query facilities from the point of view
of human-consumption, we must take into account that ODESeW also generates
annotations in RDF for the content that it visualizes. This would allow other sites or
agents to read the annotations and use that content in other environments.
3.4 Web Site Administration Functions
ODESeW provides a set of management tools that can only be accessed by the
administrator user. This tool suite gives support to the basic management functions
needed to maintain the knowledge portal, namely user management, permission
management (security), ontology publication management, attribute ordering and
instance list descriptions.
• User management. With this function, the knowledge portal administrator can
insert, remove or modify the users of the Intranet.
Page 26
812 O. Corcho et al.
• Permission management. With this function, the knowledge portal administrator
can manage the read and write permissions for each user, including the guest
users (that is, the Extranet users).
Read permissions can be defined on an instance basis, which means that the
administrator can decide whether a user can visualize an instance or some
attributes of the instance. They can be also defined on a concept basis, which
means that the administrator can decide whether a user can visualize a concept
(and its instances) or some attributes of the concept. By default, any user can
visualize all the concepts, instances, and attributes stored in the portal.
Write permissions are defined on a concept basis, which means that the
administrator can decide whether a user can insert, modify or remove an instance
of a specific concept. By default, only the administrator can insert concept
instances.
• Ontology management. With this function, the administrator decides which
ontologies are published in the knowledge portal. Any WebODE ontology can be
added or removed from the portal.
• Attribute ordering. With this function, the administrator can set, for each concept,
the order in which the attributes of all its instances will be visualized. Once the
administrator has set the order of the attributes of a concept, (s)he can impose this
order to the subclasses of the concept.
• Instance description. With this function, the administrator can define the set of
attributes to be used to describe instances of a concept in the instance list
visualization, together with the order in which these attributes will appear. As in
the previous case, the description and the order can be imposed to the subclasses
of the concept. Figure 6 shows a screenshot of this function while setting the
description of the instances of the concept Documentation, where we have
selected the Title and the instance description.
4 Esperonto Web Site. A Case Study of the Application of
ODESeW
Esperonto [2] (IST-2001-34373) is a European project funded by the European
Commission. The aim of this project is to bridge the gap between the current World
Wide Web and the Semantic Web by providing a service to “upgrade” existing Web
content to Semantic Web content.
The project Web site2 has been developed as a knowledge portal, powered by
ODESeW, with a twofold function: first, to serve as an Intranet for the compilation of
all the knowledge generated in the project, and second, to serve as an Extranet for the
dissemination of the results of the project.
Five ontologies have been developed in WebODE for this portal: project,
documentation, person, organization, and meeting. They describe respectively R&D
projects and their structure, documents that are generated in a project, people and
organizations participating in it, and meetings (administrative, technical, etc.) held
during a project lifecycle. Figure 7 shows the relationships between all these
2
http://www.esperonto.net
• Permission management. With this function, the knowledge portal administrator
can manage the read and write permissions for each user, including the guest
users (that is, the Extranet users).
Read permissions can be defined on an instance basis, which means that the
administrator can decide whether a user can visualize an instance or some
attributes of the instance. They can be also defined on a concept basis, which
means that the administrator can decide whether a user can visualize a concept
(and its instances) or some attributes of the concept. By default, any user can
visualize all the concepts, instances, and attributes stored in the portal.
Write permissions are defined on a concept basis, which means that the
administrator can decide whether a user can insert, modify or remove an instance
of a specific concept. By default, only the administrator can insert concept
instances.
• Ontology management. With this function, the administrator decides which
ontologies are published in the knowledge portal. Any WebODE ontology can be
added or removed from the portal.
• Attribute ordering. With this function, the administrator can set, for each concept,
the order in which the attributes of all its instances will be visualized. Once the
administrator has set the order of the attributes of a concept, (s)he can impose this
order to the subclasses of the concept.
• Instance description. With this function, the administrator can define the set of
attributes to be used to describe instances of a concept in the instance list
visualization, together with the order in which these attributes will appear. As in
the previous case, the description and the order can be imposed to the subclasses
of the concept. Figure 6 shows a screenshot of this function while setting the
description of the instances of the concept Documentation, where we have
selected the Title and the instance description.
4 Esperonto Web Site. A Case Study of the Application of
ODESeW
Esperonto [2] (IST-2001-34373) is a European project funded by the European
Commission. The aim of this project is to bridge the gap between the current World
Wide Web and the Semantic Web by providing a service to “upgrade” existing Web
content to Semantic Web content.
The project Web site2 has been developed as a knowledge portal, powered by
ODESeW, with a twofold function: first, to serve as an Intranet for the compilation of
all the knowledge generated in the project, and second, to serve as an Extranet for the
dissemination of the results of the project.
Five ontologies have been developed in WebODE for this portal: project,
documentation, person, organization, and meeting. They describe respectively R&D
projects and their structure, documents that are generated in a project, people and
organizations participating in it, and meetings (administrative, technical, etc.) held
during a project lifecycle. Figure 7 shows the relationships between all these
2
http://www.esperonto.net
Page 27
ODESeW. Automatic Generation of Knowledge Portals for Intranets and Extranets 813
Fig. 6. Selection of the attributes that will describe an instance in the instance list visualization.
Fig. 7. Relations between the Esperonto knowledge portal ontologies.
ontologies (a project has associated meetings, a document belongs to a project, a
document summarizes a meeting, people participate in a meeting and have a role in a
project, etc.). These ontologies can be reused to describe any R&D project.
These ontologies were defined during the first months of the project life, and were
used in the portal. Since then, they have experienced some modifications (adding and
removing concepts, adding and removing attributes, etc.). Thanks to the strong
interaction of ODESeW with WebODE, these modifications have not caused any
consistency problems in the content stored in the portal.
Fig. 6. Selection of the attributes that will describe an instance in the instance list visualization.
Fig. 7. Relations between the Esperonto knowledge portal ontologies.
ontologies (a project has associated meetings, a document belongs to a project, a
document summarizes a meeting, people participate in a meeting and have a role in a
project, etc.). These ontologies can be reused to describe any R&D project.
These ontologies were defined during the first months of the project life, and were
used in the portal. Since then, they have experienced some modifications (adding and
removing concepts, adding and removing attributes, etc.). Thanks to the strong
interaction of ODESeW with WebODE, these modifications have not caused any
consistency problems in the content stored in the portal.
Page 28
814 O. Corcho et al.
As of July 2003, the Esperonto knowledge portal contains these 5 ontologies, with
around 100 concepts, 200 attributes, 100 relations, 300 instances, which have resulted
in more than 100Mbytes of information (this figure includes uploaded files).
We have defined three different visualizations of the Esperonto knowledge portal:
the Extranet view for guest users, the Intranet view for the project partners, and a
special view in the Intranet for the project officer. For each of these views, we have
defined different levels of permissions in the portal. For instance, the guest user
cannot insert instances in the portal, cannot access the restricted and private
deliverables, can only access the PDF versions of public deliverables, etc.; the
Intranet users have full read and write permissions for all the concepts, instances and
attributes in the five ontologies; and the project officer view contains automatically
generated reports of the project progress.
One of the advantages of using ODESeW on top of the WebODE ontology access
service (ODE API) is that it is easy to access to the information in the portal
programmatically, and that predefined queries can be easily constructed if needed. In
the Esperonto portal home page, which is the only one that is usually modified
manually by the portal administrator, we have defined several predefined queries, so
as to generate automatically reports of public deliverables (which is the information
most commonly looked for by the Extranet users, and even by the Intranet users),
summarize the status of deliverables in the project, etc.
Finally, the Extranet of the Esperonto portal has undergone several usability tests
by a third party company, which have allowed to improve most of its visualization
functions.
5 Related Work
In this section we present related work in knowledge portals and languages that could
be used to generate portals. We will focus on the similarities and differences with our
approach.
A similar knowledge portal is the OntoWeb portal3 [9], which is used as a
dissemination tool of the European thematic network OntoWeb. Knowledge in this
portal is structured according to one ontology, which contains information about
organizations, persons, documentation, events, etc. There are two ways of inserting
content in this portal: by means of forms and by syndicating content annotated in
external web resources. In contrast with ODESeW, the OntoWeb portal provides a
workflow for publishing information, it is supervised by a privileged user (a
reviewer), and provides a syndicator system. However, it works only with one
ontology, all the users have the same view on the content stored in the portal and there
are not such advanced permission management functions.
The OntoWebber [12] is a tool to build portal based on ontology and it was used
to build the Semantic Web Community Portal as part of the OntoAgents project 4.
This tool take the sources from ontologies in RDF or UML/XMI, or data based on
HTML using corresponding data translator for these two last types of sources. In
addition of the ontology domain of the portal, OntoWebber has other ontologies that’s
3
http;//www.ontoweb.org
4
http://www-db.stanford.edu/Ontoagents/
As of July 2003, the Esperonto knowledge portal contains these 5 ontologies, with
around 100 concepts, 200 attributes, 100 relations, 300 instances, which have resulted
in more than 100Mbytes of information (this figure includes uploaded files).
We have defined three different visualizations of the Esperonto knowledge portal:
the Extranet view for guest users, the Intranet view for the project partners, and a
special view in the Intranet for the project officer. For each of these views, we have
defined different levels of permissions in the portal. For instance, the guest user
cannot insert instances in the portal, cannot access the restricted and private
deliverables, can only access the PDF versions of public deliverables, etc.; the
Intranet users have full read and write permissions for all the concepts, instances and
attributes in the five ontologies; and the project officer view contains automatically
generated reports of the project progress.
One of the advantages of using ODESeW on top of the WebODE ontology access
service (ODE API) is that it is easy to access to the information in the portal
programmatically, and that predefined queries can be easily constructed if needed. In
the Esperonto portal home page, which is the only one that is usually modified
manually by the portal administrator, we have defined several predefined queries, so
as to generate automatically reports of public deliverables (which is the information
most commonly looked for by the Extranet users, and even by the Intranet users),
summarize the status of deliverables in the project, etc.
Finally, the Extranet of the Esperonto portal has undergone several usability tests
by a third party company, which have allowed to improve most of its visualization
functions.
5 Related Work
In this section we present related work in knowledge portals and languages that could
be used to generate portals. We will focus on the similarities and differences with our
approach.
A similar knowledge portal is the OntoWeb portal3 [9], which is used as a
dissemination tool of the European thematic network OntoWeb. Knowledge in this
portal is structured according to one ontology, which contains information about
organizations, persons, documentation, events, etc. There are two ways of inserting
content in this portal: by means of forms and by syndicating content annotated in
external web resources. In contrast with ODESeW, the OntoWeb portal provides a
workflow for publishing information, it is supervised by a privileged user (a
reviewer), and provides a syndicator system. However, it works only with one
ontology, all the users have the same view on the content stored in the portal and there
are not such advanced permission management functions.
The OntoWebber [12] is a tool to build portal based on ontology and it was used
to build the Semantic Web Community Portal as part of the OntoAgents project 4.
This tool take the sources from ontologies in RDF or UML/XMI, or data based on
HTML using corresponding data translator for these two last types of sources. In
addition of the ontology domain of the portal, OntoWebber has other ontologies that’s
3
http;//www.ontoweb.org
4
http://www-db.stanford.edu/Ontoagents/
Page 29
ODESeW. Automatic Generation of Knowledge Portals for Intranets and Extranets 815
defines the portal site: maintenance (rules for content maintenance), personalization
(personalize content according the needs of users), presentation (look-and-feel of the
Web pages), content (rendering Web pages with the ontology information) and
navigation (links between Web pages) schemas. All these ontologies with a query
engine generate a portal with statically or dynamically information. This tool can
generate a portal fitting with the web developer necessity with all site-view ontologies
and powered by a rule engine, but all information is centralized in the local server in
contrast with ODESeW in which all functionality can be access remotely by web.
The OntoRoadMap portal5 has been also developed in the context of OntoWeb. It
includes six ontologies that describe ontology tools, languages, methodologies,
applications, events and business scenarios. These ontologies were developed with
WebODE and translated to a relational database schema, so that the portal was built
on top of them. The main difference with respect to ODESeW is that the portal and
the ontologies are not synchronized, in the sense that modifications in the ontologies
cannot be seen at run-time in the portal.
KAON portal6 is a tool that allows building ontology-based portals, based on the
SEAL framework (SEmantic portAL) [8]. Once the ontologies and the visualization
models for them have been built, KAON portal generates the ontology-based portal
using HTML pages. In contrast with ODESeW, the KAON portal has a syndicator to
acquire information from several sources. However, its main disadvantage is that
whenever information is updated from the sources or the ontology is modified, the
modifications are not seen in the generated portal at run-time, but it has to be
regenerated again.
There are also two languages that deserve special attention, since they could be
used for the generation and visualization of knowledge portals, apart from other kinds
of portals: RSS and XTM.
RSS7, also known as RDF Site Summary, Really Simple Syndication or Rich Site
Summary, is a RDF-based language for describing news or other Web content that is
available for distribution or syndication from a web site. Several tools based on RSS
are available, which are mainly aimed at dynamically generating and syndicating
news in a web site.
XML Topic Maps8 (XTM) is an XML-based language that provides a model and
grammar to represent the structure of information resources used to define topics and
the associations between topics. The topic map paradigm was fully formalized as an
ISO International Standard, ISO/IEC 13250:2000. Like with RSS, there are several
tools for web visualization of topics and portals based on topics.
6 Conclusions
In this paper we have presented ODESeW, an ontology-based application built on top
of the WebODE ontology engineering workbench that creates automatically
knowledge portals that can be used as Intranets and Extranets.
5
http://babage.dia.fi.upm.es/ontoweb/wp1/OntoRoadMap/index.html
6
http://kaon.semanticweb.org/
7
http://web.resource.org/rss/1.0/
8
http://www.topicmaps.org/xtm/1.0/
defines the portal site: maintenance (rules for content maintenance), personalization
(personalize content according the needs of users), presentation (look-and-feel of the
Web pages), content (rendering Web pages with the ontology information) and
navigation (links between Web pages) schemas. All these ontologies with a query
engine generate a portal with statically or dynamically information. This tool can
generate a portal fitting with the web developer necessity with all site-view ontologies
and powered by a rule engine, but all information is centralized in the local server in
contrast with ODESeW in which all functionality can be access remotely by web.
The OntoRoadMap portal5 has been also developed in the context of OntoWeb. It
includes six ontologies that describe ontology tools, languages, methodologies,
applications, events and business scenarios. These ontologies were developed with
WebODE and translated to a relational database schema, so that the portal was built
on top of them. The main difference with respect to ODESeW is that the portal and
the ontologies are not synchronized, in the sense that modifications in the ontologies
cannot be seen at run-time in the portal.
KAON portal6 is a tool that allows building ontology-based portals, based on the
SEAL framework (SEmantic portAL) [8]. Once the ontologies and the visualization
models for them have been built, KAON portal generates the ontology-based portal
using HTML pages. In contrast with ODESeW, the KAON portal has a syndicator to
acquire information from several sources. However, its main disadvantage is that
whenever information is updated from the sources or the ontology is modified, the
modifications are not seen in the generated portal at run-time, but it has to be
regenerated again.
There are also two languages that deserve special attention, since they could be
used for the generation and visualization of knowledge portals, apart from other kinds
of portals: RSS and XTM.
RSS7, also known as RDF Site Summary, Really Simple Syndication or Rich Site
Summary, is a RDF-based language for describing news or other Web content that is
available for distribution or syndication from a web site. Several tools based on RSS
are available, which are mainly aimed at dynamically generating and syndicating
news in a web site.
XML Topic Maps8 (XTM) is an XML-based language that provides a model and
grammar to represent the structure of information resources used to define topics and
the associations between topics. The topic map paradigm was fully formalized as an
ISO International Standard, ISO/IEC 13250:2000. Like with RSS, there are several
tools for web visualization of topics and portals based on topics.
6 Conclusions
In this paper we have presented ODESeW, an ontology-based application built on top
of the WebODE ontology engineering workbench that creates automatically
knowledge portals that can be used as Intranets and Extranets.
5
http://babage.dia.fi.upm.es/ontoweb/wp1/OntoRoadMap/index.html
6
http://kaon.semanticweb.org/
7
http://web.resource.org/rss/1.0/
8
http://www.topicmaps.org/xtm/1.0/
Page 30
816 O. Corcho et al.
ODESeW provides functions for content provision, content visualization, and
content search and querying. It also provides an easy-to-use tool suite for the
administration of the generated knowledge portals.
Due to its integration in WebODE, we have seen that any modification in the
ontologies published in the knowledge portal can be seen at run-time in it, in contrast
with other knowledge portal generation tools, and that any set of ontologies
implemented in RDF(S), DAML+OIL, and OWL, among others, can be easily
included in ODESeW to generate instantly a new knowledge portal. Besides,
ODESeW allows establishing read and write permissions for all the content stored in
it. Finally, it provides different visualizations for Intranet and Extranet users, so that
Extranet users do not have the feeling that they are using a knowledge portal, but a
conventional one.
We have also presented how we are using ODESeW as the Intranet and Extranet of
the European project Esperonto.
Some of the aspects of our future work in ODESeW will be focused on (a)
including better natural language generation for the instance detailed descriptions in
the Extranet; (b) adding more editing functions for content provision, such as
transferring instances from one concept to another; (c) providing configuration
management and evolution support for the content stored in the portal; (d) and
improving the current news system by integrating it with ontological information and
with RSS technology.
Acknowledgements. This work has been supported by the Esperonto project (IST-
2001-34373), by two research grants from UPM (“Becas asociadas a proyectos
modalidad B”) and by a research grant from MEC (AP-2002-3828).
References
1. Arpírez JC, Corcho O, Fernández-López M, Gómez-Pérez A (2001) WebODE: a scalable
ontological engineering workbench. In: Gil Y, Musen M, Shavlik J (eds) First
International Conference on Knowledge Capture (KCAP’01). Victoria, Canada. ACM
Press (1–58113–380–4), New York, pp 6–13
2. Benjamins, VR., Contreras, J., Corcho, O., Gómez-Pérez. A. (2002). Six Challenges for
the Semantic Web. In KR2002 Semantic Web Workshop. April 2002.
3. Brickley D, Guha RV (2003) RDF Vocabulary Description Language 1.0: RDF Schema.
W3C Working Draft. http://www.w3.org/TR/PR-rdf-schema
4. Dean M, Schreiber G (2003). OWL Web Ontology Language Reference. W3C Working
Draft. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/
5. Fernández-López M, Gómez-Pérez A, Juristo N (1997) METHONTOLOGY: From
Ontological Art Towards Ontological Engineering. AAAI Symposium on Ontological
Engineering (Stanford, 1997).
6. Karvounarakis G, Christophides V, Plexousakis D, Alexaki S (2000) Querying community
web portals. Technical report, Institute of Computer Science, FORTH, Heraklion, Greece.
See http://www.ics.forth.gr/proj/isst/RDF/RQL/rql.pdf
7. Lassila O, Swick R (1999) Resource Description Framework (RDF) Model and Syntax
Specification. W3C Recommendation. http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/
ODESeW provides functions for content provision, content visualization, and
content search and querying. It also provides an easy-to-use tool suite for the
administration of the generated knowledge portals.
Due to its integration in WebODE, we have seen that any modification in the
ontologies published in the knowledge portal can be seen at run-time in it, in contrast
with other knowledge portal generation tools, and that any set of ontologies
implemented in RDF(S), DAML+OIL, and OWL, among others, can be easily
included in ODESeW to generate instantly a new knowledge portal. Besides,
ODESeW allows establishing read and write permissions for all the content stored in
it. Finally, it provides different visualizations for Intranet and Extranet users, so that
Extranet users do not have the feeling that they are using a knowledge portal, but a
conventional one.
We have also presented how we are using ODESeW as the Intranet and Extranet of
the European project Esperonto.
Some of the aspects of our future work in ODESeW will be focused on (a)
including better natural language generation for the instance detailed descriptions in
the Extranet; (b) adding more editing functions for content provision, such as
transferring instances from one concept to another; (c) providing configuration
management and evolution support for the content stored in the portal; (d) and
improving the current news system by integrating it with ontological information and
with RSS technology.
Acknowledgements. This work has been supported by the Esperonto project (IST-
2001-34373), by two research grants from UPM (“Becas asociadas a proyectos
modalidad B”) and by a research grant from MEC (AP-2002-3828).
References
1. Arpírez JC, Corcho O, Fernández-López M, Gómez-Pérez A (2001) WebODE: a scalable
ontological engineering workbench. In: Gil Y, Musen M, Shavlik J (eds) First
International Conference on Knowledge Capture (KCAP’01). Victoria, Canada. ACM
Press (1–58113–380–4), New York, pp 6–13
2. Benjamins, VR., Contreras, J., Corcho, O., Gómez-Pérez. A. (2002). Six Challenges for
the Semantic Web. In KR2002 Semantic Web Workshop. April 2002.
3. Brickley D, Guha RV (2003) RDF Vocabulary Description Language 1.0: RDF Schema.
W3C Working Draft. http://www.w3.org/TR/PR-rdf-schema
4. Dean M, Schreiber G (2003). OWL Web Ontology Language Reference. W3C Working
Draft. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/
5. Fernández-López M, Gómez-Pérez A, Juristo N (1997) METHONTOLOGY: From
Ontological Art Towards Ontological Engineering. AAAI Symposium on Ontological
Engineering (Stanford, 1997).
6. Karvounarakis G, Christophides V, Plexousakis D, Alexaki S (2000) Querying community
web portals. Technical report, Institute of Computer Science, FORTH, Heraklion, Greece.
See http://www.ics.forth.gr/proj/isst/RDF/RQL/rql.pdf
7. Lassila O, Swick R (1999) Resource Description Framework (RDF) Model and Syntax
Specification. W3C Recommendation. http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/
Page 31
ODESeW. Automatic Generation of Knowledge Portals for Intranets and Extranets 817
8. Maedche, S. Staab, R. Studer, Y. Sure, and R. Volz. (2002) SEAL – Tying up information
integration and web site management by ontologies. IEEE-CS Data Engineering Bulletin,
Special Issue on Organizing and Discovering the Semantic Web, March 2002.
9. Spyns P, Oberle D, Volz R, Zheng J, Jarrar M, Sure Y, Studer R, Meersman R (2003).
Ontoweb – a Semantic Web Community Portal. Fourth International Conference on
Practical Aspects of Knowledge Management (PAKM), 2–3 December, 2002, Vienna,
Austria, pp. 189–200, Publishing Year: 2002
10. Staab S, Angele J (2000) AI for the Web – Ontology-based Community Web Portals. 17th
National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and 12th Innovative Applications of
Artificial Intelligence Conference (AAAI 2000/IAAI 2000), Menlo Park/CA,
Cambridge/MA, AAAI Press/MIT Press.
11. van Harmelen F, Patel-Schneider PF, Horrocks I (2001). Annotated DAML+OIL (March
2001) Markup Language. Technical Report.
http://www.daml.org/2001/03/daml+oil-walkthru.html
12. Yuhui Jin, Stefan Decker, Gio Wiederhold. OntoWebber: Model-Driven Ontology-Based
Web Site Management. The 1st International Semantic Web Working Symposium
(SWWS'01), Stanford University, Stanford, CA, July 29–Aug 1, 2001.
8. Maedche, S. Staab, R. Studer, Y. Sure, and R. Volz. (2002) SEAL – Tying up information
integration and web site management by ontologies. IEEE-CS Data Engineering Bulletin,
Special Issue on Organizing and Discovering the Semantic Web, March 2002.
9. Spyns P, Oberle D, Volz R, Zheng J, Jarrar M, Sure Y, Studer R, Meersman R (2003).
Ontoweb – a Semantic Web Community Portal. Fourth International Conference on
Practical Aspects of Knowledge Management (PAKM), 2–3 December, 2002, Vienna,
Austria, pp. 189–200, Publishing Year: 2002
10. Staab S, Angele J (2000) AI for the Web – Ontology-based Community Web Portals. 17th
National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and 12th Innovative Applications of
Artificial Intelligence Conference (AAAI 2000/IAAI 2000), Menlo Park/CA,
Cambridge/MA, AAAI Press/MIT Press.
11. van Harmelen F, Patel-Schneider PF, Horrocks I (2001). Annotated DAML+OIL (March
2001) Markup Language. Technical Report.
http://www.daml.org/2001/03/daml+oil-walkthru.html
12. Yuhui Jin, Stefan Decker, Gio Wiederhold. OntoWebber: Model-Driven Ontology-Based
Web Site Management. The 1st International Semantic Web Working Symposium
(SWWS'01), Stanford University, Stanford, CA, July 29–Aug 1, 2001.
Sign up today - FREE
Mendeley saves you time finding and organizing research. Learn more
- All your research in one place
- Add and import papers easily
- Access it anywhere, anytime
Start using Mendeley in seconds!
Readership Statistics
5 Readers on Mendeley
by Discipline
by Academic Status
20% Senior Lecturer
20% Post Doc
20% Ph.D. Student
by Country
40% Spain
20% Turkey
20% Finland