As a fictitious example, a subsequent paper might propose the concept of "advanced semantic publishing" that includes our criteria 1 to 4, but criticizes number 5 and suggests to replace it with a different one:. This example shows how we can formally capture the high-level relation of papers' content, and thereby place them in the wider context of the literature on the respective topic. The above RDF representations are interpretable by machines, and thereby automated software agents of all sorts can read and process them. Human readers, of course, normally prefer a natural text representation of a paper's content.
To account for such different demands, resources on the web can in general have different equivalent representations for different types of agents. Content negotiation can then be used in the background to find a suitable representation based on the agent's request mediated by the browser and the available representation formats on the server side. Alternatively, we can use special kinds of hyperlinks on a landing page to achieve the same effect within HTML. We will use this landing page approach here for demonstration purposes because it makes the different representations more explicit, but the presence of a landing page is not required.
Such a landing page links to the different classical and semantic representations of the work. With just a few lines of HTML code, we can define a canonical URL and some minimal metadata, such as title and authors of the work more metadata is available in the actual representations :. Specifically, we link to the PDF version of this work, two flavors of HTML Dokieli and RASH , and RDF representations in Turtle without provenance information and metadata and TriG with provenance information and metadata in the form of nanopublications , thereby also showcasing how existing technologies can contribute to achieve genuine semantic publishing.
Figure 2 shows what such a minimal landing page looks like in a browser, and the respective data can be found online dataset and website and in the supplemental material. Importantly, these list items point to different representations of the same work , each covering the work's main points and thereby satisfying the second requirement of genuine semantic publishing with respect to essential coverage. The RDF representations are machine interpretable, which addresses our first criterion, and the fact that they appear on the same level as the narrative papers shows that they are a primary component of the published work, satisfying the fourth criterion.
The fact that we as authors created and approved all these representations moreover covers the third criterion of authenticity.
To illustrate the last criterion of being fine-grained and light-weight, let us assume that somebody wanted to add at a later point just a single triple to assert the connection between our first criterion and the concept of Linked Data:. We can save this triple in a file and create a bare minimum landing page that could look as follows:. Together, these two files, containing fewer than bytes, form a complete publication according to our criteria.
This demonstrates that fine-grained contributions down to single triples can be published in a very light-weight manner with an overhead of just a few hundred bytes. The downsides and limitations of the current scientific publishing paradigm have become apparent in many ways, from the researchers unable to deal with the avalanche of new papers published in their fields to the struggles of elevating scientific datasets to the level of appreciation they deserve. We argue that we need both, grand visions and small practical steps, to move forward and advance science communication, to make sure that the benefits of future breakthroughs are not offset by our inefficiency in communicating them.
We have to make sure, however, that we do not confuse our grand vision with the small practical steps towards it. Semantic publishing was once a grand vision but the term was then hijacked by approaches implementing small practical steps. These small steps are certainly important, but they also made us lose sight of the longer-term vision.
In this position paper, we aimed to focus again on the grand vision, which we propose to call genuine semantic publishing. We argued that genuine semantic publications should not only come with representations that are machine interpretable, but that these representations also need to have essential coverage of the work's main claims, that they need to be authentic and approved by the authors, that they should form a primary component of the work, and that they should allow for fine-grained and light-weight contributions.
By explaining how this very paper was written as a genuine semantic publication, we demonstrated that — as far as technology is concerned — the vision is not that grand after all. Technically, genuine semantic publications are at a basic level already feasible nowadays with established and mature technologies. But many grand challenges remain, including the development and deployment of stable overarching formal models that include aspects such as evidence and arguments, reliable domain ontologies for the various still under-resourced fields, intuitive user interfaces, data publishing infrastructures, methods for attribution and recognition of scientific efforts, and effective incentive structures.
All these challenges can only be addressed, however, with a clear vision of how scientific publishing should develop in the future. We would like to thank Silvio Peroni and Tim Clark for discussions on the topic, and the reviewers and Herbert van de Sompel for their very valuable suggestions to improve the article. Abstract Various approaches and systems have been presented in the context of scholarly communication for what has been called semantic publishing. The concept of genuine semantic publishing compared to what has been called semantic publishing , explained by an analogy where scientific papers are represented by boxes and formal semantics by flowers.
Based on these arguments, we define that genuine semantic publishing needs to comply with the following criteria: A scientific work needs to come with formal representations that are semantic, in the sense that they are not just machine processable but machine interpretable , and that are linked so they add to the existing formal body of knowledge.
These semantic representations might be underspecified but need to have essential coverage in the sense that they cover at least the core of the main claims of the given work. They need to be authentic in the sense that the respective authoritative persons create or approve the semantic representations. Domain data can only come from the researchers, and metadata has to come from the people responsible for the form of the published work, i. The semantic representations need to be a primary component of the published work, made available together with everything else at the time of publication.
They must furthermore have an independent existence in their own right and not merely be appended or attached to the main entity as noncommittal extra data. The semantic representations and their containers need to be fine-grained and light-weight. Even though such semantic representations might often be published in larger collections, the publication of minimal additions and corrections needs to be possible without a large overhead. Specifically, our paper's main message is the advocacy of the new concept of genuine semantic publishing, which can be expressed as follows in the Turtle RDF notation [ 50 ]: p:paper cito:describes p:GenuineSemanticPublishing ; cito:supports p:GenuineSemanticPublishing.
Next we can formally represent the five criteria based on which we define our new concept: p:GenuineSemanticPublishing skos:definition p:GenuineSemanticPublishingCriteria. As a fictitious example, a subsequent paper might propose the concept of "advanced semantic publishing" that includes our criteria 1 to 4, but criticizes number 5 and suggests to replace it with a different one: p2:anotherPaper cito:describes p2:AdvancedSemanticPublishing ; cito:supports p2:AdvancedSemanticPublishing.
Bechhofer, I. Buchan, D. De Roure, P. Missier, J. Ainsworth, J. Bhagat, P. Couch, D. Cruickshank, M. Delderfield, I. Dunlop et al. Priem, " Scholarship: Beyond the paper ," Nature , vol. Clark, " Next generation scientific publishing and the web of data ," Semantic Web , vol.
Shotton, K. Portwin, G. Klyne, and A. Miles, " Adventures in semantic publishing: exemplar semantic enhancements of a research article ," PLoS computational biology , vol. Shotton, " Semantic publishing: the coming revolution in scientific journal publishing ," Learned Publishing , vol. Berners-Lee and J. Hendler, " Publishing on the semantic web ," Nature , vol. Lange and A. Di Iorio, " Semantic publishing challenge-assessing the quality of scientific output ," in Semantic Web Evaluation Challenge.
Springer, , pp. Di Iorio, C. Lange, A.
Dimou, and S. Vahdati, " Semantic publishing challenge-assessing the quality of scientific output by information extraction and interlinking ," in Semantic Web Evaluation Challenge. Vahdati, A. Dimou, C. Lange, and A. Di Ioro, " Semantic publishing challenge: bootstrapping a value chain for scientific data ," Holmes, " Scientific writing and scientific discovery ," Isis , vol. Smrz and J. Ruiz-Iniesta and O.
Corcho, " A review of ontologies for describing scholarly and scientific documents ," in 4th Workshop on Semantic Publishing SePublica Croset, S.
Showing all 50 All Semantic Web and Knowledge Services technologies
Kafkas, M. Liakata, and A. Oellrich, " Exploring the generation and integration of publishable scientific facts using the concept of nano-publications ," in First Workshop on Semantic Publication SePublica Di Iorio, S. Peroni, F. Vitali, and J. Palma, P. Ho lubowicz, O. Corcho, J. Mazurek, " ROHub - a digital library of research objects supporting scientists towards reproducible science ," in Semantic Web Evaluation Challenge.
Bechhofer, D. De Roure, M. Gamble, C. Goble, and I. Li, J. Zhao, M. Avila-Garcia, M. Roos, M. Thompson, E. Kaliyaperumal, R. Luo, T. Lee et al. Nowakowski, E. Ciepiela, D. Kocot, M. Kasztelnik, T. Meizner, G. Dyk, and M. Malawski, " The collage authoring environment ," Procedia Computer Science , vol. Van Gorp and S. Mazanek, " Share: a web portal for creating and sharing executable research papers ," Procedia Computer Science , vol.
Kohlhase, J. Corneli, C. David, D. Ginev, C. Jucovschi, A. Kohlhase, C. Lange, B. Matican, S. Mirea, and V. Zholudev, " The planetary system: Web 3. Attwood, D. Kell, P. McDermott, J. Marsh, S. Pettifer, and D. Thorne, " Utopia documents: linking scholarly literature with research data ," Bioinformatics , vol. Capadisli, R. Riedl, and S. Di Iorio, A. Nuzzolese, F. Osborne, S. Poggi, M. Smith, F. Capadisli, A. Guy, R. Verborgh, C. Lange, S. Auer, and T. Berners-Lee, " Decentralised authoring, annotations and notifications for a read-write web with dokieli ," in International Conference on Web Engineering.
Springer, Seringhaus and M. Gerstein, " Publishing perishing? Ceol, A. Chatr-Aryamontri, L. Licata, and G. Kuhn, L. Royer, N. Fuchs, and M. Clark, P. Ciccarese, and C. Goble, " Micropublications: a semantic model for claims, evidence, arguments and annotations in biomedical communications ," Journal of Biomedical Semantics , vol.
Mons, H. Chichester, J. Singh, R. Hooft, M. Roos, J. Hammond et al. Groth, A. Gibson, and J. Velterop, " The anatomy of a nano-publication ," Information Services and Use , vol. Chichester, P. Gaudet, O. Karch, P. Groth, L. Lane, A. Bairoch, B. Mons, and A. Banda, T. Kuhn, N. Shah, and M. Queralt-Rosinach, T. Kuhn, C. Chichester, M.
- The Race Car Chassis HP1540: Design, Structures and Materials for Road, Drag and Circle Track Open- andClosed -Wheel Chassis;
- 1. Introduction!
- Download Product Flyer.
- North America.
Dumontier, F. Sanz, L.
- How to be a Productivity Ninja: Worry Less, Achieve More and Love What You Do.
- Towards A Semantic Web: Connecting Knowledge in Academic Research.
- Physical Activity and Health: The Evidence Explained.
- Laura Stamms power skating;
- Pharma-Ecology: The Occurrence and Fate of Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products in the Environment.
- Genuine Semantic Publishing.
Furlong et al. Bandrowski and M. Martone, " RRIDs: A simple step toward improving repro- ducibility through rigor and transparency of experimental methods ," Neuron , vol. Peroni and D. Peroni, D. Shotton, and F. Vitali, " Scholarly publishing and Linked Data: describing roles, statuses, temporal and contextual extents ," in Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Semantic Systems. ACM, , pp. Ciccarese, M. Ocana, L. Castro, S. Das, and T. Clark, " An open annotation ontology for science on web 3. Lebo, S. Sahoo, D. McGuinness, K.
Belhajjame, J. Cheney, D. Corsar, D. Garijo, S. Soiland-Reyes, S. Zednik, and J. Dumontier, C. Baker, J. Baran, A. Callahan, L. Chepelev, J.
Semantic Web technology - Ontologies Research Papers - upyjycuh.tk
Fensel, et al. Davies, et al. Undetected location. NO YES. About the Author Permissions Table of contents. Selected type: Hardcover. Added to Your Shopping Cart. View on Wiley Online Library. This is a dummy description. With the current changes driven by the expansion of the World Wide Web, this book uses a different approach from other books on the market: it applies ontologies to electronically available information to improve the quality of knowledge management in large and distributed organizations.
- Unquiet Understanding: Gadamers Philosophical Hermeneutics.
- Introduction to Electron Microscopy for Biologists: Methods in Cell Biology: 88.
- Chasing Doctor Dolittle: Learning the Language of Animals;
- Towards A Semantic Web.
- Towards the Semantic Web: Ontology-driven Knowledge Management.
- The Philosophy of Gesture: Completing Pragmatists Incomplete Revolution.
Ontologies are formal theories supporting knowledge sharing and reuse. They can be used to explicitly represent semantics of semi-structured information. These enable sophisticated automatic support for acquiring, maintaining and accessing information. Methodology and tools are developed for intelligent access to large volumes of semi-structured and textual information sources in intra- and extra-, and internet-based environments to employ the full power of ontologies in supporting knowledge management from the information client perspective and the information provider.
The aim of the book is to support efficient and effective knowledge management and focuses on weakly-structured online information sources. It is aimed primarily at researchers in the area of knowledge management and information retrieval and will also be a useful reference for students in computer science at the postgraduate level and for business managers who are aiming to increase the corporations' information infrastructure.
The Semantic Web is a very important initiative affecting the future of the WWW that is currently generating huge interest. The book covers several highly significant contributions to the semantic web research effort, including a new language for defining ontologies, several novel software tools and a coherent methodology for the application of the tools for business advantage.
It also provides 3 case studies which give examples of the real benefits to be derived from the adoption of semantic-web based ontologies in "real world" situations. As such, the book is an excellent mixture of theory, tools and applications in an important area of WWW research.
It will be of interest to graduate students, academic and industrial researchers in the field, and the many industrial personnel who are tracking WWW technology developments in order to understand the business implications. It could also be used to support undergraduate courses in the area but is not itself an introductory text.
Permissions Request permission to reuse content from this site.