Semantic Web

Introduction to
the Semantic Web

Semantic Web
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/
 Web second generation

 Web 3.0
 “Conceptual structuring of the Web in an explicit
machine-readable way”
(Tim Berners-Lee)
 In other words…
…let the machine do most of the work!!!

F. Corno, L. Farinetti - Politecnico di Torino 2
“Official” introduction
 The Semantic Web is a web of data. There is
lots of data we all use every day, and its not part
of the web. I can see my bank statements on the
web, and my photographs, and I can see my
appointments in a calendar. But can I see my
photos in a calendar to see what I was doing
when I took them? Can I see bank statement
lines in a calendar?
 Why not? Because we don’t have a web of data.
Because data is controlled by applications, and
each application keeps it to itself
Example

“Official” introduction
 The Semantic Web is about two things
 It is about common formats for integration and
combination of data drawn from diverse sources,
where on the original Web mainly concentrated
on the interchange of documents.
 It is also about language for recording how the
data relates to real world objects. That allows a
person, or a machine, to start off in one
database, and then move through an unending
set of databases which are connected not by
wires but by being about the same thing
An example …
 How can a machine distinguish the
meanings … ?
“I am a professor of computer science.”
“I am a professor of computer science,

you may think. Well,…”

Key principles
 The Semantic Web is the Web
 Same base technologies, evolutionary
 Decentralized (incomplete, inconsistent)
 Provide explicit statements regarding web
resources
 Authors,original information providers
 Intermediaries (humans and/or machines)
 Information consumers determine
consequences of the statements
 Distributed ‘reasoning’
1989:
WWW
original
proposal

Technology stack (old: pre-2008)

Technology stack (current: 2008)

The real world
Not
yet...!

The real world
Not
Not always yet...!
necessary...

The real world
Not
Not always yet...!
necessary...

Current “hot” topics

Metadata and
Metadata Standards
Goal of the semantic Web
The Semantic Web will enable
machines to COMPREHEND semantic
documents and data, NOT human
speech and writing
 Then, how???
 Semantic Web foundation: metadata

Resource and description
 Resource
 Content, format, …
 Access method dependent on format (I can
read it if I “know” its language)
 Resource description
 Independent of the format (I can read
“people’s comments” about the resource…
provided that I know the language in which
the comment is written)

this resource is suitable
the title of this for PhD students description
resource is
“Introduction to
the Semantic resource
Web”
this resource
the author of was created on
this resource April 14th, 2009
is L. Farinetti
this resource is
related to
the quality of computer
this resource science,
is high, knowledge
according to F. representation
Corno and metadata

 Resource
 Content, format, …
 Access method dependent on format (I can read it if I
“know” its language)
 Standardization (i.e. common language for
applications) ???
 Practically
impossible …
 Huge amount of existing information
 Hundreds of human languages
 Hundreds of computer languages (other word for
formats)

 Resource description
 Independent of the format (I can read “people’s
comments” about the resource… provided that I know
the language in which the comment is written)
 Standardization (i.e. common language for
applications) ???
 Feasible
 Smaller amount of information, possibly new
 Solution: define a standard language for writing
comments (“metadata” in semantic web terminology)

this resource is suitable
the title of this for PhD students
resource is
“Introduction to
the Semantic
Web”
this resource
the author of was created on
this resource April 14th, 2009
is L. Farinetti Metadata
this resource is
related to
the quality of computer
this resource Field name = field value
science,
is high, knowledge
according to F. representation
Corno and metadata

Level = PhD students
Title = description
“Introduction to
the Semantic resource
Web”
Date =
Author = 2009-04-14
L. Farinetti
Topic =
{computer
Quality = high science,
knowledge
representation,
Rated by F. Corno
metadata}

Semantic Web main tasks
 Metadata annotation
 Description of resources using standard
languages
 Search
 Retrieve relevant information according to
user’s query / interest / intention
 Use metadata (and possibly content) in a
“smart” way (i.e. “reasoning” about the
meaning of annotations)
Meaningful metadata annotations
 Common language for describing resources
 Resource description standards
 Common language for description field names
 Metadata standards
 Common language for description field values
 Metadata standards + controlled vocabularies
 Semantically rich descriptions to support search
 Knowledge representation techniques, ontologies

Common language for describing
resources

resources
 Resource Description Framework (RDF)
 Resource = URI (retrievable, or not)
 RDF is structured in statements
 A statement is a triple
 Subject – predicate – object
 Subject: a resource
 Predicate: a verb / property / relationship
 Object: a resource, or a literal string

resources
Author =
L. Farinetti
 Diagram:
hasAuthor
URI L.Farinetti
 Simple RDF assertion (triple):

triple (hasAuthor, URI, L.Farinetti)

resources
Author =
L. Farinetti
 RDF in XML syntax:

<RDF xmlns=“http://www.w3.org/TR/ … ” >
<Description about=“http://www.polito.it/semweb/intro”>
<Author>L.Farinetti</Author>
</Description>
</RDF>

Common language for field names
 Problem Topic = …
Topics, Subject, Subjects,

Level = …
Argument, Arguments
Title = ... Educational level,
destination, suitability, …
Singular / plural
Difficult to clearly
define concept in a Date = …
Author = …
few words
Date of creation, date of
Creator, Maker,
last modification, date of
Contributor …
revision, …
Synonymy Different concepts:

need for more details
Common language for field names
 Solution: metadata standards
 Many standardization bodies are involved
 Standards may be general
 e.g. Dublin Core (DC)
 or may depend on goal, context, domain, …
 e. g. educational resources (IEEE LOM), multimedia
resources (MPEG-7), images (VRA), people (FOAF,
IEEE PAPI), geospatial resources (GSDGM),
bibliographical resources (MARC, OAI), cultural
heritage resources (CIDOC CRM)

Metadata standards examples

Dublin Core
 Dublin Core Metadata Element Set
(DCMES)
 Building blocks to define metadata for the
Semantic Web
 15 elements, or categories, general enough to
describe most of the published resources
 Extra elements and element refinements

DC metadata element set

Example of description using
Dublin Core (in RDF)
 A paper in the
“Ariadne” journal
Common language for field values
 Problems
 Value type Date =
2009-04-14
type = date
Title =
“Introduction to
the Semantic Author =
Web” L. Farinetti
type = string
type = string
“standard” format?
Laura Farinetti, Farinetti
Laura, Farinetti L., …

 Problems Level = PhD students
 Value type any value?

 Value restrictions? list of possible values?
 freedom vs shared understanding
Topic =
Quality = high {computer
science,
High, medium, low? knowledge
1 to 5? representation,
any value? metadata}
any value?
any number of values?
 Solution: metadata standards + controlled

vocabularies
 Metadata standards
 Only some, and partially
 Controlled vocabularies
 Explicit list of possible values

Examples from IEEE LOM
 1484.12.1 - 2002 Learning Object
Metadata (LOM) Standard
 Developed by the IEEE Learning Technology
Standards Committee (LTSC)
 Standard to describe the “Learning
Objects” in order to guarantee their
interoperability




… + controlled vocabularies
 A closed list of named subjects, which can

be used for classification
Topic =
 Metadata field values are {computer
science,
restricted to a list of terms informatics,
(selected by experts) knowledge
representation,
metadata}
Semantically rich descriptions to
support search

support search
http://dictybase.org/db/html/help/GO.html
Topic =
{metabolism, …}

Knowledge
Representation
Need for knowledge representation
 Semantically rich descriptions need

“understanding” the meaning of a resource
and the domain related to the resource
 Disambiguation of terms
 Shared agreement on meanings
 Description of the domain, with concepts and
relations among concepts

Example: Dublin Core metadata
Metadata of a single paper

Problems
 Title usually offers good clues, but
 it does not necessarily mention all names of all
subjects the user is interested in
 it may presuppose knowledge the user does not
actually possess
 Subject is meant to convey precisely what the
document is about, but
 much depends on how extensive the set of keywords
is, whether all related subjects are mentioned, and
whether too many subjects are listed
 Metadata does not say much about “how
related” a resource is to a given subject
Search results for “topic maps”

Problems
 Authors were free to define their own
subject keywords
 Results are not “about” topic maps, but

“related to” topic maps
 If an author forgets to list “topic maps”, his
paper will never be found

Subject-based classification
 Any form of content classification that groups
objects by their subjects
 e.g the use of keywords to classify papers
 Metadata fields describe what the objects are
about by listing discrete subjects inside a
subject-based classification
 Important: difference between describing the
objects being classified and describing the
subjects used to classify them
 Metadata describe objects
 Subject-based classification is the approach to
describe subject
Subject-based classification ...
“On those remote pages it is written that animals are divided into:
a. those that belong to the Emperor
b. embalmed ones
c. those that are trained
d. suckling pigs From The Celestial Emporium of
Benevolent Knowledge, Borges
e. mermaids
f. fabulous ones
g. stray dogs
h. those that are included in this classification
i. those that tremble as if they were mad
j. innumerable ones
k. those drawn with a very fine camel's hair brush
l. others
m. those that have just broken a flower vase
n. those that resemble flies from a distance"
techniques
 Controlled
vocabularies
 Taxonomies
 Thesauri
 Faceted classification
 Ontologies
 Folksonomies
 Others
 … Most come from library science

Controlled vocabulary
 A closed list of named subjects, which can be
used for classification
 Composed of terms: particular name for a
particular concept
 similar to keywords
 Terms are not concepts
A single term may be the name of one or more
concepts
 A single concept may have multiple names
 Ambiguity avoided by forbidding duplicate terms

Topic =
Controlled vocabulary {computer

science,
knowledge
representation,
mtadata, RDF,
topic navigation
maps}
 Goal topic maps
 Prevent authors from defining terms that are

meaningless, too broad or too narrow
 Prevent authors from misspelling
 Prevent different authors from choosing
slightly different forms of the same term
 The simplest form of controlled vocabulary
is a list of terms (or “pick list”)
Controlled vocabulary
 Reduce ambiguity inherent in normal
human languages
 Solve the problems of homographs,
homonyms, synonyms and polysemes by
ensuring
 That each concept is described using only
one authorized term
 That each authorized term in the controlled
vocabulary describes only one concept

Problems solved
Synonym
different words with identical or very similar meanings

Problems solved
“Will you please close that door!”
close
“The tiger was now so close that I could smell it...”
student
pupil
opening in the iris of the eye
('æk.səz) plural of axe

axes
('æk.siz) plural of axis
Synonym

Problems solved
take (I'll get the drinks)
to get become (she got scared)
understand (I get it)
a piece of a tree
wood
a geographical area with many trees
Synonym
student and pupil (noun)

buy and purchase (verb)
sick and ill (adjective)

Controlled vocabulary examples
Circuit theory Blood
Electronic circuits Cord blood
Microwave technology Erythrocyte
Electron tubes Leukocyte
Semiconductor materials and devices Basophil
Dielectric materials and devices Eosynophil
Magnetic materials and devices Lymphoblast
Superconducting materials and devices Lymphocyte
… Monocyte
Neutrophil
…
 Practically no “real” examples
 With very little extra effort: taxonomies and
thesauri!
Taxonomy
 Subject-based
classification that
arranges the terms in the
controlled vocabulary
into a hierarchy
 Dates back to Carl
Linnæus’s work on
zoological and botanical
classification (18th
century)
Taxonomy
 Allow related terms to be grouped together
 It is clear that “topic

maps” and “XTM” are
related
 Easier to classify
documents
 Easier to choose
search keywords

Taxonomies and metadata
 Metadata are
stored as usual
with the resource
 The “subject” will
contain only
controlled terms
 Controlled terms
belong to a
hierarchy, shared
by all papers
Taxonomy example: INSPEC
http://www.theiet.org/publishing/inspec/index.cfm
Taxonomy example: INSPEC

INSPEC
journal
article
database

Taxonomy example: anatomy terms
http://www.cbil.upenn.edu/anatomy.php3

Taxonomy example

Taxonomy example
http://www.acm.org/class/1998/ccs98.html

Taxonomy limits
 Only two kinds of relationships between terms
 Parent = broader term
 Child = narrower term
no more in use
synonym
topic navigation maps
difference?
synonym
XML topic map
difference?

Thesaurus
 Extends taxonomies
 subjects are arranged in a hierarchy
 Other statements can be made about the
subjects
 Two ISO standards
 ISO2788 for monolingual thesauri
 ISO5964 for multilingual thesauri

Thesaurus relationships
 BT – broader term
 Refers to a term with wider or less specific meaning
 Some systems allow multiple BTs for one term, while
others do not
 Inverse property: NT - narrower term
 A taxonomy only uses BT and NT
 SN – scope note
 Stringexplaining its meaning within the thesaurus
 Useful when the precise meaning of the term is not
obvious from context

Thesaurus relationships
 USE
 Another term that is to be preferred instead of this
term
 Implies that the terms are synonymous
 Inverse property: UF
 TT – top term
 The topmost ancestor of this term
 The BT of the BT of the BT...
 RT – related term
A term that is related to this term, without being a
synonym of it or a broader/narrower term

Thesaurus example
http://www.ukat.org.uk/thesaurus/
Thesaurus example
http://www.swinburne.edu.au/corporate/registrar/rms/keywords.htm
Thesaurus example
 Library of Congress
Subject Heading
http://www.loc.gov/cds/lcsh.html
W3C
standard:
SKOS
UK Archival Thesaurus

Faceted classification
 Proposed by
S.R. Ranganathan in the ‘30s
 Facets are the different axes along which
documents can be classified
 Each facet contains a number of terms
 Usually with a thesaurus organization
 Usually a term belongs to one facet only
 A document is classified by selecting one term
from each facet
Faceted classification example
http://flamenco.berkeley.edu/

Advantages
 Multi-
dimensionality
 Persistence
 Scalability
 Flexibility
http://freeable.polito.it/

Ontology
 Model for describing the world that
consists of a set of types, properties, and
relationships
 Extends the other subject-based
classification approaches
 Has open vocabularies
 Has open relationship types (not just BT/NT,
RT and USE/UF)
Ontology structure
 Concepts
 Relationships
Is-a
Other
 Instances

Folksonomy
 Internet-mediated
social environments
 Tags compiled
through social tagging
 Social tagging
 Decentralized practice where individuals and
groups create, manage and share tags to
annotate digital resources in an online social
environment
 Generally characterized by non-standard
tagging
Other subject-based techniques
 Synonym rings
 Connect together a set of terms as being
equivalent for search purpose
 Similar to UF/USE relationship of thesauri,
but no preferred term

Other subject-based techniques
 Authority file
 Similar to a synonym ring, but consists of UF/USE
relationships instead of synonym relationships
 One term in each synonym ring is indicated as the
preferred term for that subject
 e.g. Library of
Congress Name
Authority File

summary
Terminology is rarely used

in a consistent way
Controlled vocabularies
are thesauri, thesauri are
ontologies, …
http://www.iesr.ac.uk/profile/vocabs/index.html/#CtrldVocabsList

summary

Ontologies
support search
http://dictybase.org/db/html/help/GO.html
Topic =
{metabolism, …}

Ontologies
 An ontology is an explicit description of
a domain
 concepts
 properties and attributes of concepts
 constraints on properties and attributes
 individuals (often, but not always)
 An ontology defines
a common vocabulary
 a shared understanding

“Ontology engineering”
 Defining terms in the domain and relations
among them
 defining concepts in the domain (classes)
 arranging the concepts in a hierarchy
(subclass-superclass hierarchy)
 defining which attributes and properties (slots)
classes can have and constraints on their
values
 defining individuals and filling in slot values

Why develop an ontology?
 To share common understanding of the
structure of information
 among people
 among software agents
 To enable reuse of domain knowledge

 to avoid “re-inventing the wheel”
 to introduce standards to allow interoperability

An ontology
takes Certificate
1 year
Is_equivalent_to Is_a
takes
Is_a
HNC Award
Is_a
takes Is_a
HND
2 years Diploma
takes
A more complex ontology
[base.Entity]
Person
Worker
Faculty
Professor
AssistantProfessor
AssociateProfessor
FullProfessor
VisitingProfessor
Lecturer
PostDoc
Assistant
ResearchAssistant
TeachingAssistant
AdministrativeStaff
Director
Chair {Professor}
Dean {Professor}
ClericalStaff
SystemsStaff
Student
UndergraduateStudent
GraduateStudent
Organization
Department
School
University
Program
ResearchGroup
Institute
Publication
Article
TechnicalReport
JournalArticle
ConferencePaper
UnofficialPublication
Book
Software
Manual
Specification
Work
Course
Research
Schedule

Relation Argument 1 Argument 2
======================================================
publicationAuthor Publication Person
publicationDate Publication .DATE
publicationResearch Publication Research
softwareVersion Software .STRING
softwareDocumentation Software Publication
teacherOf Faculty Course
teachingAssistantOf TeachingAssistant Course
takesCourse Student Course
age Person .NUMBER
emailAddress Person .STRING
head Organization Person
undergraduateDegreeFrom Person University
mastersDegreeFrom Person University
doctoralDegreeFrom Person University
advisor Student Professor
subOrganization Organization Organization ………..

Example of ontology engineering
chair

1.A piece of furniture consisting of a seat, legs, back, and often
arms, designed to accommodate one person.
2.A seat of office, authority, or dignity, such as that of a bishop.
a.An office or position of authority, such as a professorship.
b.A person who holds an office or a position of authority,
such as one who presides over a meeting or administers a
department of instruction at a college; a chairperson.
3.The position of a player in an orchestra.
4.Slang. The electric chair.
5.A seat carried about on poles; a sedan chair.
6.Any of several devices that serve to support or secure, such as
a metal block that supports and holds railroad track in position.
chair

A piece of furniture consisting of a seat, legs, back,

and often arms, designed to accommodate one
person.
chair

chair seat stool bench

Something I can sit on
???

“sittable”

“sittable”
table

“sittable”
Something designed for sitting
“for_sitting”
table

Ontology structure
“sittable”
“for_sitting”
table

Concepts
Synthetic title
Furniture to sit on
“sittable” Definition
Shorthand name Some piece of furniture that can
be used to sit on, either by
design or by its shape.

Internationalization
Synthetic title
Furniture
Furniture to
tosit
siton
on
Furniture
Furniture to
tosit
sit on
on
Furniture
Furniture to sit on
Furniture to siton
to sit on
“sittable” Definition
Shorthand name Some
Some piece
piece ofof furniture
furniture that
that can
can
Some
Some piece
piece of
of furniture
furniture that
that can
can
be
be used
Some
used
Some to
tosit
piece
sit
piece on,
of
on,ofeither
either by
furnitureby
furniture that
that can
can
be
be used
Some
used to
tosit
piece
sit on,of
on, either by
furniture
either by that can
design
be
design
be or
used
or byto
by its
itsshape.
sit on,
shape.either by
beused
design
design or
used
or
to
by
by
sit
toits on,
on,either
sitshape.
its shape.eitherbyby
design
design or by its shape.
designor orby byitsitsshape.
shape.

Relationships
material
room
is_a
is_a
is_a “sittable”
wood
classroom is_a
dining room “for_sitting” is_a

is_a table
is_a is_a is_a

Relationships
made_of
material
room
is_a
is_a
is_a “sittable”
wood
classroom is_a
made_of
dining room “for_sitting” is_a
is_a table
is_a is_a is_a

Ontology building blocks
 Ontologies generally describe:
 Individuals
 the basic or “ground level” objects
 Classes
 sets, collections, or types of objects
 Attributes
 properties, features, characteristics, or parameters
that objects can have and share
 Relationships
 ways that objects can be related to one another
Individuals
 Also known as “instances”
 can be concrete objects
 animals
 molecules
 trees
 or abstract objects
 numbers
 words

Concepts
 Also known as “Classes”
 abstract groups, sets, or collections of objects
 They may contain
 individuals
 otherclasses
 a combination of both
 Examples
 Person: the class of all people
 Vehicle: the class of all vehicles

Concepts
 Can be defined extensionally …
 By defining every object that falls under the definition
of the concept
 A class C is extensionally defined if and only if for
every class C', if C' has exactly the same members of
C, C and C' are identical
 E.g.: DayOfWeek = {Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday,
Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday}
 … or intensionally
 By defining the necessary and sufficient conditions for
belonging to the concept
 E.g.: “bachelor” is an “unmarried man”
Concepts
 Defined by
 Name: any identifier, usually carefully chosen
 Definition: describes the well agreed meaning
of the concept, in a human readable form
 Terms (Lexicon): list of terms (synonyms, etc.)
usually adopted to identify the concept

Subsumption
 A concept (class) can subsume / be
subsumed by any other class
 Subsumption is used to establish class
hierarchies

Class partition
 A set of related classes and associated
rules that allow objects to be placed into
the appropriate class
GEOMETRIC
FIGURE
GEOMETRIC TWO
POINT DIMENSIONAL
FIGURE
ONE
DIMENSIONAL
FIGURE

Class partition
 Disjoint partition
A disjoint partition rule guarantees that a
single instance of a class cannot be in more
than one sub-classes
VEHICLE
 E.g. one specific truck
cannot be in both
4-axle and TRUCK CAR
6-axle classes
6-AXLE 4-AXLE

Class partition
 Exhaustive partition
 every concrete object in the super-class is an
instance of at least one of the partition
classes

Attributes
 Describe specific features
 Can be complex (e.g.: list of values)
 Defined for a class/concept (e.g. car)
 Examples:
 number-of-doors: 4
 number-of-wheels: 4
 engine: {3.0L,4.0L}

Relationships
 Attributes that relate two or more concepts
 two concepts → binary relationship
 three concepts → ternary relationship
 Domain
 the concept(s) from which the relationship
departs
 Range
 the concept(s) to which the relationship
applies
Relationships
 Examples
 Car(MiniMinor) → individual definition
 Car(Mini) → individual definition
 Successor(Mini,MiniMinor) → relationship
domain range

Commonly used relationships
 Subsumption
 the most important
 is-superclass-of
 usually denoted by its inverse is-a
(is-subclass-of)
 Meronymy
 is-part-of
 describes how object are combined together
to form composite objects
Example
http://www.yeastgenome.org/help/GO.html
Ontology alignment
http://www.webology.ir/2006/v3n3/a28.html

License
 This work is licensed under the Creative
Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-
Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
 To view a copy of this license, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-sa/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative
Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300,
San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.

Semantic Web

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Semantic Web

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Introduction to

the Semantic Web

 Web second generation

…let the machine do most of the work!!!

F. Corno, L. Farinetti - Politecnico di Torino 4

“I am a professor of computer science.”

“I am a professor of computer science,

F. Corno, L. Farinetti - Politecnico di Torino 6

F. Corno, L. Farinetti - Politecnico di Torino 8

F. Corno, L. Farinetti - Politecnico di Torino 9

F. Corno, L. Farinetti - Politecnico di Torino 10

F. Corno, L. Farinetti - Politecnico di Torino 11

F. Corno, L. Farinetti - Politecnico di Torino 12

F. Corno, L. Farinetti - Politecnico di Torino 13

F. Corno, L. Farinetti - Politecnico di Torino 14

F. Corno, L. Farinetti - Politecnico di Torino 16

F. Corno, L. Farinetti - Politecnico di Torino 17

F. Corno, L. Farinetti - Politecnico di Torino 18

F. Corno, L. Farinetti - Politecnico di Torino 19

F. Corno, L. Farinetti - Politecnico di Torino 20

F. Corno, L. Farinetti - Politecnico di Torino 21

F. Corno, L. Farinetti - Politecnico di Torino 22

F. Corno, L. Farinetti - Politecnico di Torino 24

F. Corno, L. Farinetti - Politecnico di Torino 25

F. Corno, L. Farinetti - Politecnico di Torino 26

 Simple RDF assertion (triple):

F. Corno, L. Farinetti - Politecnico di Torino 27

 RDF in XML syntax:

F. Corno, L. Farinetti - Politecnico di Torino 28

Topics, Subject, Subjects,

Synonymy Different concepts:

F. Corno, L. Farinetti - Politecnico di Torino 30

F. Corno, L. Farinetti - Politecnico di Torino 31

F. Corno, L. Farinetti - Politecnico di Torino 32

F. Corno, L. Farinetti - Politecnico di Torino 33

F. Corno, L. Farinetti - Politecnico di Torino 35

 Value type any value?

 freedom vs shared understanding

 Solution: metadata standards + controlled

F. Corno, L. Farinetti - Politecnico di Torino 37

F. Corno, L. Farinetti - Politecnico di Torino 38

F. Corno, L. Farinetti - Politecnico di Torino 39

F. Corno, L. Farinetti - Politecnico di Torino 40

F. Corno, L. Farinetti - Politecnico di Torino 41

 A closed list of named subjects, which can

F. Corno, L. Farinetti - Politecnico di Torino 43

F. Corno, L. Farinetti - Politecnico di Torino 44

 Semantically rich descriptions need

F. Corno, L. Farinetti - Politecnico di Torino 46

F. Corno, L. Farinetti - Politecnico di Torino 47

F. Corno, L. Farinetti - Politecnico di Torino 49

 Results are not “about” topic maps, but

F. Corno, L. Farinetti - Politecnico di Torino 50

 … Most come from library science

F. Corno, L. Farinetti - Politecnico di Torino 54

Controlled vocabulary {computer

 Prevent authors from defining terms that are

F. Corno, L. Farinetti - Politecnico di Torino 56

F. Corno, L. Farinetti - Politecnico di Torino 57

('æk.səz) plural of axe

F. Corno, L. Farinetti - Politecnico di Torino 58

student and pupil (noun)