672 8 Semantic Web

Knowledge-Based
Knowledge-Based Systems
Systems
© 2009 Franz J. Kurfess Semantic Web 1

Overview
Overview Semantic
Semantic Web
Web
 Motivation
 Knowledge Organization
 Objectives
with Ontologies
 Semantic Web Introduction  Conceptual building blocks
 World Wide Web  Web Ontology Language
 “Deep Web” (OWL)
 Knowledge and the Web
 Reasoning with Ontologies
 Syntactic vs. Semantic Web
 Description Logics
 human view of documents
 computer view of documents
 Reasoning with OWL
 Knowledge Representation on  Important Concepts and
the Web Terms
 XML + Meta-tags  Chapter Summary
 RDF

History
History of
of the
the Semantic
Semantic Web
Web
 Web was “invented” by Tim Berners-Lee (amongst others), a physicist
working at CERN
 TBL’s original vision of the Web was much more ambitious than the
reality of the existing (syntactic) Web:
“... a goal of the Web was that, if the interaction between person
and hypertext could be so intuitive that the machine-readable
information space gave an accurate representation of the state of
people's thoughts, interactions, and work patterns, then machine
analysis could become a very powerful management tool, seeing
patterns in our work and facilitating our working together
through the typical problems which beset the management of
large organizations.”
 TBL (and others) have since been working towards realising this vision,
which has become known as the Semantic Web
 E.g., article in May 2001 issue of Scientific American…
© 2009 Franz J. Kurfess Horrocks & Rector, 2004 Semantic Web 4

Semantic
Semantic Web
Web –– Scientific
Scientific American
American
 Realising the complete “vision” is too hard for now (probably)

 But we can make a start by adding semantic annotation to web
resources
© 2009 Franz J. Kurfess Scientific American, May 2001 Semantic Web 5

Where
Where we
we are
are Today:
Today: the
the Syntactic
Syntactic
Web
Web
[Hendler & Miller 02]

The
The Syntactic
Syntactic Web
Web is…
is…
A place where computers do the presentation (easy) and
people do the linking and interpreting (hard).
 A hypermedia, a digital library
 A library of documents called (web pages) interconnected by a hypermedia of
links
A database, an application platform
 A common portal to applications accessible through web pages, and
presenting their results as web pages
A platform for multimedia
 BBC Radio 4 anywhere in the world! Terminator 3 trailers!
A naming scheme
 Unique identity for those documents (URLs)
 Why not get computers to do more of the hard work?
[Goble 03]

Hard
Hard Work
Work using
using the
the
Syntactic
Syntactic Web…
Web…
Find images of Steve Furber
Carole Goble
Rev. Alan M. Gates, Associate Rector of

the Church of the Holy Spirit, Lake Forest,
© 2009 Franz J. Kurfess Illinois
Horrocks & Rector, 2004 Semantic Web 8
Impossible
Impossible (?)
(?) using
using the
the Syntactic
Syntactic Web…
Web…
 Complex queries involving background knowledge

 Find information about “animals that use sonar but are not
either bats or dolphins”, e.g., Barn Owl
 Locating information in data repositories
 Travel enquiries
 Prices of goods and services
 Results of human genome experiments
 Finding and using “web services”
 Visualise surface interactions between two proteins
 Delegating complex tasks to web “agents”
 Book me a holiday next weekend somewhere warm, not too far
away, and where they speak French or English

Syntactic
Syntactic vs.
vs. Semantic
Semantic Web
Web
 human view of documents
 computer view of documents

What
What is
is the
the Problem?
Problem?
 Web pages contain
 content (text, images, music)
 markup (HTML, XHTML)
 hyperlinks
 code (JavaScript)
 Content is most critical for humans

 butmeaningless to computers
 requires interpretation (understanding)

What
What information
information can
can we
we see…
see…
WWW2002
The eleventh international world wide web conference
Sheraton waikiki hotel
Honolulu, hawaii, USA
7-11 may 2002
1 location 5 days learn interact
Registered participants coming from
australia, canada, chile denmark, france, germany, ghana, hong kong, india,
ireland, italy, japan, malta, new zealand, the netherlands, norway,
singapore, switzerland, the united kingdom, the united states, vietnam,
zaire
Register now
On the 7th May Honolulu will provide the backdrop of the eleventh
international world wide web conference. This prestigious event …
Speakers confirmed
Tim berners-lee
Tim is the well known inventor of the Web, …
Ian Foster
Ian is the pioneer of the Grid, the next generation internet …

What
What information
information can
can aa machine
machine
see…
see…

















…


…


…

Solution:
Solution: XML
XML markup
markup with
with
<name> “meaningful”
“meaningful” tags?
tags?
</name>
<location>
</location>
<date></date>
<slogan></slogan>
<participants>




</p
articipants>
<introduction>


…
</introduction>
<speaker></speaker>
<bio></bio
>…

Still
Still the
the Machine
Machine only
only sees…
sees…
<>
</>
<>
</>
<></>
<></>
<>




</
>
<>


…
</>
<></>
<></>
<></>
<></>

Need
Need to
to Add
Add “Semantics”
“Semantics”
 External agreement on meaning of annotations
 E.g., Dublin Core for annotation of library/bibliographic information
 Agree on the meaning of a set of annotation tags
 Problems with this approach
 Inflexible
 Limited number of things can be expressed
 Use Ontologies to specify meaning of annotations
 Ontologiesprovide a vocabulary of terms
 New terms can be formed by combining existing ones
 “Conceptual Lego”
 Meaning (semantics) of such terms is formally specified
 Can also specify relationships between terms in multiple
ontologies

Meanwhile
Meanwhile related
related developments
developments
 Object oriented programming
 Simula, Smalltalk, … Java
 Object oriented design
 Entity relationship diagrams… UML
 SGML, HTML, XML and the web
 Including RDF and Topic Maps

Knowledge
Knowledge Representation
Representation
on
on the
the Web
Web
 knowledge is primarily enclosed in documents
 Web pages
 use of HTML offers no clear separation of content and
presentation (formatting)
 HTML is very limited in its expressiveness
 fixed vocabulary

HTML
HTML ++ Meta-tags
Meta-tags
 intention was to use meta-tags to describe the
contents of Web pages
 was quickly abused to increase the relevance rankings of
pages
 meta-tags are just labels on the documents
 no structure to the labels
 free (unlimited, uncontrolled) vocabulary

XML
XML ++ Meta-tags
Meta-tags
 XML offers much better expressiveness
 XML itself is not a KR language
 offers facilities to define KR languages
 much better separation of content and presentation

 XML allows the definition of schemata
 customized naming and structure of tags
 flexible transformations for variable presentations
 e.g. XSLT to create different versions of documents

Microformats
Microformats
 Background
 Purpose
 limitations
of current approaches
 human-readable and machine-readable
 Usage
 basics
 customization
 Limitsof microformats
 Outlook
© 2009 Franz J. Kurfess Cook & Troughton, 2007 Semantic Web 21

What
What are
are Microformats?
Microformats?
A standard set of HTML/XML semantics
 A set of tag classes and patterns used for storing
information in web pages
 Microformat tags are typically kept brief and descriptive
 Open format
 Microformats are not controlled by any one company or
individual
 Anyone can suggest new Microformats or request
revisions

More
More about
about Microformats
Microformats
 typically written in XHTML
 visible
representation of the data
 semantic data hidden in the code
 implicit interpretation
 similar to how “int” implies that the data element will be an
integer
 example: “hCard/adr” implies that the data element will
contain an address.

What
What current
current systems
systems exist?
exist?
 no standard set of web markup techniques
 XML is standardized, but it’s a markup specification
language
 commonly use markup techniques do exist
 many Microformats are derived directly from methods
already used
“Microformats are semantics with momentum, a codification of

what everyone did anyway.”
 Derrick Pallas, Alexa Internet, Inc.

Current
Current Conventions
Conventions
 lower readability by humans
 information scattered around a page or several pages
 data may be formatted using sloppy markup or
inconsistent patterns
 lower readability by machines
 requirescraping an entire page in search for patterns
 information less trustworthy
 unexpected information
 such as contact information for a person you aren’t looking for
 May be categorized incorrectly
 805 Santa Barbara: is this a street address or an area code and city name?

Human
Human or
or Machine
Machine Use?
Use?
 both:
 humans first, machines second
 commonly used tags to embed information
 designed to be brief, descriptive
 easy for a human to interpret embedded data from code
 adding semantics becomes second nature

 such as “blockquote”, Microformat class names

Use
Use of
of Microformats
Microformats
 conventions
 writtenin current standard markup languages
 an experienced programmer will easily interpret the
Microformat syntax and utilize implications of the language
 implementation
 current markup languages allows Microformats to be
quickly and easily implemented on machines

Who
Who should
should use
use Microformats?
Microformats?
 programmer
 web code with embedded information
 a user or search engine might extract it
 typically information that will be represented or extracted
often
 can contain anything from name and address, to business
affiliation, to contact information
 also used to aid search engines
 extracting information by supplementing Metadata
 deter crawlers from following links with a “rel=‘nofollow’"
attribute.

Benefits
Benefits of
of Microformats
Microformats 11
 programmer
 easilyread raw markup language code
 naming conventions allow others to easily extract data
from the raw language
 readily recognizable names of data members.
 easily edited by other programmers
 the information is easily readable
 potentially abstract data member naming is following a
standardized convention
 in the future someone may need to edit this information

Benefits
Benefits of
of Microformats
Microformats 22
 universal modules in code.
 creation of scripts Microformats
 naming conventions are standardized
 easy to integrate this code into web pages
 modular development of pages
 development of library utilities

Benefits
Benefits of
of Microformats
Microformats 33
 unit conversion and currency conversion is
trivial
 Web browser contains a user’s default preferences
 makes conversions on the fly
 information extraction
 Web crawler searching for an address or email.
 accuracy is dramatically improved
 the programmer specified “this is the email” or “this is the address”
 crawler speed is much faster
 it no longer has to scan the entire page or rely on a regular expression to
extract information

Code
Code Differences
Differences
Commonplace vCard:  Microformat hCard:
BEGIN:VCARD  <div class="vcard">

VERSION:3.0 <a class="url fn"
N:Çelik;Tantek href="http://tantek.com/">
FN:Tantek Çelik Tantek Çelik
URL:http://tantek.com </a>
ORG:Technorati <div
END:VCARD class="org">Technorati</div
>
</div>

Web
Web Page
Page Update
Update
2 methods of converting existing web data to
Microformatted data
 By hand
 large amount of manual labor
 complicated when extracting fields from arbitrary structures
 By machine
 applications that attempt to convert commonplace semantics such
as vCard to the appropriate Microformat, hCard
 inneffective unless the original content follows commonplace trends
 can become error prone in interpreting existing field names

Microformat
Microformat Limitations
Limitations
 acceptance and use in practice
 only successful if widely used
 existing vs. new content
 since conversion is tedious at best, advocation of
Microformats in new content is arguably more important
than content conversion
 confusion
 short class names can lead to possibly ambiguous titles

Example
Example
<div class="vcard">
<span class="fn">John Smith</span>,
<div class="adr">
<div class="street-address">1 Seaview Lane</div>,
<span class="locality">Mousehole</span>,
<span class="region">Cornwall</span>,
<span class="country-name">UK</span>
</div></div>
 query to Google Maps
 “1Seaview Lane, Mousehole, Cornwall, UK”
 combination of the above
 interpretation “locality”
 is“Mousehole” a county name? A province name?
 ambiguous information

Semantic
Semantic Web
Web Stack
Stack

Resource
Resource Description
Description Framework
Framework
(RDF)
(RDF)
 grammar for encoding relationships
 RDF triples as basic building blocks
 An RDF triple has three components:
 subject
 predicate (or verb)
 object
 each can be expressed as a resource on the Web (URI)
 farless ambiguous than encoding data in random
XML documents

What
What is
is the
the Purpose
Purpose of
of RDF?
RDF?
 The purpose of RDF (Resource Description
Framework) is to give a standard way of specifying
data "about" something.
 Here's an example of an XML document that
specifies data about China's Yangtze river:
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<River id="Yangtze"
xmlns="http://www.geodesy.org/river">
<length>6300 kilometers</length>
<startingLocation>western China's Qinghai-Tibet Plateau</startingLocation>
<endingLocation>East China Sea</endingLocation>
</River>
re is data about the Yangtze River. It has a length of 6300 kilometers.

tartingLocation is western China's Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. Its endingLocati
e ©East
2009 China Sea."
Franz J. Kurfess Semantic Web 38
XML
XML -->
--> RDF
RDF
Modify the following XML document so that it is also a valid RDF document:
<River id="Yangtze"
xmlns="http://www.geodesy.org/river">
XML <length>6300 kilometers</length>
</River>
Yangtze.xml
"convert to"
<River rdf:ID="Yangtze"
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns="http://www.geodesy.org/river#">
RDF <length>6300 kilometers</length>
</River>
Yangtze.rdf

The
The RDF
RDF Format
Format
vides an ID attribute for identifying the resource being described.
1
2 attribute is in the RDF namespace.

The ID
</River>
3
Add the "fragment identifier symbol" to
the namespace.
The
The RDF
RDF Format
Format (cont.)
(cont.)
Identifies the resource being described. This
resource is an instance of River.
2
Identifies
1 the type
(class) of the <River rdf:ID="Yangtze"
resource being xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
described. <length>6300 kilometers</length>
3 <endingLocation>East China Sea</endingLocation>
</River>
These are properties,

r attributes, of the 4
Values of the properties
ype (class).

Advantage
Advantage of
of using
using the
the RDF
RDF Format
Format
Interoperability
 You may ask: "Why should I bother designing my XML to be in the RDF format?"
 Answer: there are numerous benefits:
 The RDF format, if widely used, will help to make XML more interoperable:
 Tools can instantly characterize the structure, "this element is a type (class), and
here are its properties”.

 RDF promotes the use of standardized vocabularies ... standardized types
(classes) and standardized properties.

 The RDF format gives you a structured approach to designing your XML documents.
The RDF format is a regular, recurring pattern.
Network effect
 It enables you to quickly identify weaknesses and inconsistencies of non-RDF-

compliant XML designs. It helps you to better understand your data!
 You reap the benefits of both worlds:
 You can use standard XML editors and validators to create, edit, and validate your
XML.
 You can use the RDF tools to apply inferencing to the data.
 It positions your data for the Semantic Web!

Disadvantage
Disadvantage of
of using
using the
the
RDF
RDF Format
Format
 Constrained: the RDF format constrains you on how
you design your XML (i.e., you can't design your
XML in any arbitrary fashion).
 RDF uses namespaces to uniquely identify types
(classes), properties, and resources. Thus, you
must have a solid understanding of namespaces.
 Another XML vocabulary to learn: to use the RDF
format you must learn the RDF vocabulary.

Uniquely
Uniquely Identify
Identify the
the Resource
Resource
 Earlier we said that RDF is very concerned about
uniquely identifying the type (class) and the
properties. RDF is also very concerned about
uniquely identifying the resource, e.g.,
This is the resource being described. We want to uniquely
identify this resource.
</River>

Triple
Triple ->
-> resource/property/value
resource/property/value
http://www.china.org/geography/rivers#Yangtze has a http://www.geodesy.org/river#length of 6300 kilometers
resource property value

http://www.china.org/geography/rivers#Yangtze has a http://www.geodesy.org/river#startingLocation of western China's ...

http://www.china.org/geography/rivers#Yangtze has a http://www.geodesy.org/river#endingLocation of East China Sea

The
The RDF
RDF Format
Format == triples!
triples!
 XML data are structured as resource/property/value
triples
 value of a property can be a literal
 length has a value of 6300 kilometers
 value of a property can be a resource
 property-A has a value of Resource-B
 property-B has a value of Resource-C
 the RDF design pattern is an alternating sequence of
resource-property pairs
 known as "striping”

Ontology:
Ontology: Origins
Origins and
and History
History
 Ontology in Philosophy
 a philosophical discipline—a branch of philosophy that
 deals with the nature and the organisation of reality
 Science of Being (Aristotle, Metaphysics, IV, 1)
 Tries to answer the questions:
 What characterizes being?
 Eventually, what is being
 How should things be classified?

Ontology
Ontology in
in Linguistics
Linguistics
Concept
Relates to
activates
Form Referent
Stands for
“Tank“
[Ogden, Richards, 1923]
?
Why
Why Develop
Develop an
an Ontology?
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
Slides modified from Natasha Noy, protege.stanford.edu/amia2003/AMIA2003Tutorial.ppt

CSC 9010 Spring, 2011. Paula Matuszek
© 2009 Franz J. Kurfess 4
Semantic Web 49
More
More Reasons
Reasons
 To make domain assumptions explicit
 easier to change domain assumptions (consider a
genetics knowledge base)
 easier to understand and update legacy data
 To separate domain knowledge from the operational
knowledge
 re-use domain and operational knowledge separately
(e.g., configuration based on constraints)

Semantic Web 50
Consider Questions Like:
 Which drink should I serve with seafood
today?
 What present should I buy for my 24 years
old boy?
 Is there a market for the products of another
bakery in this area?

Semantic Web 51
Classification:
Classification: An
An Old
Old Problem
Problem
“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
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"
From The Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge, Borges

Ontology
Ontology in
in Computer
Computer Science
Science
 An ontology is an engineering artifact:
 Itis constituted by a specific vocabulary used to describe a
certain reality, plus
 a set of explicit assumptions regarding the intended meaning of
the vocabulary.
 Almost always including how concepts should be classified
 describes a formal specification of a certain domain
 Shared understanding of a domain of interest
 Formal and machine manipulable model of a domain of interest
 explicit specification of a conceptualisation
 [Gruber93]

Ontology Editor - Protege
Spring 2010 mark.baker@computer.org

Example
Example Ontology
Ontology

Ontology
Ontology Classified
Classified Logically
Logically

Levels
Levels in
in the
the Hierarchy
Hierarchy
Top
level
Middle
level
Bottom
level

Semantic Web 57
Semantic
Semantic Web
Web
Challenge
Challenge
© 2009 Franz J. Kurfess [AKT 2003] Horrocks & Rector, 2004 Semantic Web 58
An
An Ontology
Ontology Is
Is Often
Often Just
Just the
the Beginning
Beginning
Declare
structure
Databases
Ontologies
Knowledge
Provide bases
domain
description
Domain-
Software independent
agents Problem- applications
solving
methods
Semantic Web 59
Ontology-Development
Ontology-Development Process
Process
General approach:
determine consider enumerate define define define create

scope reuse terms classes properties constraints instances
Usually a highly iterative process. (Sound familiar?)

Semantic Web 60
What
What to
to Reuse?
Reuse?
 Ontology libraries
 Protégé ontology library (
protege.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ProtegeOntologiesLibrary
)
 Biomedical ontologies (bioontology.org)
 Many others: try Googling for your topic
 http://www.dmoz.org/
 Upper ontologies
 IEEE Standard Upper Ontology (suo.ieee.org)
 Cyc (www.cyc.com)

Semantic Web 61
Structure
Structure of
of an
an Ontology
Ontology
 Ontologies typically have two distinct components:
 Names for important concepts in the domain

 Background knowledge/constraints on the domain

Concept
Concept Names
Names
 Elephant
a concept whose members are a kind of animal
 Herbivore
a concept whose members are exactly those animals who
eat only plants or parts of plants
 Adult_Elephant
a concept whose members are exactly those elephants
whose age is greater than 20 years

Domain
Domain Knowledge
Knowledge
 Adult_Elephants weigh at least 2,000 kg
 All Elephants are either African_Elephants or
Indian_Elephants
 No individual can be both a Herbivore and a
Carnivore

Tools
Tools and
and Services
Services
 We need to provide tools and services to:
 Design and maintain high quality ontologies, e.g.:
 Meaningful — all named classes can have instances
 Correct — captured intuitions of domain experts
 Minimally redundant — no unintended synonyms
 Richly axiomatised — (sufficiently) detailed descriptions
 Store (large numbers) of instances of ontology classes
 Annotations from web pages
 Answer queries over ontology classes and instances, e.g.:
 Find more general/specific classes
 Retrieve annotations/pages matching a given description
 Integrate and align multiple ontologies

OWL
OWL as
as (Description)
(Description) Logic
Logic
 XMLS datatypes as well as classes in 8P.C and 9P.C

 E.g., 9hasAge.nonNegativeInteger
 Arbitrarily complex nesting of constructors
 E.g., Person u 8hasChild.(Doctor t 9hasChild.Doctor)

Results
Results for
for Margherita
Margherita Pizza
Pizza
someValuesFrom
restrictions
Properties
subpane showing
alternative ‘frame
 What it means view
 All Margherita_pizzas (amongst other things)
 Are Pizzas
 have_topping some Tomato_topping
 have_topping some Mozzarella_topping
 & because they are Pizzas

have_base some Pizza_base
What
What itit Pizza_base
Pizza_
aPB1 aPB2 toppings
Means
Means aPBj …
Mozzarella_
Toppings
aMZ1 aMZ 2
aMZ4
Pizzas aMZ3
…
Margherita_
pizzas
aMP1 aMPi
Tomato_
toppingss
aMP2 aT1 aTk
aT2 aT3
…
aT4

OWL
OWL Representation
Representation
 An OWL file is a text file
 XML
 Uses RDFS
 Plus OWL-specific extensions
 If you are using a tool like Protege to create

your ontology you don’t need to know the
underlying representation
 If you’re going to do something with it, you do.

Semantic Web 69
OWL
OWL Example
Example
 This ontology
 Becomes this text file: wine.txt

70
Semantic Web 70

672 8 Semantic Web

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

672 8 Semantic Web

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Knowledge-Based

© 2009 Franz J. Kurfess Semantic Web 1

© 2009 Franz J. Kurfess Semantic Web 2

© 2009 Franz J. Kurfess Horrocks & Rector, 2004 Semantic Web 4

 Realising the complete “vision” is too hard for now (probably)

© 2009 Franz J. Kurfess Scientific American, May 2001 Semantic Web 5

[Hendler & Miller 02]

© 2009 Franz J. Kurfess Horrocks & Rector, 2004 Semantic Web 6

© 2009 Franz J. Kurfess Horrocks & Rector, 2004 Semantic Web 7

Rev. Alan M. Gates, Associate Rector of

 Complex queries involving background knowledge

© 2009 Franz J. Kurfess Horrocks & Rector, 2004 Semantic Web 9

 computer view of documents

© 2009 Franz J. Kurfess Semantic Web 10

 Content is most critical for humans

© 2009 Franz J. Kurfess Semantic Web 11

© 2009 Franz J. Kurfess Horrocks & Rector, 2004 Semantic Web 12

© 2009 Franz J. Kurfess Horrocks & Rector, 2004 Semantic Web 13

© 2009 Franz J. Kurfess Horrocks & Rector, 2004 Semantic Web 14

© 2009 Franz J. Kurfess Horrocks & Rector, 2004 Semantic Web 15

© 2009 Franz J. Kurfess Horrocks & Rector, 2004 Semantic Web 16

© 2009 Franz J. Kurfess Horrocks & Rector, 2004 Semantic Web 17

© 2009 Franz J. Kurfess Semantic Web 18

© 2009 Franz J. Kurfess Semantic Web 19

 much better separation of content and presentation

© 2009 Franz J. Kurfess Semantic Web 20

© 2009 Franz J. Kurfess Cook & Troughton, 2007 Semantic Web 21

© 2009 Franz J. Kurfess Cook & Troughton, 2007 Semantic Web 22

© 2009 Franz J. Kurfess Cook & Troughton, 2007 Semantic Web 23

“Microformats are semantics with momentum, a codification of

© 2009 Franz J. Kurfess Cook & Troughton, 2007 Semantic Web 24

© 2009 Franz J. Kurfess Cook & Troughton, 2007 Semantic Web 25

 adding semantics becomes second nature

© 2009 Franz J. Kurfess Cook & Troughton, 2007 Semantic Web 26

© 2009 Franz J. Kurfess Cook & Troughton, 2007 Semantic Web 27

© 2009 Franz J. Kurfess Cook & Troughton, 2007 Semantic Web 28

© 2009 Franz J. Kurfess Cook & Troughton, 2007 Semantic Web 29

© 2009 Franz J. Kurfess Cook & Troughton, 2007 Semantic Web 30

© 2009 Franz J. Kurfess Cook & Troughton, 2007 Semantic Web 31

BEGIN:VCARD  <div class="vcard">

© 2009 Franz J. Kurfess Cook & Troughton, 2007 Semantic Web 32

© 2009 Franz J. Kurfess Cook & Troughton, 2007 Semantic Web 33

© 2009 Franz J. Kurfess Cook & Troughton, 2007 Semantic Web 34

© 2009 Franz J. Kurfess Cook & Troughton, 2007 Semantic Web 35

© 2009 Franz J. Kurfess Semantic Web 36

© 2009 Franz J. Kurfess Semantic Web 37

re is data about the Yangtze River. It has a length of 6300 kilometers.

© 2009 Franz J. Kurfess Semantic Web 39

2 attribute is in the RDF namespace.

These are properties,

© 2009 Franz J. Kurfess Semantic Web 41

here are its properties”.

(classes) and standardized properties.

 It enables you to quickly identify weaknesses and inconsistencies of non-RDF-

 It positions your data for the Semantic Web!

© 2009 Franz J. Kurfess Semantic Web 42

© 2009 Franz J. Kurfess Semantic Web 43

© 2009 Franz J. Kurfess Semantic Web 44

resource property value

resource property value

resource property value

© 2009 Franz J. Kurfess Semantic Web 46

© 2009 Franz J. Kurfess Horrocks & Rector, 2004 Semantic Web 47