Nowadays, the web is becoming highly used technology, in our community. This technology allows us to work in collaboration and to share knowledge. The pragmatic web represents the most recent extension of the web (semantic web); which facilitates the exploitation and the interpretation of the data by the machine. This web is based on three important components, the context, the community, and the meaning negotiation. The Meaning negotiation is the most important component of the pragmatic web on which we will fix our attention. It plays an important role in the exchanges and resolves conflicts in people cooperation activities. The knowledge (context) of each part in the community of users is heterogeneous; this will make the meaning negotiation complicated. This paper realizes a meaning negotiation scenario based on the ontologies merging into the geopolitical domain. This will reduce and simplifies the process, and improves the semantics of data.


Meaning negotiation Ontology Pragmatic web Contextual ontology Domain ontology 


  1. 1.
    De Moor, A.: Patterns for the pragmatic web. In: International Conference on Conceptual Structures, pp. 1–18. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Keskes, N., Rahmoun, A.: Meaning negotiation based on merged individual context ontology and part of semantic web ontology. Int. J. Inf. Commun. Technol. 11(3), 352–368 (2017)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Paschke, A.: Pragmatic web 4.0. Towards an active and interactive semantic media web. W3C Aspect of Semantic Technologies (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Singh, M.P.: The pragmatic web: Preliminary thoughts. In: Proceedings of the NSF-Onto Web-Workshop on Database and Information Systems Research for Semantic Web and Enterprises, pp. 82–90 (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dimaio, P.: The missing pragmatic link in the semantic web. Bus. Intell. Advisory Serv. 8(7) (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mustapha, S.S.: CoP sensing framework on web-based environment. In: Web-Based Support Systems, pp. 333–357. Springer, London (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Warglien, M., Gärdenfors, P.: Meaning negotiation. In: Applications of Conceptual Spaces, pp. 79–94. Springer, Cham (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jmii, H., Meddeb, A., Chebbi, S.: An approach for improving voltage stability by combination of SVC and TCSC. In: 2016 7th International Conference on Sciences of Electronics, Technologies of Information and Telecommunications (SETIT), pp. 134–141. IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chaari, T., Laforest, F., Flory, A.: Adaptation des applications au contexte en utilisant les services web. In: Proceedings of the 2nd French-Speaking Conference on Mobility and Ubiquity Computing, pp. 111–118. ACM (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Abioui, H., Idarrou, A., Bouzit, A., et al.: Multi-ontology based semantic annotation review. In: 2016 7th International Conference on Sciences of Electronics, Technologies of Information and Telecommunications (SETIT), pp. 189–193. IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Arrar, A.: The role of contextual ontologies in enterprise modeling, world academy of science, engineering and technology. Int. J. Comput. Electric. Autom. Control Inf. Eng. 4(9) (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Magnini, B., Serafini, L., Speranza, M.: Using NLP techniques for meaning negotiation. In: Proceedings of VIII Convegno AI* IA, Siena, Italy, pp. 11–13 (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    De Moor, A.: Ontology-guided meaning negotiation in communities of practice. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on the Design for Large-Scale Digital Communities at the 2nd International Conference on Communities and Technologies (C&T 2005), Milano, Italy (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Van Diggelen, J., Beun, J., Dignum, F., Van Eijk, R.M., Meyer, J.J.: Ontology negotiation goals, requirements, and implementation. Int. J. Agent-Oriented Softw. Eng. 1(1), 63–90 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ermolayev, V., Keberle, N., Matzke, W.E., Vladimirov, V.: A strategy for automated meaning negotiation in distributed information retrieval. LNCS, vol. 3729, p. 201 (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Souza, M., Moreira, A., Vieira, R., et al.: Integrating ontology negotiation and agent communication. In: International Experiences and Directions Workshop on OWL, pp. 56–68. Springer (2015)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Farrugia, J.: Logical systems: Towards protocols for web-based meaning negotiation. In: Meaning Negotiation, Papers from the AAAI Workshop, pp. 56–59 (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Burato, E., Cristani Matteo, M., Viganò, L.: Meaning negotiation as inference. arXiv preprint arXiv: 1101.4356 (2011)
  19. 19.
    Kutucu, H., Hakan, H., Almryad, A.: An application of artificial neural networks to assessment of the wind energy potential in Libya. In: 2016 7th International Conference on Sciences of Electronics, Technologies of Information and Telecommunications (SETIT), pp. 405–409. IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lindh-Knuutila, T., Honkela, T., Lagus, K.: Simulating meaning negotiation using observational language games. In: Symbol Grounding and Beyond, pp. 168–179. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Benkerrou, H., Heddad, S., Omar, M.: Credit and honesty-based trust assessment for hierarchical collaborative IoT systems. In: 2016 7th International Conference on Sciences of Electronics, Technologies of Information and Telecommunications (SETIT), pp. 295–299. IEEE (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dalila Djoher Graba
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nabil Keskes
    • 1
  • Djamel Amar Bensaber
    • 1
  1. 1.LabRi-SBA Lab.Ecole Supérieure en Informatique (ESI-SBA)Sidi Bel AbbesAlgeria

Personalised recommendations