Advertisement

Arguing on the Semantic Grid

  • Paolo Torroni
  • Marco Gavanelli
  • Federico Chesani
Chapter

In the last decade, the rapid evolution of Internet technologies has opened new perspectives, created new application areas, provided new social environments for communication and posed new challenges. Among the most influential domains of Internet sciences to date we find Web services, Grid computing, the Web 2.0, and the Semantic Web. These are components of a wider vision, which we call the Semantic Grid.

Keywords

Resource Description Framework Service Orient Architecture Service Selection Argumentation Framework Simple Object Access Protocol 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research has been partially supported by the Italian MIUR PRIN 2007 project No 20077WWCR8, “Le Forme di Correlazione tra Italian Style, Flussi di Turismo e Trend di Consumo del Made in Italy,” and by the Italian FIRB pro ject TOCAI.IT, “Tecnologie Orientate alla Conoscenza per Aggregazioni di Imprese in Internet.”

References

  1. 1.
    M. Alberti, F. Chesani, M. Gavanelli, E. Lamma, P. Mello, and P. Torroni. Verifiable agent interaction in abductive logic programming: the SCIFF framework. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic, 9(4):Article 29, 2008.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    T. J. Bench-Capon and P. E. Dunne. Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence, 171:897–921, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. Bentahar, Z. Maamar, D. Benslimane, and P. Thiran. An argumentation framework for communities of Web services. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 22(6):75–83, Nov/Dec 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    T. Berners-Lee, J. A. Hendler, and O. Lassila. The Semantic Web. Scientific American, 284(5):34–43, May 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    S. J. Buckingham Shum. Cohere: Towards Web 2.0 argumentation. In P. Besnard, S. Doutre, and A. Hunter, editors, Computational Models of Argument, volume 172 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pages 97–108. IOS Press, 2008.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    C. I. Chesnevar, J. McGinnis, S. Modgil, I. Rahwan, C. Reed, G. Simari, M. South, G. Vreeswijk, and S. Willmott. Towards an argument interchange format. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 21(4):293–316, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    I. Clarke, O. Sandberg, B. Wiley, and T. Hong. Freenet: A distributed anonymous information storage and retrieval system. In ICSI Workshop on Design Issues in Anonymity and Unobservability, 1999.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    O. Corcho, P. Alper, I. Kotsiopoulos, P. Missier, S. Bechhofer, and C. Goble. An overview of S-OGSA: A reference semantic grid architecture. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 4:102–115, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. De Roure, J. Frey, D. Michaelides, and K. Page. The collaborative semantic grid. In International Symposium on Collaborative Technologies and Systems (CTS’06), pages 411–418, Los Alamitos, , USA, 2006. IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. Euzenat and P. Valtchev. Similarity-based ontology alignment in OWL-lite. In R. L. de Màntaras and L. Saitta, editors, Proceedings of the 16th Eureopean Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI’2004, pages 333–337, 2004.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    I. Foster, C. Kesselman, and S. Tuecke. The anatomy of the grid: Enabling scalable virtual organizations. International Journal of High Performance Computing Applications, 15:200 – 222, Aug 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. Gaertner and F. Toni. Computing arguments and attacks in assumption-based argumentation. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 22(6):24–33, Nov/Dec 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    B. N. Grosof, I. Horrocks, R. Volz, and S. Decker. Description logic programs: Combining logic programs with description logic. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International World Wide Web Conference, pages 48–57, 2003.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    T. Guan, E. Zaluska, and D. De Roure. A semantic service matching middleware for mobile devices discovering grid services. In S. Wu, L. T. Yang, and T. L. Xu, editors, Advances in Grid and Pervasive Computing, Third International Conference, GPC 2008, Kunming, China, May 25-28, 2008. Proceedings, volume 5036 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 422–433. Springer-Verlag, 2008.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    P. A. Kirschner, S. J. Buckingham Shum, and C. S. Carr, editors. Visualizing Argumentation, Computer Supported Cooperative Work, London, UK, 2003. Springer.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    L. Laera, V. Tamma, J. Euzenat, T. J. Bench-Capon, and T. Payne. Reaching agreement over ontology alignments. In I. Cruz, S. Decker, D. Allemang, C. Preist, D. Schwabe, P. Mika, M. Uschold, and L. Aroyo, editors, Proceedings of the First international Semantic Web Conference on the Semantic Web (ISWC), volume 4273 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 371–384, Berlin, Germany, 2006. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    S. A. McIlraith, T. C. Son, and H. Zeng. Semantic Web Services. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 16(2):46–53, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    N. Noy, M. Sintek, S. Decker, M. Crubezy, R. Fergerson, and M. Musen. Creating semantic web contents with Protégé-2000. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 16(2):60–71, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    T. OReilly. What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/ 2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html, 2005.
  20. 20.
    I. Rahwan, F. Zablith, and C. Reed. Laying the foundations for a world wide argument web. Artificial Intelligence, 171:897–921, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    P. Shvaiko and J. Euzenat. A survey of schema-based matching approaches. Journal on data semantics, 4:146–171, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    K. Taylor, J. Essex, J. Frey, H. Mills, G. Hughes, and E. Zaluska. The semantic Grid and chemistry: Experiences with CombeChem. Web semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 4:84–101, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    F. Toni, M. Grammatikou, S. Kafetzoglou, L. Lymberopoulos, S. Papavassiliou, D. Gaertner, M. Morge, S. Bromuri, J. McGinnis, K. Stathis, V. Curcin, M. Ghanem, and L. Guo. The ArguGRID platform: An overview. In J. Altmann, D. Neumann, and T. Fahringer, editors, Grid Economics and Business Models, 5th International Workshop, GECON 2008, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain, August 26, 2008. Proceedings, volume 5206 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 217–225. Springer, 2008.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    P. Torroni, M. Gavanelli, and F. Chesani. Argumentation in the Semantic Web. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 22(6):67–74, Nov/Dec 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag US 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paolo Torroni
    • 1
  • Marco Gavanelli
    • 2
  • Federico Chesani
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Elettronica, Informatica e SistemisticaUniversity of Bologna44100 FerraraItaly
  2. 2.Dipartimento di IngegneriaUniversity of Ferrara44100 FerraraItaly

Personalised recommendations