Advertisement

XML Based Information Systems and Formal Semantics of Programming Languages

  • Thierry DespeyrouxEmail author
Part of the Advanced Information and Knowledge Processing book series (AI&KP)

Abstract

Web sites and XML based information systems must be up to date and coherent. This last quality is difficult to insure because sites can be updated very frequently, may have many authors or be partially generated, and in this context, proof-reading is a real challenge. In this chapter, we make a parallel between programs and Web sites or information systems. Semantic constraints that one would like to specify (constraints between the meaning of categories and sub-categories in a thematic directory, consistency between the organization chart and the rest of the site in an academic site, etc.) are similar to semantic constraints in programs (for example coherence between the use of objects and their declared types). Human knowledge is often represented using ontologies. Ontologies can be seen as type systems. Semantic constraints and types have been heavily studied in the context of the semantics of programming languages. We explore how techniques used in this context can be used to enforce the quality of information systems.

Keywords

Programming Language Specification Language Operational Semantic Formal Semantic Global Constraint 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Alpuente, M., Ballis, D., Falaschi, M.: Rule-based verification of web sites. Software Tools for Technology Transfer 8(6), 565–585 (2006) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alpuente, M., Ballis, D., Falaschi, M., Ojeda, P., Romero, D.: Fast algebraic verification service. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Web Reasoning and Rule Systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Berlin (2007) Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berners-Lee, T.: A Road Map to the Semantic Web. http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Semantic.html (1998)
  4. 4.
    Berners-Lee, T.: Ideas about web architecture—yet another notation: Notation 3. http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Notation3.html (2001)
  5. 5.
    Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., Lassila, O.: The Semantic Web. Scientific American 284(5), 34–43 (2001) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Deshpande, Y., Olsina, L., Murugesan, S.: Third ICSE workshop on web engineering. In: Proceedings of ICSE’2002 (2002) Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Despeyroux, T.: Executable specification of static semantics. In: Semantics of Data Types, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 173. Springer, Berlin (1987) Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Despeyroux, T.: Practical semantic analysis of web sites and documents. In: Proceedings of the 13th World Wide Web Conference (WWW2004). ACM, New York (2004) Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Despeyroux, T., Trousse, B.: Semantic verification of web sites using natural semantics. In: RIAO 2000, 6th Conference on Content-Based Multimedia Information Access, College de France, Paris, France (2000) Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Despeyroux, T., Trousse, B.: Maintaining semantic constraints in web sites. In: AACE WebNet 2001 Conference, Orlando, Florida (2001) Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Despeyroux, T., Lechevallier, Y., Trousse, B., Vercoustre, A.M.: Experiments in clustering homogeneous XML documents to validate an existing typology. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Knowledge Management (I-Know), Vienna, Austria (2005) Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fensel, D., Decker, R., Erdman, M., Studer, R.: Ontobroker: The very high idea. In: Proceedings of the 11th International FLAIRS Conference (FLAIRS-98) (1998) Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fensel, D., Angele, J., Decker, S., Erdmann, M., Schnurr, H.P., Studer, R., Witt, A.: On2broker: Lessons learned from applying AI to the web. Technical report, Institute AIFB (1998) Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fernandez, M.F., Florescu, D., Levy, A.Y., Suciu, D.: Verifying integrity constraints on web sites. In: IJCAI, pp. 614–619 (1999). citeseer.nj.nec.com/fernandez99verifying.html
  15. 15.
    Flores, S., Lucas, S., Villanueva, A.: Formal verification of websites. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 200(3), 103–118 (2008) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Grosof, B.N., Volz, R., Horrocks, I., Decker, S.: Description logic programs: Combining logic programs with description logic. In: Proceedings of the 12th World Wide Web Conference (WWW2003) (2003) Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gruber, T.R.: A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge Acquisition 5(2), 199–220 (1993) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gunter, C.A.: Semantics of Programming Languages. MIT Press, Cambridge (1992) zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Holck, J.: 4 perspectives on web information systems. In: Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2003) Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Harmelen, F.V.: From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: The making of a web ontology language. Journal of Web Semantics 1(1), 7–26 (2003) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hosoya, H., Pierce, B.: Xduce: A typed XML processing language. In: Proceedings of Third International Workshop on the Web and Databases (2000) Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kahn, G.: Natural semantics. In: Proceedings of the Symp. on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science, TACS. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 247. Springer, Berlin (1987). Also Inria Research Report 601, February 1987 Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Klein, M., Fensel, D., Kiryakov, A., Ognyanov, D.: Ontology versioning and change detection on the web. In: 13th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (EKAW02), pp. 197–212 (2002) Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Klyne, G., Carroll, J.J.: Resource description framework (RDF): Concepts and abstract syntax. W3C Recommendation, http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/ (2004)
  25. 25.
    Lucas, S.: Rewriting-based navigation of web sites: Looking for models and logics. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 157(2), 79–85 (2006) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Luong, P.H.: Gestion de l’évolution d’un web sémantique. PhD thesis, Ecole des Mines de Paris (2007) Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Luong, P.H., Dieng-Kuntz, R.: A rule-based approach for semantic annotation evolution. The Computational Intelligence Journal 23(3), 320–338 (2007) MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Luong, P.H., Dieng-Kuntz, R., Boucher, A.: Evolution de l’ontologie et gestion des annotations sémantiques inconsistantes. In: Proceedings of Extraction et gestion des connaissances (EGC’2007). Revue des Nouvelles Technologies de l’Information. Cépaduès (2007) Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Luong, P.H., Dieng-Kuntz, R., Boucher, R.: Managing semantic annotations evolution in the CoSWEN system. In: Proceedings of the Third National Symposium on Research, Development and Application of Information and Communication Technology (ICT.RDA’06) (2006) Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Meijer, E., Shields, M.: XMλ: A functional programming language for constructing and manipulating XML document. Draft, http://www.cse.ogi.edu/~mbs/pub/xmlambda/ (1999)
  31. 31.
    Murugesan, S., Deshpande, Y., Hansen, S., Ginige, A.: Web engineering: A new discipline for development of web-based systems. In: Proceedings of the Web Engineering, Software Engineering and Web Application Development. Springer, Berlin (2001) Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Patel-Schneider, P.F., Horrocks, I.: A comparison of two modelling paradigms in the semantic web. In: Proc. of the Fifteenth International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2006), pp. 3–12. ACM, New York (2006) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Peer, J.: A logic programming approach to RDF document and query transformation. In: Workshop on Knowledge Transformation for the Semantic Web at the 15th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Lyon, France (2002) Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Plotkin, G.D.: A structural approach to operational semantics. Technical report DAIMI FN-19, Aarhus University (1981) Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pressman, R.S., Lewis, T., Adida, B., Ullman, E., DeMarco, T., Gilb, T., Gorda, B., Humphrey, W., Johnson, R.: Can Internet-based application be engineered? IEEE Software 15(5), 104–110 (1998) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Stallman, R.M., McGrath, R.: GNU Make: A Program for Directing Recompilation, Version 3.79. Free Software Foundation, Cambridge (2000) Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Szabo, E.: The Collected Papers of Gerhard Gentzen. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1969) zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    van Harmelen, F., Fensel, D.: Practical knowledge representation for the web. In: Fensel, D. (ed.) Proceedings of the IJCAI’99 Workshop on Intelligent Information Integration (1999) Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    van Harmelen, F., van der Meer, J.: Webmaster: Knowledge-based verification of web-pages. In: Twelfth International Conference on Industrial and Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence and Expert Systems IEA/AIE’99 (1999) Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    W3C: XML, XSL, XML schema and RDF recommendations or submissions. http://www.w3.org/
  41. 41.
    W3C: DAML+OIL (March 2001) reference description. http://www.w3.org/TR/daml+oil-reference (2001)
  42. 42.
    Weithöner, T., Liebig, T., Specht, G.: Efficient processing of huge ontologies in logic and relational databases. In: Proceedings of Ontologies, Databases, and Applications of Semantics Conference (ODBASE’2004) (2004) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.INRIA Paris-RocquencourtLe Chesnay CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations