Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Semantic Publishing and Referencing Ontologies

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Semantic Web Technologies and Legal Scholarly Publishing

Part of the book series: Law, Governance and Technology Series ((LGTS,volume 15))

Abstract

One of the main research areas in semantic publishing is the development of semantic models that fit the requirements of authors and publishers. Although several models and metadata schemas have been developed in the past, they do not fully comply with the vocabulary used by publishers or they are not adequate for describing specific topics (e.g., characterisation of bibliographic citations, definition of publishing roles, description of publishing workflows, etc.). In this chapter I introduce the Semantic Publishing and Referencing (SPAR) Ontologies, a suite of orthogonal and complementary OWL 2 DL ontology modules for the creation of comprehensive machine-readable RDF metadata for every aspect of semantic publishing and referencing. In particular, I show the characteristics and benefits of all the SPAR ontologies, and support the entire discussion with several examples of Turtle code describing a particular reference of the legal discipline, namely Casanovas et al.’s “OPJK and DILIGENT: ontology modelling in a distributed environment”.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    All these principles are derived from my personal experience in developing ontologies for a specific domain (i.e., publishing) and for specific end-users (primarily, publishers and authors).

  2. 2.

    The SPAR (Semantic Publishing and Referencing) Ontologies: http://purl.org/spar.

  3. 3.

    DEO, the Discourse Elements Ontology: http://purl.org/spar/deo.

  4. 4.

    The Error Ontology: http://www.essepuntato.it/2009/10/error.

  5. 5.

    FOAF essentials in OWL: http://purl.org/swan/2.0/foaf-essential.

  6. 6.

    CO, the Collections Ontology: http://swan.mindinformatics.org/ontologies/1.2/collections.owl.

  7. 7.

    Time-indexed situation pattern: http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/cp/owl/timeindexedsitua-tion.owl.

  8. 8.

    Sequence pattern: http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/cp/owl/sequence.owl.

  9. 9.

    Participation pattern: http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/cp/owl/participation.owl.

  10. 10.

    The Patterns Ontology: http://www.essepuntato.it/2008/12/pattern.

  11. 11.

    This and the following RDF encodings are written in Turtle (Prud’hommeaux and Carothers 2013).

  12. 12.

    For a more detailed explanation of why RDF collections and containers are neither usable nor interpreted correctly by OWL 2 DL, consult http://hcklab.blogspot.com/2008/12/moving-towards-swan-collections.html.

  13. 13.

    FaBiO, the FRBR-aligned Bibliographic Ontology: http://purl.org/spar/fabio.

  14. 14.

    This has been achieved through many meetings with a number of academics and publishers that we have undertaken in order to understand their working practices and requirements.

  15. 15.

    CO, the Collections Ontology: http://purl.org/co.

  16. 16.

    This and the following diagrams comply with the Graphic framework for OWL ontologies (Graffoo), introduced in Sect. 6.4. A legend for all Graffoo diagrams can be found in Fig. 6.13 on page 227.

  17. 17.

    The Discourse Relationships Ontology: http://swan.mindinformatics.org/spec/1.2/discourserela-tionships.html.

  18. 18.

    CiTO, the Citation Typing Ontology: http://purl.org/spar/cito.

  19. 19.

    Functions of Citations ontology: http://www.essepuntato.it/2013/03/cito-functions.

  20. 20.

    Google Scholar: http://scholar.google.com.

  21. 21.

    BiRO, the Bibliographic Reference Ontology: http://purl.org/spar/biro.

  22. 22.

    The prefix swan refers to entities defined in the old version of the Collection Ontology (SWAN Collection Ontology 1.2), currently imported in BiRO. The SWAN Collection Ontology is available at http://swan.mindinformatics.org/ontologies/1.2/collections.owl.

  23. 23.

    Literals as subjects: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/Literals_as_Subjects.

  24. 24.

    Common Tag: http://www.commontag.org.

  25. 25.

    Region pattern: http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/cp/owl/region.owl. The prefix region refers to entities defined in it.

  26. 26.

    Literal reification pattern: http://www.essepuntato.it/2010/06/literalreification. The prefix literal refers to entities defined in it.

  27. 27.

    C4O, the Citation Counting and Context Characterization Ontology: http://purl.org/spar/c4o. The prefix c4o refers to entities defined in it.

  28. 28.

    Google Scholar: http://scholar.google.it.

  29. 29.

    Scopus: http://www.info.sciverse.com/scopus/.

  30. 30.

    Web of Knowledge: http://apps.isiknowledge.com.

  31. 31.

    Journal of Web Semantics, Guide for Authors: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescript-ion.cws_home/671322/authorinstructions.

  32. 32.

    DoCO, the Document Components Ontology: http://purl.org/spar/doco. The prefix doco refers to entities defined in it.

  33. 33.

    DEO, the Discourse Elements Ontology: http://purl.org/spar/deo. The prefix deo refers to entities defined in it.

  34. 34.

    SRO, the SALT Rhetorical Ontology: http://salt.semanticauthoring.org/ontologies/sro.rdfs.

  35. 35.

    Note that it is possible to create valid HTML documents that are not compliant with the presented structural pattern theory hereby presented. For that reason, in the examples that follow I will use HTML elements and consider their (informal) semantics as a strong requirement to make a correct document. Indeed, there are other markup formats that fit the structural pattern theory better than HTML, such as Akoma Ntoso (Barabucci et al. 2009). However, I have chosen to use HTML because it is a well-known and easily understandable markup format.

  36. 36.

    Wikipedia article “Rhetoric”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric.

  37. 37.

    Wikipedia article “Paragraph”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph.

  38. 38.

    The words inline and block in these list items do not refer to the structural pattern theory introduced earlier, although some sort of overlapping exist.

  39. 39.

    Contrarily to the paper used as examplar in the previous sections, i.e., Casanovas et al. (2007), here I have decided to use other two papers, i.e., Peroni et al. (2008), which I co-authored. This is totally necessary because in Sects. 6.5 and  6.6 I will describe in detail how bibliographic entities and related resources are perceived over time. Thus, it is preferable to use a context I am well versed in rather than inventing possible (or even fake) scenarios related to Casanovas et al. (2007).

  40. 40.

    Portal Ontology: http://www.aktors.org/ontology/portal. The prefix portal refers to entities defined in it.

  41. 41.

    MARC Code List for Relators: http://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relaterm.html.

  42. 42.

    The Semantic Web Conference Ontology: http://data.semanticweb.org/ns/swc/ontology. The prefixes swc and swrc refer to entities defined in it.

  43. 43.

    RDFS ontology of CIDOC CRM: http://www.cidoc-crm.org/rdfs/cidoc-crm-english-label.

  44. 44.

    The Time Ontology: http://www.w3.org/2006/time. The prefix time refers to entities defined in it.

  45. 45.

    Time-indexed situation pattern: http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/cp/owl/timeindexedsitua-tion.owl. The prefixes tisit, sit and ti refer to entities defined in it.

  46. 46.

    This and all the following graphical representations of ontologies are drawn using Graffoo, the Graphical Framework for OWL Ontologies, available at http://www.essepuntato.it/graffoo. Yellow rectangles represent classes (solid border) and restrictions (dotted border), green parallelograms represent datatypes, arrows starting out of a filled circle refer to object property definitions, arrows starting out of an open circle refer to data property definitions, while other arrows represent assertions between resources.

  47. 47.

    In this context, a situation is defined as a view on a set of entities. It can be seen as a “relational context”, reifying a relation.

  48. 48.

    Time-indexed value in context pattern: http://www.essepuntato.it/2012/04/tvc. The prefix tvc refers to entities defined in it.

  49. 49.

    PRO, the Publishing Roles Ontology: http://purl.org/spar/pro. The prefix pro refers to entities defined in it.

  50. 50.

    Project Documents Ontology:http://ontologies.smile.deri.ie/pdo#.

  51. 51.

    Document Status Ontology: http://ontologi.es/status#.

  52. 52.

    PSO, the Publishing Status Ontology: http://purl.org/spar/pso. The prefix pso and part refer to entities defined in it.

  53. 53.

    Semantic Web Dog Food: http://data.semanticweb.org.

  54. 54.

    PWO, the Publishing Workflow Ontology: http://purl.org/spar/pwo. The prefix pwo refers to entities defined in it.

  55. 55.

    The sequence pattern: http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/cp/owl/sequence.owl. The prefix seq refers to entities defined in it.

  56. 56.

    The participation pattern: http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/cp/owl/participation.owl. The prefix partrefers to entities defined in it.

  57. 57.

    The Error Ontology: http://www.essepuntato.it/2009/10/error. The prefix error refers to entities defined in it.

  58. 58.

    Positive law codification of title 51 of the United States Code: http://uscode.house.gov/codification/t51/index.html.

  59. 59.

    The RDF representation of the agents involved in this and in the following examples are taken from DBpedia, where the prefix dbpedia stands for http://dbpedia.org/resource/.

  60. 60.

    http://chem-bla-ics.blogspot.com/2010/10/citeulike-cito-use-case-1-wordles.html.

  61. 61.

    CiteULike: http://www.citeulike.org/.

  62. 62.

    Blog post by Martin Fenner entitled “How to use citation typing ontology (CiTO) in your blog post”: http://blogs.plos.org/mfenner/2011/02/14/how-to-use-citation-typing-ontology-cito-in-your-blog-posts/.

  63. 63.

    Link to link: http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/link-to-link/.

  64. 64.

    Linked Education: http://linkededucation.org/.

  65. 65.

    Linked Education–Schemas and vocabularies: http://linkededucation.wordpress.com/data-models/schemas/.

  66. 66.

    The Open Citations Corpus: http://opencitations.net/.

  67. 67.

    The Open Citations Blog: http://opencitations.wordpress.com/.

  68. 68.

    WebTracks: http://webtracks.jiscinvolve.org/wp/about/.

  69. 69.

    JISC Managing Research Data Programme: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/mrd.aspx.

  70. 70.

    Il Mulino: http://www.mulino.it.

  71. 71.

    Utopia Documents: http://getutopia.com.

  72. 72.

    http://www.biochemj.org/bj/424/3/.

  73. 73.

    PDFX: http://pdfx.cs.man.ac.uk.

References

  • Accomazzi, A., and R. Dave. 2011. Semantic interlinking of resources in the virtual observatory era. ArXiv:1103.5958. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1103.5958. Accessed 30 July 2013.

  • Aranguren, M. E., E. Antezana, M. Kuiper, and R. Stevens. 2008. Ontology design patterns for bio-ontologies: A case study on the cell cycle ontology. BMC Bioinformatics 9 (5): S–1. (London, United Kingdom: BioMed Central). doi:10.1186/1471-2105-9-S5-S1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Attwood, T. K., D. B. Kell, P. McDermott, J. Marsh, S. R. Pettifer, and D. Thorne. 2010. Utopia documents: Linking scholarly literature with research data. Bioinformatics 26 (18): 568–574. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btq383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barabucci, G., L. Cervone, M. Palmirani, S. Peroni, and F. Vitali. 2009. Multi-layer markup and ontological structures in Akoma Ntoso. In Proceeding of the international workshop on AI Approaches to the Complexity of Legal Systems II (AICOL-II), lecture notes in computer science 6237, ed. P. Casanovas, U. Pagallo, G. Sartor, and G. Ajani, 133–149. Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-16524-5_9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berjon, R., T. Leithead, E. D. Navara, E. O’Connor, and S. Pfeiffer. 2013. HTML5: A vocabulary and associated APIs for HTML and XHTML. W3C candidate recommendation 6 August 2013. World Wide Web Consortium. http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/. Accessed 30 July 2013.

  • Bojars, U., and J. G. Breslin. 2010. SIOC core ontology specification. 25 March 2010. http://rdfs.org/sioc/spec/. Accessed 30 July 2013.

  • Brickley, D., and L. Miller. 2010. FOAF vocabulary specification 0.98. Namespace document, 9 August 2010-Marco Polo Edition. http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/. Accessed 30 July 2013.

  • Casanovas, P., N. Casellas, C. Tempich, D. Vrandecic, and R. Benjamins. 2007. OPJK and DILIGENT: Ontology modeling in a distributed environment. Artificial Intelligence and Law 15 (2): 171–186. doi:10.1007/s10506-007-9036-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ciccarese, P., and T. Groza. 2011. Ontology of Rhetorical Blocks (ORB). Editor’s draft, 5 June 2011. World Wide Web Consortium. http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/hcls/notes/orb/. Accessed 30 July 2013.

  • Ciccarese, P., and S. Peroni. 2013. The collections ontology: Creating and handling collections in OWL 2 DL frameworks. To appear in Semantic Web–Interoperability, Usability, Applicability. doi:10.3233/SW-130121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciccarese, P., E. Wu, J. Kinoshita, G. Wong, M. Ocana, A. Ruttenberg, and T. Clark. 2008. The SWAN biomedical discourse ontology. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 41 (5): 739–751. doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2008.04.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ciccarese, P., D. Shotton, S. Peroni, and T. Clark. 2011. CiTO + SWAN: The web semantics of bibliographic records, citations, evidence and discourse relationships. To appear in Semantic Web–Interoperability, Usability, Applicability. doi:10.3233/SW-130098.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cimiano, P., and J. Volker. 2005. Text2Onto—A framework for ontology learning and data-driven change discovery. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on applications of natural language to information systems (NLDB05), lecture notes in computer science 3513, ed. A. Montoyo, R. Munoz, and E. Metais, 227–238. Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/11428817_21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crofts, N., M. Doerr, T. Gill, S. Stead, and M. Stiff. 2011. Definition of the CIDOC conceptual reference model. Version 5.0.4, November 2011. ICOM/CIDOC CRM special interest group. http://www.cidoc-crm.org/docs/cidoc_crm_version_5.0.4.pdf. Accessed 30 July 2013.

  • D’Arcus, B., and F. Giasson. 2009. Bibliographic ontology specification. Specification document, 4 November 2009. http://bibliontology.com/specification. Accessed 30 July 2013.

  • Dattolo, A., A. Di Iorio, S. Duca, A. A. Feliziani, and F. Vitali. 2007. Structural patterns for descriptive documents. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on web engineering 2007 (ICWE 2007), lecture notes in computer science 4607, ed. L. Baresi, P. Fraternali, and G. Houben, 421–426. Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-73597-7_35.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Waard, A. 2010a. From proteins to fairytales: Directions in semantic publishing. IEEE Intelligent Systems 25 (2): 83–88. doi:10.1109/MIS.2010.49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Waard, A. 2010b. Medium-grained document structure. http://www.w3.org/wiki/HCLSIG/SWANSIOC/Actions/RhetoricalStructure/models/medium. Accessed 30 July 2013.

  • Di Iorio, A., D. Gubellini, and F. Vitali. 2005. Design patterns for document substructures. Proceedings of the extreme markup languages 2005. Rockville: Mulberry Technologies, Inc. http://conferences.idealliance.org/extreme/html/2005/Vitali01/ EML2005Vitali01.html. Accessed 30 July 2013.

  • Di Iorio, A., S. Peroni, F. Poggi, and F. Vitali. 2012. A first approach to the automatic recognition of structural patterns in XML documents. Proceedings of the 2012 ACM symposium on Document Engineering (DocEng 2012), 85–94. New York: ACM. doi:10.1145/2361354.2361374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dublin Core Metadata Initiative. 2012. DCMI metadata terms. DCMI recommendation. http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/. Accessed 30 July 2013.

  • Gangemi, A. 2010a. Submission: Participation. http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Submissions:Participation. Accessed 30 July 2013.

  • Gangemi, A. 2010b. Submission: Region. http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Submissions:Region. Accessed 30 July 2013.

  • Gangemi, A. 2010c. Submission: Sequence. http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Submissions:Sequence. Accessed 30 July 2013.

  • Gangemi, A. 2010d. Submission: TimeIndexedSituation. http://ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Submissions:TimeIndexedSituation. Accessed 30 July 2013.

  • Gangemi, A., S. Peroni, and F. Vitali. 2010. Literal reification. Proceedings of the Workshop on Ontology Pattern 2010 (WOP 2010), CEUR workshop proceedings 671, 65–66. Aachen: CEUR-WS.org. http://CEUR-WS.org/Vol-671/pat04.pdf. Accessed 30 July 2013.

  • Garlik, S. H., and A. Seaborne. 2013. SPARQL 1.1 query language. W3C recommendation 21 March 2013. World Wide Web Consortium. http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/. Accessed 30 July 2013.

  • Groza, T., K. Möller, S. Handschuh, D. Trif, and S. Decker. 2007. SALT: Weaving the claim web. In Proceedings of 6th International Semantic Web Conference and of the 2nd Asian Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2007 + ASWC 2007), lecture notes in computer science 4825, ed. K. Aberer, K. Choi, N. F. Noy, D. Allemang, K. Lee, L. J. B. Nixon, J. Golbeck, P. Mika, D. Maynard, R. Mizoguchi, G. Schreiber, and P. Cudré-Mauroux, 197–210. Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-76298-0_15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groza, T., S. Handschuh, K. Möller, and S. Decker. 2007. SALT–semantically annotated LaTeX for scientific publications. In Proceedings of the fourth European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC 2007), lecture notes in computer science 4519, ed. E. Franconi, M. Kifer, and W. May, 518–532. Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-72667-8_37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groza, T., S. Handschuh, and S. Decker. 2011. Capturing rhetoric and argumentation aspects within scientific publications. Journal on Data Semantics 15: 1–36. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-22630-4_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gruber, T. R. 1995. Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. International Journal of Human Computer Studies 43 (5–6): 907–928. doi:10.1006/ijhc.1995.1081.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guarino, N., and C. Welty. 2002. Evaluating ontological decisions with OntoClean. Communications of the ACM 45 (2): 61–65. doi:10.1145/503124.503150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, T. 2008. RDF site summary 1.0 modules: PRISM. http://nurture.nature.com/rss/modules/mod_prism.html. Accessed 30 July 2013.

  • Hayes, P., and C. Welty. 2006. Defining N-ary relations on the semantic web. W3C working group note 12 April 2006. World Wide Web Consortium. http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-n-aryRelations/. Accessed 30 July 2013.

  • Hobbs, J. R., and F. Pan. 2006. Time ontology in OWL. W3C working draft, 27 September 2006. World Wide Web Consortium. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-time/. Accessed 30 July 2013.

  • Horridge, M., and P. Patel-Schneider. 2012. OWL 2 web ontology language Manchester syntax. 2nd ed. W3C working group note 11 December 2012. World Wide Web Consortium. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-manchester-syntax/. Accessed 30 July 2013.

  • Horrocks, I., P. F. Patel-Schneider, H. Boley, S. Tabet, B. Grosof, and M. Dean. 2004. SWRL: A semantic web rule language combining OWL and RuleML. W3C Member Submission 21 May 2004. World Wide Web Consortium. http://www.w3.org/Submission/SWRL/. Accessed 30 July 2013.

  • Iannella, R. 2013. vCard ontology: For describing people and organisations. W3C working draft 24 September 2013. World Wide Web Consortium. http://www.w3.org/TR/vcard-rdf/. Accessed 30 July 2013.

  • International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records. 2009. Functional requirements for bibliographic records final report. International federation of library associations and institutions. http://www.ifla.org/files/cataloguing/frbr/frbr_2008.pdf. Accessed 30 July 2013.

  • Kircz, J. G. 1991. Rhetorical structure of scientific articles: The case for argumentational analysis in information retrieval. Journal of Documentation 47 (4): 354–372. doi:10.1108/eb026884.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masolo, C., L. Vieu, E. Bottazzi, C. Catenacci, R. Ferrario, A. Gangemi, and N. Guarino. 2004. Social roles and their descriptions. Proceedings of the 9th international conference on the principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR2004), 267–277. https://www.aaai.org/Papers/KR/2004/KR04-029.pdf. Accessed 30 July 2013.

  • Miles, A., and S. Bechhofer. 2009. SKOS simple knowledge organization system reference. W3C recommendation 18 August 2009. World Wide Web Consortium. http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/. Accessed 30 July 2013.

  • Moller, K., S. Bechhofer, and T. Heath. 2009. Semantic web conference ontology. http://data.semanticweb.org/ns/swc/swc_2009-05-09.html. Accessed 30 July 2013.

  • Peroni, S., and D. Shotton. 2012. FaBiO and CiTO: Ontologies for describing bibliographic resources and citations. Journal of Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 17:33–43. doi:10.1016/j.websem.2012.08.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peroni, S., E. Motta, and M. d’Aquin. 2008. Identifying key concepts in an ontology, through the integration of cognitive principles with statistical and topological measures. In Proceedings of the 3rd Asian Semantic Web Conference (ASWC 2008), ed. J. Domingue and C. Anutariya. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Picca, D., A. Gliozzo, and A. Gangemi. 2008. LMM: An OWL-DL MetaModel to represent heterogeneous lexical knowledge. Proceedings of the 6th Language Resource and Evaluation Conference (LREC 2008). Luxembourg: European Language Resources Association. http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2008/pdf/608_paper.pdf. Accessed 30 July 2013.

  • Presutti, V., and A. Gangemi. 2008. Content ontology design patterns as practical building blocks for web ontologies. In Proceedings of the 27th international conference on conceptual modeling (ER 2008), lecture notes in computer science 5231, ed. Q. Li, S. Spaccapietra, E. S. K. Yu, and A. Olivé, 128–141. Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-87877-3_11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prud’hommeaux, E., and G. Carothers. 2013. Turtle, Terse RDF triple language. W3C candidate recommendation 19 February 2013. World Wide Web Consortium. http://www.w3.org/TR/turtle/. Accessed 30 July 2013.

  • Rector, A. 2003. Modularisation of domain ontologies implemented in description logics and related formalisms including OWL. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Knowledge Capture (K-CAP 2003), ed. J. H. Gennari, B. W. Porter, and Y. Gil. New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, J., T. Groza, and A. Passant. 2011. A review of argumentation for the social semantic web. Semantic Web–Interoperability, Usability, Applicability 4 (2): 159–218. doi:10.3233/SW-2012-0073.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shotton, D. 2009. Semantic publishing: The coming revolution in scientific journal publishing. Learned Publishing 22 (2): 85–94. doi:10.1087/2009202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shotton, D. 2010. CiTO, the citation typing ontology. Journal of Biomedical Semantics 1 (1): S–6. doi:10.1186/2041-1480-1-S1-S6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shotton, D., C. Caton, and G. Klyne. 2010. Ontologies for sharing, ontologies for use. http://ontogenesis.knowledgeblog.org/2010/01/22/ontologies-for-sharing/. Accessed 12 March 2012.

  • Toulmin, S. 1959. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (ISBN 0521827485).

    Google Scholar 

  • Varma, P. 2010. Project documents ontology. http://vocab.deri.ie/pdo. Accessed 30 July 2013.

  • Walsh, N. (2010). DocBook 5: The definitive guide. Sebastopol: O’Really Media. Version 1.0.3. (ISBN: 0596805029).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wan, S., C. Paris, and R. Dale. 2010. Supporting browsing-specific information needs: Introducing the citation-sensitive in-browser summariser. Journal of Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 8 (2–3): 196–202. doi:10.1016/j.websem.2010.03.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Bologna, Mura Anteo Zamboni 7, 40126 Bologna (BO), Bologna, Italy

    Silvio Peroni

Authors
  1. Silvio Peroni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Silvio Peroni .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Peroni, S. (2014). The Semantic Publishing and Referencing Ontologies. In: Semantic Web Technologies and Legal Scholarly Publishing. Law, Governance and Technology Series, vol 15. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04777-5_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04777-5_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-04776-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-04777-5

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation