Understanding the Semantic Web through Descriptions and Situations

  • Aldo Gangemi
  • Peter Mika
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2888)


The Semantic Web is a powerful vision that is getting to grips with the challenge of providing more human-oriented web services. Hence, reasoning with and across distributed, partially implicit assumptions (contextual knowledge), is a milestone.

Ontologies are a primary means to deploy the Semantic Web vision, but few work has been done on them to manage the context-dependency of Web knowledge. In this paper we introduce an ontology for representing a variety of reified contexts and states of affairs, called D&S, currently implemented as a plug-in to the DOLCE foundational ontology, and its application to two cases: an ontology for communication situations and roles, and an ontology for peer-to-peer communication. The reified contexts represented in D&S have a rich structure, and are a middleware between full-fledged formal contexts and theories, and the often poor vocabularies implemented in Web ontologies.


Ontological Commitment Formal Context Binary Predicate Local Ontology Foundational Ontology 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Guarino, N.: Formal Ontology in Information Systems. In: Guarino, N. (ed.) Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS 1998), Trento, Italy, pp. 3–15. IOS Press, Amsterdam (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Masolo, C., Borgo, S., Gangemi, A., Guarino, N., Oltramari, A., Schneider, L.: The Wonder Web Library of Foundational Ontologies. WonderWeb Deliverable 17 (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fensel, D., van Harmelen, F., Ding, Y., Klein, M., Mika, P., Akkermans, H., Broekstra, J., Kampman, A., van der Meer, J., Studer, R., Sure, Y., Davies, J., Duke, A., Engels, R., Iosif, V., Kiryakov, A., Lau, T., Reimer, U., Horrocks, I.: Final Report. On-To-Knowledge Deliverable 43 (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    van Elst, L., Abecker, A.: Ontologies for information management: balancing formality, stability, and sharing scope. Expert Systems with Applications 23, 357–366 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gangemi, A., Pisanelli, D.M., Steve, G.: An overview of the ONIONS project: Applying ontologies to the integration of medical terminologies. Data Knowledge Engineering 31, 183–220 (1999)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Köhler, W.: Gestalt Psychology. Liveright, New York (1947/1929)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moore, M.S.: Legal Reality: A Naturalist Approach to Legal Ontology. Law and Philosophy 21, 619–705 (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fellbaum, C. (ed.): WordNet – An electronic lexical database. MIT Press, Cambridge (1998)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gangemi, A., Guarino, N., Masolo, C., Oltramari, A., Schneider, L.: Sweetening Ontologies with DOLCE. In: Gómez-Pérez, A., Benjamins, V.R. (eds.) EKAW 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2473, p. 166. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mika, P., Akkermans, H.: Analysis of Ontology-based Knowledge Management. SWAP (Semantic Web and Peer-to-Peer) Deliverable 1.2 (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pepper, S., Schwab, S.: Curing theWeb’s Identity Crisis. Technical report, Ontopia (2003),
  12. 12.
    Sowa, J.F.: Ontology, Metadata, and Semiotics. In: Ganter, B., Mineau, G.W. (eds.) ICCS 2000. LNCS, vol. 1867, pp. 55–81. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jakobson, R.: Linguistics and Poetics: Closing Statement. In: Style in Language. MIT Press, Cambridge (1960)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    de Saussure, F.: Cours de linguistique générale. Payot, Lausanne (1906/1911)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schreiber, G., Akkermans, H., Anjewierden, A., de Hoog, R., Shadbolt, N., van de Velde, W., Wielinga, B.: Knowledge engineering and management. The CommonKADS Methodology. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ehrig, M., Haase, P., Tempich, C.: Method Design. SWAP (Semantic Web and Peer-to-Peer) Deliverable 3.2 (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Giunchiglia, F., Ghidini, C.: Local Models Semantics, or Contextual Reasoning = Locality + Compatibility. Artificial Intelligence 127, 221–259 (2001)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Guha, R.V.: Contexts: A Formalization and Some Applications. PhD thesis, Stanford University (1991)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aldo Gangemi
    • 1
  • Peter Mika
    • 2
  1. 1.Laboratory for Applied Ontology, Institute for Cognitive Sciences and TechnologyNational Research CouncilRomeItaly
  2. 2.Vrije Universiteit AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations