Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A plausible inference prototype for the Semantic Web

  • Published:
Journal of Intelligent Information Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents a prototype that is capable of drawing plausible inferences from Resource Description Framework (RDF) assertions that are constituents of a distributed, Semantic Web knowledge system. The approach taken to build the prototype can be viewed as the extension and adaptation of a classical approach to plausible inference to exploit the evolving infrastructure being developed to represent declarative knowledge on the Semantic Web. The approach includes a knowledge representation formalism that supports meta properties, which define precise semantics, enabling subsequent plausible inferences via extended composition of RDF properties. Most research and development in the context of the Semantic Web has been devoted to representational infrastructure and accompanying query and logical deduction formalisms to evolve the Web from a document repository to a set of distributed knowledge bases. The work presented in this paper provides a functioning Semantic Web application in which the generation of new inferences is not contained within the deductive closure of the knowledge and data expressed by a collection of information sources represented using RDF. Moreover, the paper provides a concrete example of an RDF schema and a working system built around it which demonstrates one potential use of meta data on the Web.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen, J. (1984). Towards a general theory of action and time. Artificial Intelligence, 23, 123–154.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Anon. (2003). SWI-Prolog, http://www.swi-prolog.org (current January 2005).

  • Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., & Lassila, O. (2001, May). The Semantic Web: A new form of Web content that is meaningful to computers will unleash a revolution of new possibilities. Scientific American, 34–43.

  • Boley, H. (2000). Relationships between logic programming and RDF. Proceedings of the Pacific Rim Conference on Intelligent Information Agents, Melbourne, http://www.dfki.uni-kl.de/~boley/rdfphtml/ (current January 2005).

  • Brachman, R. J. (1983). What IS-A is and isn’t: An analysis of taxonomic links in semantic networks. Computer, 16(10), 30–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brickley, D. & Guha, R. V. (2003, January). RDF Vocabulary Description Language 1.0: RDF Schema. W3C Working Draft, http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/ (current January 2005).

  • Calvanes, D., De Giacomo, G., & Lenzerini, M. (2001). A framework for ontology integration. Online Proceedings Semantic Web Working Symposium, Stanford University, California, http://www.semanticweb.org/SWWS/program/index.html (current January 2005).

  • Chaffin, R., & Herrmann, D. (1987). Relation element theory: A new account of the representation and processing of semantic relations. In D. Gorfein & R. Hoffman (Eds.), Memory and Learning: The Ebbinghaus Centennial Conference (pp. 221–245). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, P., & Loiselle, C. (1988). Beyond ISA: Structures for plausible inference in semantic networks. Proceedings of the Seventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 415–420). St. Paul, Minnesota: AAAI.

  • Conen, W., & Klapsing, R. (2000). A logical interpretation of RDF. Linköping Electronic Articles in Computer and Information Science, 5(13), 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dean, M. et al. (2002, November 12). Web Ontology Language (OWL) Reference Version 1.0., W3C Working Draft, http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD- owl-ref-20021112/ (current January 2005).

  • Decker, S., Brickley, D., Saarela, J., & Angele, J. (1998). A Query and Inference Service for RDF. Online Proceedings of the QL’98—The Query Languages Workshop, Boston, Massachusetts, http://www.w3.org/TandS/QL/QL98/pp/queryservice.html (current January 2005).

  • Grassmann, W., & Tremblay, J. (1996). Logic and discrete mathematics. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guha, R. V. (2002). rdfDB: An RDF Database. http://www.guha.com/rdfdb/ (current January 2005).

  • Huhns, M., & Stephens, L. (1989). Plausible inferencing using extended composition. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 1420–1425). Detroit, Michigan.

  • Kashyap, V., & Borgida, A. (2003). Representing the UMLS® semantic network using OWL. Proceedings of the 2nd International Semantic Web Conference (pp. 1–16) Sanibel Island, FL. Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer.

  • Klein, M. (2001). Combining and relating ontologies: An analysis of problems and solutions. Workshop on Ontologies and Information Sharing, International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 53–62) Seattle, Washington.

  • Kothari, C., & Russomanno, D. (2004). Relation elements for the Semantic Web. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Conceptual Structures (ICCS 2004) (pp. 275–286) Huntsville, Alabama. Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer.

  • Kothari, C. et al. (2003). UofM_EECE Ontology, http://www.eece.memphis.edu/ksl/uofm_eece.xml (current January 2005).

  • Kuczora, P. W. & Cosby, S. J. (1989). Implementation of meronymic (part-whole) inheritance for semantic networks. Knowledge Based Systems, 2(4), 219–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landis, T. Y., Herrmann, D. J., & Chaffin, R. (1989). Development differences in the comprehension of semantic relations. Zeitschrift fur Psychologie, 2(4), 219–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lassila, O., & Swick, R. (1999, February). Resource Description Framework (RDF) Model and Syntax Specification. W3C Recommendation, http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/ (current January 2005).

  • Lenat, D. (1995). Cyc: A large-scale investment in knowledge infrastructure. Communications of the ACM, 38(1), 33–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niles, I., & Pease, A. (2001). Towards a standard upper ontology. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (pp. 2–9) Ogunquit, Maine.

  • Reed, S. L., & Lenat, D. B. (2002). Mapping Ontologies into Cyc. AAAI 2002 Conference Workshop on Ontologies for the Semantic Web, Edmonton, Canada, http://www.cyc.com/doc/white_papers/mapping-ontologies-into-cyc_v31.pdf (current January 2005).

  • Schubert, L. K., Papalaskaris, M. A., & Taugher, J. (1983, October). Determining type, part, color, and time relationships. IEEE Computer, 53–60.

  • Sintek, M., & Decker, S. (2002). TRIPLE—a query, inference, and transformation language for the Semantic Web. First International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC) (pp. 364–378) Sardinia, Italy. Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer.

  • Sowa, J. (2002). Knowledge representation: Logical, philosophical and computational foundations. Pacific Grove, California: Brooks/Cole.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephens, L., & Chen, Y. (1996). Principles for organizing semantic relations in large knowledge bases. IEEE Transactions of Knowledge and Data Engineering, 8(3), 492–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Storey, V. C. (1991). Meronymic relationships. Journal of Database Administration, 2(3), 22–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Storey, V. C. (1993). Understanding semantic relationships. The International Journal on Very Large Data Bases, 2(4), 455–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wielemaker, J. (2003a). SWI-Prolog RDF Parser. http://www.swi-prolog.org/packages/rdf2pl.html (current January 2005).

  • Wielemaker, J. (2003b). SWI-Prolog SGML/XML Parser. http://www.swi-prolog.org/packages/sgml2pl.html (current January 2005).

  • Wielemaker, J., Schreiber, G., & Wielinga, B. (2003). Prolog-based infrastructure for RDF: Scalability and performance. Proceedings of the Second International Semantic Web Conference (pp. 644–658) Sanibel Island, Florida. Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer.

  • Winston, P., Morton, E., Chaffin, R., & Herrmann, D. (1987). A taxonomy of part–whole relations. Cognitive Science, 11, 417–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Herff College of Engineering, The University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, 38152, USA

    David J. Russomanno

Authors
  1. David J. Russomanno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David J. Russomanno.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Russomanno, D.J. A plausible inference prototype for the Semantic Web. J Intell Inf Syst 26, 227–246 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10844-006-0369-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10844-006-0369-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation