W3C and Semantic Web Technologies

Acknowledgements

This presentation uses material prepared by Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
The content of this presentation can be reused according to the copyright and W3C rules, following the usual scientific practice of quoting the source

Once upon a time…

…now

SW adoption

SW technologies go back to few years now…
We have a really stable set of specifications since 2004
Lots of tools, software, system, etc, are at our disposal now
Applications come to the fore
So where are we exactly with adoption?

SW just academic research?

SW has indeed a strong foundation in research results
But remember:
1. the Web was born at CERN…
2. …was first picked up by high energy physicists…
3. …then by academia at large…
4. …then by small businesses and start-ups…
5. "big business" came only later!
Network effect kicked in early…
Semantic Web is now at #4, and moving to #5!

The 2007 Gartner predictions

By 2017, we expect the vision of the Semantic Web […] to coalesce […] and the majority of Web pages are decorated with some form of semantic hypertext.

By 2012, 80% of public Web sites will use some level of semantic hypertext to create SW documents […] 15% of public Web sites will use more extensive Semantic Web-based ontologies to create semantic databases

(note: “semantic hypertext” refers to, eg, RDFa, microformats with possible GRDDL, etc.)

Source: “Finding and Exploiting Value in Semantic Web Technologies on the Web”, Gartner Research Report, May 2007

W3C Groups

W3C Recommendations

Resource Description Framework (RDF):

RDF/XML Syntax Specification (Revised), W3C Recommendation, February 10, 2004, Dave Beckett, ed.
RDF Vocabulary Description Language 1.0: RDF Schema, W3C Recommendation, February 10, 2004, Dan Brickley, R.V. Guha, eds.
RDF Primer, W3C Recommendation, February 10, 2004, Frank Manola, Eric Miller, eds.
Resource Description Framework (RDF): Concepts and Abstract Syntax, W3C Recommendation, February 10, 2004, Graham Klyne, Jeremy Carroll, eds.
RDF Semantics, W3C Recommendation, February 10, 2004, Patrick Hayes, ed.
RDF Test Cases, W3C Recommendation, February 10, 2004, Jan Grant, Dave Beckett, eds.

Gleaning Resource Descriptions from Dialects of Languages (GRDDL):

Gleaning Resource Descriptions from Dialects of Languages (GRDDL), W3C Recommendation, September 11, 2007, Dan Connolly, ed.
GRDDL Test Cases, W3C Recommendation, September 11, 2007, Chimezie Ogbuji, ed.

Web Ontology Language (OWL):

Web Ontology Language (OWL) Use Cases and Requirements, W3C Recommendation, February 10, 2004, Jeff Heflin ed.
OWL Web Ontology Language Reference, W3C Recommendation, February 10, 2004, Mike Dean, Guus Schreiber eds., Frank van Harmelen, Jim Hendler, Ian Horrocks, Deborah L. McGuinness, Peter F. Patel-Schneider, Lynn Andrea Stein, authors.
OWL Web Ontology Language Semantics and Abstract Syntax, W3C Recommendation, February 10, 2004, Peter F. Patel-Schneider, Patrick Hayes, Ian Horrocks, eds.
OWL Web Ontology Language Overview, W3C Recommendation, February 10, 2004, Deborah L. McGuinness, Frank van Harmelen, eds.
OWL Web Ontology Language Test Cases, W3C Recommendation, February 10, 2004, Jeremy Carroll, Jos De Roo, eds.
OWL Web Ontology Language Guide, W3C Recommendation, February 10, 2004, Michael K. Smith, Deborah McGuinness, Raphael Volz, Chris Welty, eds.

See also the list of translations for RDF, GRDDL, and OWL.

Info source…

W3C Semantic Web Activity

Main page: [http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/] [local]

News

Semantic Web Activity News [http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/anews/] [local]

“Cool URIs for the Semantic Web”
Discusses two strategies for choosing URIs for the Semantic Web, gives pointers to several Web sites that use these solutions, and briefly discusses why several other alternatives are less effective. Comments on this draft are requested by 21 January
“Emergency Information Interoperability Framework Incubator Group”.
The mission of the Emergency Group is to review and analyse the current state-of-the-art in vocabularies used in emergency management functions and to investigate the path forward via an emergency management systems information interoperability framework.

In progress

SPARQL

SPARQL Query Language for RDF W3C Proposed Recommendation 12 November 2007
SPARQL Query Results XML Format W3C Proposed Recommendation 12 November 2007
SPARQL Protocol for RDF W3C Proposed Recommendation 12 November 2007

OWL

Submission Request to W3C: OWL 1.1 Web Ontology Language
1. syntactic sugar to make some commonly-stated things easier to say;
2. new Description Logic constructs;
3. expanded datatype expressiveness; and
4. metamodeling constructs.

Contribute as

CEO guide for SW: the “DO-s”

Start small:: Test the Semantic Web waters with a pilot project […] before investing large sums of time and money.
Check credentials:: A lot of systems integrators don't really have the skills to deal with Semantic Web technologies. Get someone who's savvy in semantics.
Expect training challenges:: It often takes people a while to understand the technology. […]
Find an ally:: It can be hard to articulate the potential benefits, so find someone with a problem that can be solved with the Semantic Web and make that person a partner.

Source: BusinessWeek Online, April 2007

CEO guide for SW: the “DONT-s”

Go it alone:: The Semantic Web is complex, and it's best to get help. […]
Forget privacy:: Just because you can gather and correlate data about employees doesn’t mean you should. Set usage guidelines to safeguard employee privacy.
Expect perfection:: While these technologies will help you find and correlate information more quickly, they’re far from perfect. Nothing can help if data are unreliable in the first place.
Be impatient:: One early adopter at NASA says that the potential benefits can justify the investments in time, money, and resources, but there must be a multi-year commitment to have any hope of success