von Dr. Safdar Ali
Statistik und Sichtungsnachweis dieser Seite findet sich am Artikelende
| [1.] Saa/Fragment 016 01 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2014-09-15 21:44:23 Singulus | Cabral et al 2004, Fragment, Gesichtet, KomplettPlagiat, SMWFragment, Saa, Schutzlevel sysop |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 16, Zeilen: 1-24 |
Quelle: Cabral et al 2004 Seite(n): 229-230, Zeilen: 229: 18ff - 230: 1ff |
|---|---|
| [Figure 2.3: General stack of Semantic Web enabling standards]
The Semantic Web users will be able to do more accurate searches of the information and the services they need from the tools provided. The Semantic Web provides the necessary infrastructure for publishing and resolving ontological descriptions of terms and concepts. In addition, it provides the necessary techniques for reasoning about these concepts, as well as resolving and mapping between ontologies, thus enabling semantic interoperability of Web Services through the identification and mapping of semantically similar concepts. Fig. 2.3 shows the general stack of Semantic Web enabling standards. Ontologies have been developed within the Semantic Web research community in order to facilitate knowledge sharing and reuse. They provide greater expressiveness when modeling domain knowledge and can be used to communicate this knowledge between people and heterogeneous and distributed application systems. As with Web Services, Semantic Web enabling standards fit into a set of layered specifications built on the foundation of URIs and XML Schema. The current components included in the Semantic Web framework are RDF [39], RDF Schema (RDF-S) [40] and the Web Ontology Language (OWL) [41]. These standards build up a rich set of constructs for describing the semantics of online information sources. RDF is an XML-based standard from W3C for describing resources on the Web. RDF introduces a little semantics to XML data by allowing the representation of objects and their relations through properties. RDF-Schema is a simple type system, which provides information (metadata) for the interpretation of the statements given in RDF data. The OWL facilitates greater machine interpretability of Web contents than RDF and RDF Schema by providing a much richer set of constructs for specifying classes and relations. OWL has evolved from existing ontologies languages and specifically from DAML+OIL [42]. [39] Klyne, G., et al. Resource description framework (RDF): Concepts and Abstract Ssyntax, W3C recommendation 2004, http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/ [40] RDF Schema Description Language (RDF-S); http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/ [41] Web Ontology Language (OWL); http://www.w3.org/2004/OWL/ [42] DAML+OIL Ontology Markup Language; http://www.daml.org |
Semantic Web users will be able to do more accurate searches of the information and the services they need from the tools provided.
The Semantic Web provides the necessary infrastructure for publishing and resolving ontological descriptions of terms and concepts. In addition, it provides the necessary techniques for reasoning about these concepts, as well as resolving and mapping between ontologies, thus enabling semantic interoperability of Web Services through the identification (and mapping) of semantically similar concepts. [Fig. 3. Semantic Web Enabling standards] Ontologies have been developed within the Knowledge Modelling research community [11] in order to facilitate knowledge sharing and reuse. They provide greater expressiveness when modelling domain knowledge and can be used to communicate this knowledge between people and heterogeneous and distributed application systems. [Seite 230] As with Web Services, Semantic Web enabling standards fit into a set of layered specifications (fig. 3) built on the foundation of URIs and XML Schema. The current components of the Semantic Web framework are RDF [13], RDF Schema (RDF-S) [3] and the Web Ontology Language – OWL [4]. These standards build up a rich set of constructs for describing the semantics of online information sources. RDF is a XML-based standard from W3C for describing resources on the Web. RDF introduces a little semantics to XML data by allowing the representation of objects and their relations through properties. RDF-Schema is a simple type system, which provides information (metadata) for the interpretation of the statements given in RDF data. The Web Ontology language – OWL will facilitate greater machine interpretability of Web content than RDF and RDF Schema by providing a much richer set of constructs for specifying classes and relations. OWL has evolved from existing ontologies languages and specifically from DAML+OIL [12]. 3. Brickley D., Guha R.V. (eds.): RDF Vocabulary Description Language 1.0: RDF Schema, W3C Proposed Recommendation (work in progress). http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/. (2003) 4. Bechhofer, S., Dean, M., Van Harmelen, F., Hendler, J., Horrocks, I., McGuinness, D., Patel-Schneider, P., Schreiber, G., Stein, L.: OWL Web Ontology Language Reference, W3C Proposed Recommendation (work in progress). http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/. (2003) 12. Joint US/EU ad hoc Committee. Reference Description of the DAML-OIL Ontology Markup Language. http://www.daml.org/2001/03/reference. (2001) 13. Klyne, G., D., Carroll, J.J. (eds.): Resource Description Framework (RDF): Concepts and Abstract Syntax. W3C Proposed Recommendation (work in progress). http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/. (2003) |
Figure 2.3 stimmt mit Fig. 3 der Vorlage überein. Ohne Hinweis auf eine Übernahme, obwohl auch die Texte weitgehend identisch sind. |
|
| [2.] Saa/Fragment 016 31 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2014-09-15 21:48:55 Singulus | Cabral et al 2004, Fragment, Gesichtet, KomplettPlagiat, SMWFragment, Saa, Schutzlevel sysop |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 16, Zeilen: 31-32 |
Quelle: Cabral et al 2004 Seite(n): 225-226, Zeilen: 225:38-39 - 226:1-2 |
|---|---|
| 2.4 Semantic Web Services
Whilst promising to revolutionize e-Commerce and enterprise-wide integration, current standard technologies for Web Services, i.e. WSDL provide only syntactic-level descrip[tions of their functionalities, without any formal definition to what the syntactic definitions might mean.] |
[Seite 225]
Whilst promising to revolutionize eCommerce and enterprise-wide integration, current standard technologies for Web services (e.g. WSDL [6]) provide only syntac- [Seite 226] tic-level descriptions of their functionalities, without any formal definition to what the syntactic definitions might mean. |
Ohne Hinweis auf eine Übernahme. Auf der nächsten Seite wird diese fortgesetzt (vgl. Fragment 017 01). |
|
Letzte Bearbeitung dieser Seite: durch Benutzer:Singulus, Zeitstempel: 20140915214458