Categorisation of Semantic Web Applications

The recent success of the Semantic Web in re- search, technology and standardisation communities has also resulted in a large variety of different standards, technologies and tools. This diversity and heterogeneity goes along with an increasing complexity in assessing, evaluating, selecting and combining different approaches for the development of Semantic Web Applications (SWA). With this work we aim at lowering the entrance barrier for the development and engineering of Semantic Web Applications by presenting a clas- sification of SWAs according to the dimensions semantic tech- nology depth, information flow direction, richness of knowledge representation, semantic integration and user involvement. This categorisation helps to establish and consolidate the conceptualisation with regard to the engineering of SWAs and facilitates the comparability of different SWAs. With its requirements and benefits, the categorisation of SWAs can also serve as a guideline for practitioners looking into the application of semantic technologies within their use cases. We give an overview over popular SWAs and present, with Vakantieland and LinkedGeoData, two semantic web applica- tions with regard to the categorisation in detail. Keywords-Categorisation; Semantic Web; Web Applications;

[1]  Steven Pemberton,et al.  RDFa in XHTML: Syntax and Processing , 2008 .

[2]  Sören Auer,et al.  OntoWiki: A Tool for Social, Semantic Collaboration , 2006, CKC.

[3]  Samson W. Tu,et al.  Supporting Collaborative Ontology Development in Protégé , 2008, SEMWEB.

[4]  Jens Lehmann,et al.  Triplify: light-weight linked data publication from relational databases , 2009, WWW '09.

[5]  Michael Martin,et al.  Knowledge Engineering for Historians on the Example of the Catalogus Professorum Lipsiensis , 2010, SEMWEB.

[6]  Gerald Reif,et al.  WEESA: Web engineering for semantic Web applications , 2005, WWW '05.

[7]  Jens Lehmann,et al.  DBpedia - A crystallization point for the Web of Data , 2009, J. Web Semant..

[8]  Georg Lausen,et al.  SP^2Bench: A SPARQL Performance Benchmark , 2008, 2009 IEEE 25th International Conference on Data Engineering.

[9]  Óscar Muñoz-García,et al.  Guidelines for the Specification and Design of Large-Scale Semantic Applications , 2009, ASWC.

[10]  Satya S. Sahoo,et al.  A Survey of Current Approaches for Mapping of Relational Databases to RDF , 2009 .

[11]  Georg Lausen,et al.  SP2Bench: A SPARQL Performance Benchmark , 2008, Semantic Web Information Management.

[12]  Jeremy J. Carroll,et al.  OWL 2 Web Ontology Language RDF-Based Semantics , 2009 .

[13]  Steven Pemberton,et al.  RDFa in XHTML: Syntax and Processing A collection of attributes and processing rules for extending XHTML to support RDF , 2008 .

[14]  Ala Abu-Samaha,et al.  Eliciting Web application requirements - an industrial case study , 2007, J. Syst. Softw..

[15]  Asunción Gómez-Pérez,et al.  Towards a Component-Based Framework for Developing Semantic Web Applications , 2008, ASWC.

[16]  Christian Bizer,et al.  The Berlin SPARQL Benchmark , 2009, Int. J. Semantic Web Inf. Syst..

[17]  Florian Daniel,et al.  Turning Web Applications into Mashup Components: Issues, Models, and Solutions , 2009, ICWE.

[18]  Emanuele Della Valle,et al.  A Software Engineering Approach to Design and Development of Semantic Web Service Applications , 2006, International Semantic Web Conference.