RR2009: ****deadline extension****

2009-06-27 Thread Michael Kifer 

 Deadline extended by one week! 

Apologies for multiple postings.
Due to many requests, the deadline for RR2009 has been extended by one week.


 *** DEADLINE EXTENSION ***

 The Third International Conference on
Web Reasoning and Rule Systems (RR 2009)

http://www.rr-conference.org/RR2009

Chantilly, Virginia, USA
   October 25-26, 2009

 Co-located with the International Semantic Web Conference '09


*New deadline Abstract submission* : July 5, 2009

*New deadline Paper submission* : July 12, 2009


The International Conference on Web Reasoning and Rule Systems (RR) is
a major forum for discussion and dissemination of new results
concerning Web Reasoning and Rule Systems. RR 2009 builds on the
success of the first two International Conferences on Web Reasoning
and Rule Systems, held in 2007 in Innsbruck and in and 2008 in
Karlsruhe, which received enthusiastic support from the Web Rules
community. In 2009, RR will continue the excellence of the new series
and aim to attract the best Web Reasoning and Rules researchers from
all over the world.

Suggested topics include the following, which is not to be considered
as an exhaustive list:

  *  Representation techniques for web-based knowledge
  *  Acquisition of rules and ontologies by knowledge extraction
  *  Combining open and closed-world reasoning
  *  Combining rules and ontologies
  *  Design and analysis of reasoning languages
  *  Efficiency and benchmarking
  *  Implemented tools and systems
  *  Foundations and applications related to relevant standardization
 bodies such as the W3C Rule Interchange Format (RIF), Web Ontology
 Language (OWL2) and SPARQL working groups, or the W3C Uncertainty
 Reasoning for the World Wide Web Incubator Group, etc.
  *  Ontology usability
  *  Ontology languages and their relationships
  *  Querying and optimization
  *  Rules and ontology management (such as inconsistency handling and
 evolution)
  *  Reasoning with uncertainty and under inconsistency
  *  Reasoning with constraints
  *  Rule languages and systems
  *  Rule interchange formats and Rule markup languages
  *  Scalability vs. expressivity of reasoning on the web
  *  Approximate reasoning techniques for the Web
  *  Integration of statistical methods and symbolic reasoning
  *  Semantic Web Services modeling and applications
  *  Web and Semantic Web applications and experience papers



   SUBMISSION DETAILS

Papers for past conferences were published in the Springer LNCS series
   (acceptance pending for this year).  Papers may be accepted as:

  *  full papers (15 pages in the proceedings)

  *  short papers (8 pages in the proceedings)

  *  posters (2 pages in the proceedings).

The stated lengths include title, abstract and list of references. All
papers should be formatted according to the Springer LNCS style (see
http://www.springer.com/comp/lncs/Authors.html), and must be in PDF
format. Submission is via EasyChair, at
http://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=rr2009



IMPORTANT DATES

  *  Abstract submission: July 5, 2009

  *  Paper submission: July 12, 2009

  *  Acceptance decisions: August 8, 2009

  *  Camera-ready papers due: August 25, 2009



   PROGRAM COMMITTEE

 Grigoris Antoniou   FORTH-ICS (GR)
 Marcelo Arenas  PUC Chile (CL)
 Leopoldo Bertossi   Carleton University (CA)
 Piero Bonatti   Univ. of Naples Frederico II (IT)
 Carlos Damasio  Universidade Nova de Lisboa (PT)
 Wlodek Drabent  IPI PAN Warszawa (PL)
 Bernardo Cuenca GrauUniversity of Oxford  (UK)
 Volker Haarslev Concordia University (CA)
 Giovambattista IanniUniv. of Calabria (IT)
 Manolis Koubarakis  National&Kapodistrian Univ. of Athens (GR)
 Domenico Lembo  DIS, Univ. di Roma "La Sapienza" (IT)
 Thomas Lukasiewicz  Computing Lab. Univ. of Oxford (UK)
 Francesca Alessandra Lisi   Universita degli Studi di Bari (IT)
 Wolfgang MayUniv. Goettingen (DE)
 David PearceUniversidad Politécnica de Madrid (ES)
 Enrico Pontelli New Mexico State University (US)
 Guilin Qi   Univ. of Karlsruhe (DE)
 Marie-Christine Rousset  Univ. of Grenoble (FR)
 Sebastian Rudolph   Institute AIFB, University of Karlsruhe (DE)
 Sebastian Schaffert Salzburg Research Forschungsgesellschaf (AT)
 Michael Sintek  DFKI GmbH  (DE)
 Giorgos Stamou  National Tech. University of Athens (GR)
 Heiner Stuckenschm

Re: .htaccess a major bottleneck to Semantic Web adoption / Was: Re: RDFa vs RDF/XML and content negotiation

2009-06-27 Thread Toby A Inkster 

On 27 Jun 2009, at 11:25, Melvin Carvalho wrote:


What happens if you put them in one big  tree and use the
@content attribute?


view-source:http://ontologi.es/rail/routes/gb/VTB1.xhtml

--
Toby A Inkster

Re: .htaccess a major bottleneck to Semantic Web adoption / Was: Re: RDFa vs RDF/XML and content negotiation

2009-06-27 Thread Kingsley Idehen 

Martin Hepp (UniBW) wrote:
So if this "hidden div / span" approach is not feasible, we got a 
problem.


The reason is that, as beautiful the idea is of using RDFa to make a) 
the human-readable presentation and b) the machine-readable meta-data 
link to the same literals, the problematic is it in reality once the 
structure of a) and b) are very different.


For very simple property-value pairs, embedding RDFa markup is no 
problem. But if you have a bit more complexity at the conceptual level 
and in particular if there are significant differences to the 
structure of the presentation (e.g. in terms of granularity, ordering 
of elements, etc.), it gets very, very messy and hard to maintain.


And you give up the clear separation of concerns between the 
conceptual level and the presentation level that XML brought about.


Maybe one should tell Google that this is not cloaking if SW meta-data 
is embedded...

Yes.

Ideally, they should figure that out from the self-describing nature of 
the RDF based metadata exposed by the embedded RDFa -- assuming they are 
doing real RDFa processing :-)



Kingsley


But the snippet basically indicates that we should not recommend this 
practice.





Martin


Kingsley Idehen wrote:

Mark Birbeck wrote:

Hi Martin,

 
b) download RDFa snippet that just represents the RDF/XML content 
(i.e. such
that it does not have to be consolidated with the "presentation 
level" part

of the Web page.



By coincidence, I just read this:

  Hidden div's -- don't do it!
  It can be tempting to add all the content relevant for a rich snippet
  in one place on the page, mark it up, and then hide the entire block
  of text using CSS or other techniques. Don't do this! Mark up the
  content where it already exists. Google will not show content from
  hidden div's in Rich Snippets, and worse, this can be considered
  cloaking by Google's spam detection systems. [1]

Regards,

Mark

[1] 
 



  

Martin/Mark,

Time to make a sample RDFa doc that includes very detailed GR based 
metadata.


Mark: Should we be describing our docs for Google, fundamentally? I 
really think Google should actually recalibrate back to the Web etc..








--


Regards,

Kingsley Idehen   Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com

Linked Data and DBpedia in German news

2009-06-27 Thread Juan Sequeda 
Just saw this on the DBpedia wiki

http://blog.dbpedia.org/2009/06/27/3sat-tv-magazine-features-linked-data-and-dbpedia/

Congrats to all the DBpedia team! This is a great presentation and easy to
understand. Hopefully there could be an english version.

Cheers

Juan Sequeda, Ph.D Student
Dept. of Computer Sciences
The University of Texas at Austin
www.juansequeda.com
www.semanticwebaustin.org

RR 2009 abstracts due!

2009-06-27 Thread Axel Polleres 

 Abstract submission deadline approaching! 

Apologies for multiple postings

   SUBMISSION DEADLINE APPROACHING

The Third International Conference on
   Web Reasoning and Rule Systems (RR 2009)

   http://www.rr-conference.org/RR2009

   Chantilly, Virginia, USA
 October 25-26, 2009

Co-located with the International Semantic Web Conference '09


   *  Abstract submission: June 28, 2009

   *  Paper submission: July 4, 2009


The International Conference on Web Reasoning and Rule Systems (RR) is
a major forum for discussion and dissemination of new results
concerning Web Reasoning and Rule Systems. RR 2009 builds on the
success of the first two International Conferences on Web Reasoning
and Rule Systems, held in 2007 in Innsbruck and in and 2008 in
Karlsruhe, which received enthusiastic support from the Web Rules
community. In 2009, RR will continue the excellence of the new series
and aim to attract the best Web Reasoning and Rules researchers from
all over the world.

Suggested topics include the following, which is not to be considered
as an exhaustive list:

 *  Representation techniques for web-based knowledge
 *  Acquisition of rules and ontologies by knowledge extraction
 *  Combining open and closed-world reasoning
 *  Combining rules and ontologies
 *  Design and analysis of reasoning languages
 *  Efficiency and benchmarking
 *  Implemented tools and systems
 *  Foundations and applications related to relevant
standardization bodies such as the W3C Rule
Interchange Format (RIF), Web Ontology Language (OWL2) and
SPARQL working groups, or the W3C Uncertainty Reasoning for the
World Wide Web Incubator Group, etc.
 *  Ontology usability
 *  Ontology languages and their relationships
 *  Querying and optimization
 *  Rules and ontology management (such as inconsistency handling and
 evolution)
 *  Reasoning with uncertainty and under inconsistency
 *  Reasoning with constraints
 *  Rule languages and systems
 *  Rule interchange formats and Rule markup languages
 *  Scalability vs. expressivity of reasoning on the web
 *  Approximate reasoning techniques for the Web
 *  Integration of statistical methods and symbolic reasoning
 *  Semantic Web Services modeling and applications
 *  Web and Semantic Web applications and experience papers



  SUBMISSION DETAILS

Papers for past conferences were published in the Springer LNCS series
  (acceptance pending for this year).  Papers may be accepted as:

 *  full papers (15 pages in the proceedings)

 *  short papers (8 pages in the proceedings)

 *  posters (2 pages in the proceedings).

The stated lengths include title, abstract and list of references. All
papers should be formatted according to the Springer LNCS style (see
http://www.springer.com/comp/lncs/Authors.html), and must be in PDF
format. Submission is via EasyChair, at
http://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=rr2009



   IMPORTANT DATES

 *  Abstract submission: June 28, 2009

 *  Paper submission: July 4, 2009

 *  Acceptance decisions: August 1, 2009

 *  Camera-ready papers due: August 25, 2009



  PROGRAM COMMITTEE

Grigoris Antoniou   FORTH-ICS (GR)
Marcelo Arenas  PUC Chile (CL)
Leopoldo Bertossi   Carleton University (CA)
Piero Bonatti   Univ. of Naples Frederico II (IT)
Carlos Damasio  Universidade Nova de Lisboa (PT)
Wlodek Drabent  IPI PAN Warszawa (PL)
Bernardo Cuenca GrauUniversity of Oxford  (UK)
Volker Haarslev Concordia University (CA)
Giovambattista IanniUniv. of Calabria (IT)
Manolis Koubarakis  National&Kapodistrian Univ. of Athens (GR)
Domenico Lembo  DIS, Univ. di Roma "La Sapienza" (IT)
Thomas Lukasiewicz  Computing Lab. Univ. of Oxford (UK)
Francesca Alessandra Lisi   Universita degli Studi di Bari (IT)
Wolfgang MayUniv. Goettingen (DE)
David PearceUniversidad Politécnica de Madrid (ES)
Enrico Pontelli New Mexico State University (US)
Guilin Qi   Univ. of Karlsruhe (DE)
Marie-Christine Rousset  Univ. of Grenoble (FR)
Sebastian Rudolph   Institute AIFB, University of Karlsruhe (DE)
Sebastian Schaffert Salzburg Research Forschungsgesellschaf (AT)
Michael Sintek  DFKI GmbH  (DE)
Giorgos Stamou  National Tech. University of Athens (GR)
Heiner Stuckenschmidt   Univ. of Mannheim (DE)
York Sure   AIFB - Universitaet Karlsruhe (DE)
Peter Szeredi   Budapest Univ of Tech. and Eco

Re: .htaccess a major bottleneck to Semantic Web adoption / Was: Re: RDFa vs RDF/XML and content negotiation

2009-06-27 Thread Melvin Carvalho 
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Martin Hepp
(UniBW) wrote:
> So if this "hidden div / span" approach is not feasible, we got a problem.
>
> The reason is that, as beautiful the idea is of using RDFa to make a) the
> human-readable presentation and b) the machine-readable meta-data link to
> the same literals, the problematic is it in reality once the structure of a)
> and b) are very different.
>
> For very simple property-value pairs, embedding RDFa markup is no problem.
> But if you have a bit more complexity at the conceptual level and in
> particular if there are significant differences to the structure of the
> presentation (e.g. in terms of granularity, ordering of elements, etc.), it
> gets very, very messy and hard to maintain.
>
> And you give up the clear separation of concerns between the conceptual
> level and the presentation level that XML brought about.
>
> Maybe one should tell Google that this is not cloaking if SW meta-data is
> embedded...
>
> But the snippet basically indicates that we should not recommend this
> practice.

What happens if you put them in one big  tree and use the
@content attribute?

>
> Martin
>
>
> Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>
>> Mark Birbeck wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Martin,
>>>
>>>

 b) download RDFa snippet that just represents the RDF/XML content (i.e.
 such
 that it does not have to be consolidated with the "presentation level"
 part
 of the Web page.

>>>
>>> By coincidence, I just read this:
>>>
>>>  Hidden div's -- don't do it!
>>>  It can be tempting to add all the content relevant for a rich snippet
>>>  in one place on the page, mark it up, and then hide the entire block
>>>  of text using CSS or other techniques. Don't do this! Mark up the
>>>  content where it already exists. Google will not show content from
>>>  hidden div's in Rich Snippets, and worse, this can be considered
>>>  cloaking by Google's spam detection systems. [1]
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Martin/Mark,
>>
>> Time to make a sample RDFa doc that includes very detailed GR based
>> metadata.
>>
>> Mark: Should we be describing our docs for Google, fundamentally? I really
>> think Google should actually recalibrate back to the Web etc..
>>
>>
>
> --
> --
> martin hepp
> e-business & web science research group
> universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen
>
> e-mail:  mh...@computer.org
> phone:   +49-(0)89-6004-4217
> fax:     +49-(0)89-6004-4620
> www:     http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group)
>        http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal)
> skype:   mfhepp twitter: mfhepp
>
> Check out the GoodRelations vocabulary for E-Commerce on the Web of Data!
> 
>
> Webcast:
> http://www.heppnetz.de/projects/goodrelations/webcast/
>
> Talk at the Semantic Technology Conference 2009: "Semantic Web-based
> E-Commerce: The GoodRelations Ontology"
> http://tinyurl.com/semtech-hepp
>
> Tool for registering your business:
> http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/tools/goodrelations-annotator/
>
> Overview article on Semantic Universe:
> http://tinyurl.com/goodrelations-universe
>
> Project page and resources for developers:
> http://purl.org/goodrelations/
>
> Tutorial materials:
> Tutorial at ESWC 2009: The Web of Data for E-Commerce in One Day: A Hands-on
> Introduction to the GoodRelations Ontology, RDFa, and Yahoo! SearchMonkey
>
> http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelations_Tutorial_ESWC2009
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Visualization of domain and range

2009-06-27 Thread Bernhard Schandl 

Tim,

(sorry, somehow your message didn't make it to me ...)


On 26/6/09 18:22, Tim rdf wrote:

[1] http://www.ifs.univie.ac.at/schandl/2009/06/domain+range_bad.png

is indicating that

foaf:holdsAccount rdfs:domain foaf:Agent; rdfs:range  
foaf:OnlineAccount .


Is constraining a property with BOTH a domain and range a good design
pattern? It seems rather short-sighted with respect to reuse and  
extension.


Domain and range are no restrictions in that sense; rather they extend  
the possible (!) interpretations of resources. Hence you don't say,  
"you can use foaf:holdsAccount only with foaf:Agent and  
foaf:OnlineAccount", but rather, "if something has a foaf:holdsAccount  
property then you can interpret it as foaf:Agent, and the value of  
this property can be interpreted as foaf:OnlineAccount".


IMO this is one of the greatest strengths of modelling with RDF(S) and  
OWL.


Best, Bernhard

Re: .htaccess a major bottleneck to Semantic Web adoption / Was: Re: RDFa vs RDF/XML and content negotiation

2009-06-27 Thread Martin Hepp (UniBW) 

So if this "hidden div / span" approach is not feasible, we got a problem.

The reason is that, as beautiful the idea is of using RDFa to make a) 
the human-readable presentation and b) the machine-readable meta-data 
link to the same literals, the problematic is it in reality once the 
structure of a) and b) are very different.


For very simple property-value pairs, embedding RDFa markup is no 
problem. But if you have a bit more complexity at the conceptual level 
and in particular if there are significant differences to the structure 
of the presentation (e.g. in terms of granularity, ordering of elements, 
etc.), it gets very, very messy and hard to maintain.


And you give up the clear separation of concerns between the conceptual 
level and the presentation level that XML brought about.


Maybe one should tell Google that this is not cloaking if SW meta-data 
is embedded...


But the snippet basically indicates that we should not recommend this 
practice.


Martin


Kingsley Idehen wrote:

Mark Birbeck wrote:

Hi Martin,

 
b) download RDFa snippet that just represents the RDF/XML content 
(i.e. such
that it does not have to be consolidated with the "presentation 
level" part

of the Web page.



By coincidence, I just read this:

  Hidden div's -- don't do it!
  It can be tempting to add all the content relevant for a rich snippet
  in one place on the page, mark it up, and then hide the entire block
  of text using CSS or other techniques. Don't do this! Mark up the
  content where it already exists. Google will not show content from
  hidden div's in Rich Snippets, and worse, this can be considered
  cloaking by Google's spam detection systems. [1]

Regards,

Mark

[1] 
 



  

Martin/Mark,

Time to make a sample RDFa doc that includes very detailed GR based 
metadata.


Mark: Should we be describing our docs for Google, fundamentally? I 
really think Google should actually recalibrate back to the Web etc..





--
--
martin hepp
e-business & web science research group
universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen

e-mail:  mh...@computer.org
phone:   +49-(0)89-6004-4217
fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620
www: http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group)
http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal)
skype:   mfhepp 
twitter: mfhepp


Check out the GoodRelations vocabulary for E-Commerce on the Web of Data!


Webcast:
http://www.heppnetz.de/projects/goodrelations/webcast/

Talk at the Semantic Technology Conference 2009: 
"Semantic Web-based E-Commerce: The GoodRelations Ontology"

http://tinyurl.com/semtech-hepp

Tool for registering your business:
http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/tools/goodrelations-annotator/

Overview article on Semantic Universe:
http://tinyurl.com/goodrelations-universe

Project page and resources for developers:
http://purl.org/goodrelations/

Tutorial materials:
Tutorial at ESWC 2009: The Web of Data for E-Commerce in One Day: A Hands-on 
Introduction to the GoodRelations Ontology, RDFa, and Yahoo! SearchMonkey

http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelations_Tutorial_ESWC2009




begin:vcard
fn:Martin Hepp
n:Hepp;Martin
org:Bundeswehr University Munich;E-Business and Web Science Research Group
adr:;;Werner-Heisenberg-Web 39;Neubiberg;;D-85577;Germany
email;internet:mh...@computer.org
tel;work:+49 89 6004 4217
tel;pager:skype: mfhepp
url:http://www.heppnetz.de
version:2.1
end:vcard