Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

15 Years of Semantic Web: An Incomplete Survey

  • Technical Contribution
  • Published:
KI - Künstliche Intelligenz Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It has been 15 years since the first publications proposed the use of ontologies as a basis for defining information semantics on the Web starting what today is known as the Semantic Web Research Community. This work undoubtedly had a significant influence on AI as a field and in particular the knowledge representation and Reasoning Community that quickly identified new challenges and opportunities in using Description Logics in a practical setting. In this survey article, we will try to give an overview of the developments the field has gone through in these 15 years. We will look at three different aspects: the evolution of Semantic Web Language Standards, the evolution of central topics in the Semantic Web Community and the evolution of the research methodology.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://json.org/.

  2. One can look-up typical prefixes at http://prefix.cc.

  3. http://www.loa.istc.cnr.it/old/DOLCE.html.

References

  1. Baader F, Brandt S, Lutz C (2008) Pushing the EL envelope further. In: Clark K, Patel-Schneider PF (eds) In: Proceedings of the OWLED 2008 DC workshop on OWL: experiences and directions

  2. Beckett D, Berners-Lee T. Turtle—Terse RDF Triple Language. In: W3C Team submission. W3C, 14 Jan 2008. http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/turtle/

  3. Beckett D, Broekstra J. SPARQL query results XML format. In: W3C recommendation. W3C, 15 Jan 2008. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-XMLres/

  4. Beckett D, McBride B. RDF/XML syntax specification. In: W3C recommendation. W3C, 10 Feb 2004. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/

  5. Berners-Lee T, Hendler J, Lassila O (2001) The semantic web. Sci Am 284(5):34–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Birbeck M, McCarron S: CURIE Syntax 1.0—a syntax for expressing compact URIs. In: W3C Working Group Note. W3C, 16 Dec 2010. http://www.w3.org/TR/curie

  7. Biron PV, Malhotra A. XML schema part 2: datatypes second edition. In: W3C recommendation. W3C, 28 Oct 2004. http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-2-20041028/

  8. Bizer C, Cyganiak R. RDF 1.1 TriG—RDF dataset language. In: Carothers G, Seaborne A (eds) W3C recommendation. W3C, 25 Feb 2014. http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-trig-20140225/

  9. Boley H, Hallmark G, Kifer M, Paschke A, Polleres A, Reynolds D. RIF core dialect (second edition). In: W3C recommendation. W3C, 5 Feb 2013. http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-rif-core-20130205/

  10. Boley H, Kifer M. RIF basic logic dialect (second edition). In: W3C recommendation. W3C, 5 Feb 2013. http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-rif-bld-20130205/

  11. Brickley D, Guha RV, McBride B. RDF vocabulary description language 1.0: RDF schema. In: W3C recommendation. W3C, 10 Feb 2004. http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-schema-20040210/

  12. Calvanese D, De Giacomo G, Lembo D, Lenzerini M, Rosati R (2007) Tractable reasoning and efficient query answering in description logics: the DL-lite family. J Autom Reason 39(3):385–429

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Carothers G. RDF 1.1 N-quads—a line-based syntax for RDF datasets. In: W3C recommendation. W3C, 25 Feb 2014. http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-n-quads-20140225/

  14. Clark KG, Feigenbaum L, Torres E. SPARQL protocol for RDF. In: W3C recommendation. W3C, 15 Jan 2008. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-protocol/

  15. Cyganiak R, Wood D, Lanthaler M. RDF 1.1 concepts and abstract syntax. In: W3C recommendation. W3C, 25 Feb 2014. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/

  16. Davis I, Steiner T, Le Hors AJ. RDF 1.1 JSON alternate serialization (RDF/JSON). In: W3C Working Group Note. W3C, 07 Nov 2013. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-json/

  17. de Bruijn J. RIF RDF and OWL compatibility (second edition). In: W3C recommendation. W3C, 5 Feb 2013. http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-rif-rdf-owl-20130205/

  18. de Sainte Marie C, Hallmark G, Paschke A. RIF production rule dialect (second edition). In: W3C recommendation. W3C, 5 Feb 2013. http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-rif-prd-20130205/

  19. Feigenbaum L, Williams GT, Clark KG, Torres E. SPARQL 1.1 protocol. In: W3C recommendation. W3C, 21 Mar 2013. http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-sparql11-protocol-20130321/

  20. Gearon P, Passant A, Polleres A. SPARQL 1.1 update. In: W3C recommendation. W3C, 21 Mar 2013. http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-sparql11-update-20130321/

  21. Glimm B, Ogbuji C. SPARQL 1.1 entailment regimes. In: W3C recommendation. W3C, 21 Mar 2013. http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-sparql11-entailment-20130321/

  22. Golbreich C, Wallace EK. OWL 2 web ontology language—new features and rationale (second edition). In: W3C recommendation. W3C, 11 Dec 2012. http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-owl2-new-features-20121211/

  23. Grosof BN, Horrocks I, Volz R, Decker S. Description logic programs: combining logic programs with description logic. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on world wide web (WWW 2003). ACM Press and Addison Wesley, pp 48–57 (2003)

  24. Hawke S, Beckett D, Broekstra J. SPARQL query results XML format (second edition). In: W3C recommendation. W3C, 21 Mar 2013. http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-rdf-sparql-XMLres-20130321/

  25. Horridge M, Patel-Schneider PF. OWL 2 web ontology language—Manchester syntax. In: W3C Working Group Note. W3C, 27 Oct 2009. http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/NOTE-owl2-manchester-syntax-20091027/

  26. Kifer M, Boley H. RIF overview (second edition). In: W3C Working Group Note. W3C, 5 Feb 2013. http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/NOTE-rif-overview-20130205/

  27. Klyne G, Carroll JJ. Resource description framework (RDF): concepts and abstract syntax. In: W3C recommendation. W3C, 10 Feb 2004. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/

  28. Krötzsch M, Simancik F, Horrocks I. A description logic primer. CoRR arXiv:1201.4089 (2012)

  29. Malhotra A, Melton J, Walsh N. XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 functions and operators. In: W3C recommendation. W3C, 23 Jan 2007. http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-xpath-functions-20070123/

  30. Morgenstern L, Welty C, Boley H, Hallmark G. RIF primer (second edition). In: W3C Working Group Note. W3C, 5 Feb 2013. http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/NOTE-rif-primer-20130205/

  31. Motik B, Parsia B, Patel-Schneider PF. OWL 2 web ontology language—XML serialization. In: W3C recommendation. W3C, 27 Oct 2009. http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-xml-serialization-20091027/

  32. Motik B, Patel-Schneider PF, Cuenca Grau B. OWL 2 web ontology language—direct semantics (second edition). In: W3C recommendation. W3C, 11 Dec 2012. http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-owl2-direct-semantics-20121211/

  33. Motik B, Patel-Schneider PF, Parsia B. OWL 2 web ontology language: structural specification and functional-style syntax (second edition). In: W3C recommendation. W3C, 11 Dec 2012. http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-owl2-syntax-20121211/

  34. Ogbuji C. SPARQL 1.1 graph store HTTP protocol. In: W3C recommendation. W3C, 21 Mar 2013. http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-sparql11-http-rdf-update-20130321/

  35. Patel-Schneider PF, Motik B. OWL 2 web ontology language—mapping to RDF graphs (second edition). In: W3C recommendation. W3C, 11 Dec 2012. http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-owl2-mapping-to-rdf-20121211/

  36. Polleres A, Boley H, Kifer M. RIF datatypes and built-ins 1.0 (second edition). In: W3C recommendation. W3C, 5 Feb 2013. http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-rif-dtb-20130205/

  37. Prud’hommeaux E, Buil-Aranda C. SPARQL 1.1 federated query. In: W3C recommendation. W3C, 21 Mar 2013. http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-sparql11-federated-query-20130321/

  38. Prud’hommeaux E, Seaborne A. SPARQL query language for RDF. In: W3C recommendation. W3C, 15 Jan 2008. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/

  39. Schneider M. OWL 2 web ontology language—RDF-based semantics (second edition). In: W3C recommendation. W3C, 11 Dec 2012. http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-owl2-rdf-based-semantics-20121211/

  40. Seaborne A. SPARQL 1.1 query results CSV and TSV formats. In: W3C recommendation. W3C, 21 Mar 2013. http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-sparql11-esults-csv-tsv-20130321/

  41. Seaborne A. SPARQL 1.1 query results JSON format. In: W3C recommendation. W3C, 21 Mar 2013. http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-sparql11-results-json-20130321/

  42. Sporny M, Longley D, Kellogg G, Lanthaler M, Lindstrm N. JSON-LD 1.0—a JSON-based serialization for linked data. In: Sporny M, Kellogg G, Lanthaler M (eds) W3C recommendation. W3C, 16 Jan 2014. http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-json-ld-20140116/

  43. Stuckenschmidt H, Schuhmacher M, Knopp J, Meilicke C, Scherp A. On the status of experimental research on the semantic web. In: The semantic web—ISWC 2013: 12th international semantic web conference, lecture notes in computer science, vol 8218, pp 591–606 (2013)

  44. ter Horst HJ (2005) Completeness, decidability and complexity of entailment for RDF schema and a semantic extension involving the OWL vocabulary. J Web Semant 3(2–3):79–115. doi:10.1016/j.websem.2005.06.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. The W3C SPARQL Working Group. SPARQL 1.1 overview. In: W3C recommendation. W3C, 21 Mar 2013. http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-sparql11-overview-20130321/

  46. Tichy W, Lukowicz P, Prechelt L, Heinz E (1995) Experimental evaluation in computer science: a quantitative study. J Syst Softw 28(1):9–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Williams GT. SPARQL 1.1 service description. In: W3C recommendation. W3C, 21 Mar 2013. http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-sparql11-service-description-20130321/

  48. Wood D. Whats new in RDF 1.1. In: W3C recommendation. W3C, 25 Feb 2014. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-new/

  49. Zimmermann A. RDF 1.1: on semantics of RDF datasets. In: W3C Working Group Note. W3C, 25 Feb 2014. http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/NOTE-rdf11-datasets-20140225/

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Artificial Intelligence, University of Ulm, 89081, Ulm, Germany

    Birte Glimm

  2. Chair of Artificial Intelligence, University of Mannheim, 68161, Mannheim, Germany

    Heiner Stuckenschmidt

Authors
  1. Birte Glimm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Heiner Stuckenschmidt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Birte Glimm.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Glimm, B., Stuckenschmidt, H. 15 Years of Semantic Web: An Incomplete Survey. Künstl Intell 30, 117–130 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13218-016-0424-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13218-016-0424-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation