Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Advanced Knowledge Technologies at the Midterm: Tools and Methods for the Semantic Web

By N Shadbolt, F Ciravegna, J Domingue, W Hall, E Motta, K O'Hara, D Robertson, D Sleeman, Austin Tate and Y Wilks


The University of Edinburgh and research sponsors are authorised to reproduce and distribute reprints and on-line copies for their purposes notwithstanding any copyright annotation hereon. The views and conclusions contained herein are the author’s and shouldn’t be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies or endorsements, either expressed or implied, of other parties.In a celebrated essay on the new electronic media, Marshall McLuhan wrote in 1962:Our private senses are not closed systems but are endlessly translated into each other in that experience which we call consciousness. Our extended senses, tools, technologies, through the ages, have been closed systems incapable of interplay or collective awareness. Now, in the electric age, the very\ud instantaneous nature of co-existence among our technological instruments has created a crisis quite new in human history. Our extended faculties and senses now constitute a single field of experience which demands that they become collectively conscious. Our technologies, like our private senses, now demand an interplay and ratio that makes rational co-existence possible. As long as our technologies were as slow as the wheel or the alphabet or money, the fact that\ud they were separate, closed systems was socially and psychically supportable. This is not true now when sight and sound and movement are simultaneous and global in extent. (McLuhan 1962, p.5, emphasis in original)Over forty years later, the seamless interplay that McLuhan demanded between our\ud technologies is still barely visible. McLuhan’s predictions of the spread, and increased importance, of electronic media have of course been borne out, and the worlds of business, science and knowledge storage and transfer have been revolutionised. Yet\ud the integration of electronic systems as open systems remains in its infancy.Advanced Knowledge Technologies (AKT) aims to address this problem, to create a view of knowledge and its management across its lifecycle, to research and create the\ud services and technologies that such unification will require. Half way through its sixyear span, the results are beginning to come through, and this paper will explore some of the services, technologies and methodologies that have been developed. We hope to give a sense in this paper of the potential for the next three years, to discuss the insights and lessons learnt in the first phase of the project, to articulate the challenges and issues that remain.The WWW provided the original context that made the AKT approach to knowledge\ud management (KM) possible. AKT was initially proposed in 1999, it brought together an interdisciplinary consortium with the technological breadth and complementarity to create the conditions for a unified approach to knowledge across its lifecycle. The\ud combination of this expertise, and the time and space afforded the consortium by the\ud IRC structure, suggested the opportunity for a concerted effort to develop an approach\ud to advanced knowledge technologies, based on the WWW as a basic infrastructure.The technological context of AKT altered for the better in the short period between the development of the proposal and the beginning of the project itself with the development of the semantic web (SW), which foresaw much more intelligent manipulation and querying of knowledge. The opportunities that the SW provided for e.g., more intelligent retrieval, put AKT in the centre of information technology innovation and knowledge management services; the AKT skill set would clearly be central for the exploitation of those opportunities.The SW, as an extension of the WWW, provides an interesting set of constraints to\ud the knowledge management services AKT tries to provide. As a medium for the\ud semantically-informed coordination of information, it has suggested a number of ways in which the objectives of AKT can be achieved, most obviously through the\ud provision of knowledge management services delivered over the web as opposed to the creation and provision of technologies to manage knowledge.AKT is working on the assumption that many web services will be developed and provided for users. The KM problem in the near future will be one of deciding which services are needed and of coordinating them. Many of these services will be largely or entirely legacies of the WWW, and so the capabilities of the services will vary. As well as providing useful KM services in their own right, AKT will be aiming to exploit this opportunity, by reasoning over services, brokering between them, and providing essential meta-services for SW knowledge service management.Ontologies will be a crucial tool for the SW. The AKT consortium brings a lot of expertise on ontologies together, and ontologies were always going to be a key part of the strategy. All kinds of knowledge sharing and transfer activities will be mediated by ontologies, and ontology management will be an important enabling task. Different\ud applications will need to cope with inconsistent ontologies, or with the problems that will follow the automatic creation of ontologies (e.g. merging of pre-existing\ud ontologies to create a third). Ontology mapping, and the elimination of conflicts of\ud reference, will be important tasks. All of these issues are discussed along with our\ud proposed technologies.Similarly, specifications of tasks will be used for the deployment of knowledge services over the SW, but in general it cannot be expected that in the medium term there will be standards for task (or service) specifications. The brokering metaservices\ud that are envisaged will have to deal with this heterogeneity.The emerging picture of the SW is one of great opportunity but it will not be a wellordered, certain or consistent environment. It will comprise many repositories of legacy data, outdated and inconsistent stores, and requirements for common understandings across divergent formalisms. There is clearly a role for standards to play to bring much of this context together; AKT is playing a significant role in these efforts. But standards take time to emerge, they take political power to enforce, and they have been known to stifle innovation (in the short term). AKT is keen to understand the balance between principled inference and statistical processing of web content. Logical inference on the Web is tough. Complex queries using traditional AI inference methods bring most distributed computer systems to their knees. Do we set up semantically well-behaved areas of the Web? Is any part of the Web in which\ud semantic hygiene prevails interesting enough to reason in? These and many other\ud questions need to be addressed if we are to provide effective knowledge technologies\ud for our content on the web

Topics: artificial intelligence, electronic media, semantic web, knowledge management, ontology, informatics, Artificial Intelligence Applications Institute
Publisher: Advanced Knowledge Technologies
Year: 2004
OAI identifier:

Suggested articles


  1. (2001). (2001c) ‘(LP)2, an Adaptive Algorithm for Information Extraction from Web-related Texts’
  2. (2003a) "The Semantic Grid: A Future e-Science Infrastructure" (pages 437-470) in F.Berman, A.J.G.Hey and G.Fox, Grid Computing: Making The Global Infrastructure a Reality, doi
  3. (2001). (LP) 2, an Adaptive Algorithm for Information Extraction from Web-related Texts’
  4. (2003). 3store: Efficient Bulk RDF Storage.
  5. (2000). A Constraint-Based Approach to the Description & Detection of Fitness-for-Purpose’
  6. (2002). A Lifecycle For Models of Large Multi-agent Systems’ doi
  7. (2001). A Methodological Approach to Supporting Organisational Learning. doi
  8. (1993). A Translation approach to Portable Ontology Specifications’ doi
  9. (2002). Adaptivity, Adaptability, and Reading Behaviour: Some Results from the Evaluation of a Dynamic Hypertext System’ doi
  10. (2003). Agent-based Semantic Web Services’ doi
  11. (2001). An Expert System for Evaluating the Knowledge Potential of Databases. doi
  12. (1998). An intelligent brokering service for knowledge-component reuse on the World-Wide Web,’ presented at KAW
  13. (2002). Artequakt: Generating Tailored Biographies with Automatically Annotated Fragments from the Web’
  14. (2002). Automated Support for Composition of Transformational Components in Knowledge Engineering.
  15. (2003). Automatic Ontology-Based Knowledge Extraction from Web Documents’ doi
  16. (2003). Background and Foreground Knowledge in Dynamic Ontology Construction: Viewing Text as Knowledge Maintenance’
  17. (1994). Binary constraint satisfaction problems: Some are harder than others’
  18. (2001). Caught up in the Web in
  19. (2001). Challenges in Information Extraction from Text for Knowledge Management’
  20. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. doi
  21. (2001). Conceptual Linking: Ontology-based Open Hypermedia’ Tenth World Wide Web Conference, Hong Kong. doi
  22. (1995). Corlett Eds, Taylor and Francis,
  23. (2003). CS AKTive Space: or How We Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love the Semantic Web’ doi
  24. (2003). Design of Customized Web Applications with OntoWeaver. doi
  25. (2003). Designing adaptive information extraction for the semantic web doi
  26. (2001). Eds.) Clinical Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening Assessment,
  27. (2002). Enterprise Modelling: A Declarative Approach for
  28. (2003). Experience in using RDF doi
  29. (2002). Exploiting Synergy Between Ontologies and Recommender Systems’ The Semantic Web Workshop, World Wide Web Conf.,
  30. (2001). Exploring the web with reconnaissance agents’ doi
  31. (2002). Flexible Multi-agent Protocols.
  32. (2003). Formal Support for Adaptive Workflow Systems in a Distributed Environment’ Workflow Handbook 2003, Future Strategies Inc.,
  33. (2002). GATE: A Framework and Graphical Development Environment for Robust doi
  34. (2003). I-N-C-A>: an Ontology for Mixed-initiative Synthesis Tasks’
  35. (2002). Identifying Inconsistent CSPs by Relaxation, AUCS/TR0304, doi
  36. (2002). Information Flow based ontology mapping’ On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems doi
  37. (1997). Information Flow: The Logic of Distributed Systems Cambridge: doi
  38. (2002). Initiating Organizational Memories using Ontology Network Analysis’
  39. (1992). Institutions: Abstract Model Theory for Specification and Programming’ doi
  40. (1998). Inventory Management using constraint satisfaction and knowledge refinement techniques’ doi
  41. (2003). IRS-II: A Framework and Infrastructure for Semantic Web Services’ doi
  42. (1995). Knowledge elicitation: a systematic approach, in Evaluation of human work: A practical ergonomics methodology 2 nd Edition
  43. (1995). Knowledge elicitation: a systematic approach, in Evaluation of human work: A practical ergonomics methodology 2nd Edition
  44. (2000). Knowledge Engineering and Management.
  45. (2002). Knowledge LifeCycle Management over a Distributed Architecture. Expert Update 5(3):2-19,
  46. (2001). Large scale acquisition and maintenance from the web without source access’ Handschuh, Siegfried
  47. (2003). Magpie – Towards a Semantic Web Browser’ doi
  48. (2002). Managing Reference: Ensuring Referential Integrity of Ontologies for the Semantic Web’ Asunción Gómez-Pérez doi
  49. (2003). Memory, Reasoning and Learning’ available from the UK Government Foresight Project, Cognitive Systems (
  50. (2002). MnM: Ontology driven semi-automatic or automatic support for semantic markup’ doi
  51. (2003). mSpace: interaction design for userdetermined, adaptable domain exploration in hypermedia’
  52. (2003). Ontological Mediation of Meeting Structure: Argumentation, Annotation,
  53. (1996). Ontologies: Principles, Methods and Applications. doi
  54. (2003). Ontology Extraction for Distributed Environments, Knowledge Transformation for the Semantic Web’ Frontiers
  55. (2000). Ontology-Driven Document Enrichment: Principles, Tools and Applications. doi
  56. (2002). Overview and Analysis of methodologies for building ontologies doi
  57. (2002). Plato and the Internet Cambridge:
  58. (2003). Refiner++: A Knowledge Acquisition and Refinement Tool, Dept CS,
  59. (1997). ReTax: A Step in the Automation of Taxonomic Revision’ doi
  60. (1999). Reusable Components for Knowledge Models.
  61. (2001). Search on high degree graphs’ IJCAI-2001,
  62. (1994). Seeding, evolutionary growth and reseeding: Supporting the incremental development of design environments. doi
  63. (2003). submitted) ‘Multi-strategy Definition of Annotation Services in Melita’ submitted to International Workshop on Human Language Technology for the Semantic Web and Web Services, held in conjunction with ISWC
  64. (2001). Supporting ontology-driven document enrichment within communities of practice’ doi
  65. (2001). Switching on to the Grid in
  66. (2002). Techniques for Automated Taxonomy Building: Towards Ontologies for Knowledge Management’
  67. (2003). The Evolution of the Grid" (pages 65-100) ) in F.Berman, A.J.G.Hey and G.Fox, Grid Computing: Making The Global Infrastructure a Reality,
  68. (1962). The Gutenberg Galaxy London:
  69. (2002). The Internet: A Tool for Democratic Pluralism? Science as doi
  70. (2001). The Seven Sins of Memory doi
  71. (1996). The Social Life of Documents." doi
  72. (1996). Towards multimedia thesaurus support for media-based navigation. doi
  73. (2003). Using Information-Flow Theory to Enable Semantic Interoperability’ doi
  74. (1997). Wrapper induction for information extraction’

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.