Reasoning about Social Semantic Web Applications using String Similarity and Frame Logic

Social semantic Web or Web 3.0 application gained major attention from academia and industry in recent times. Such applications try to take advantage of user supplied meta data, using ideas from the semantic Web initiative, in order to provide better services. An open problem is the formalization of such meta data, due to its complex and often inconsistent nature. A possible solution to inconsistencies are string similarity metrics which are explained and analyzed. A study of performance and applicability in a frame logic environment is conducted on the case of agent reasoning about multiple domains in TaOPis - a social semantic Web application for self-organizing communities. Results show that the NYSIIS metric yields surprisingly good results on Croatian words and phrases

When the Social Meets the Semantic: Social Semantic Web or Web 2.5

The social trend is progressively becoming the key feature of current Web understanding (Web 2.0). This trend appears irrepressible as millions of users, directly or indirectly connected through social networks, are able to share and exchange any kind of content, information, feeling or experience. Social interactions radically changed the user approach. Furthermore, the socialization of content around social objects provides new unexplored commercial marketplaces and business opportunities. On the other hand, the progressive evolution of the web towards the Semantic Web (or Web 3.0) provides a formal representation of knowledge based on the meaning of data. When the social meets semantics, the social intelligence can be formed in the context of a semantic environment in which user and community profiles as well as any kind of interaction is semantically represented (Semantic Social Web). This paper first provides a conceptual analysis of the second and third version of the Web model. That discussion is aimed at the definition of a middle concept (Web 2.5) resulting in the convergence and integration of key features from the current and next generation Web. The Semantic Social Web (Web 2.5) has a clear theoretical meaning, understood as the bridge between the overused Web 2.0 and the not yet mature Semantic Web (Web 3.0).Pileggi, SF.; Fernández Llatas, C.; Traver Salcedo, V. (2012). When the Social Meets the Semantic: Social Semantic Web or Web 2.5. Future Internet. 4(3):852-854. doi:10.3390/fi4030852S85285443Chi, E. H. (2008). The Social Web: Research and Opportunities. Computer, 41(9), 88-91. doi:10.1109/mc.2008.401Bulterman, D. C. A. (2001). SMIL 2.0 part 1: overview, concepts, and structure. IEEE Multimedia, 8(4), 82-88. doi:10.1109/93.959106Boll, S. (2007). MultiTube--Where Web 2.0 and Multimedia Could Meet. IEEE Multimedia, 14(1), 9-13. doi:10.1109/mmul.2007.17Fraternali, P., Rossi, G., & Sánchez-Figueroa, F. (2010). Rich Internet Applications. IEEE Internet Computing, 14(3), 9-12. doi:10.1109/mic.2010.76Lassila, O., & Hendler, J. (2007). Embracing «Web 3.0». IEEE Internet Computing, 11(3), 90-93. doi:10.1109/mic.2007.52Dikaiakos, M. D., Katsaros, D., Mehra, P., Pallis, G., & Vakali, A. (2009). Cloud Computing: Distributed Internet Computing for IT and Scientific Research. IEEE Internet Computing, 13(5), 10-13. doi:10.1109/mic.2009.103Mangione-Smith, W. H. (1998). Mobile computing and smart spaces. IEEE Concurrency, 6(4), 5-7. doi:10.1109/4434.736391Greaves, M. (2007). Semantic Web 2.0. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 22(2), 94-96. doi:10.1109/mis.2007.40Bojars, U., Breslin, J. G., Peristeras, V., Tummarello, G., & Decker, S. (2008). Interlinking the Social Web with Semantics. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 23(3), 29-40. doi:10.1109/mis.2008.50Definition of Web 2.0http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.htmlZhang, D., Guo, B., & Yu, Z. (2011). The Emergence of Social and Community Intelligence. Computer, 44(7), 21-28. doi:10.1109/mc.2011.65Pentlan, A. (2005). Socially aware, computation and communication. Computer, 38(3), 33-40. doi:10.1109/mc.2005.104Staab, S., Domingos, P., Mika, P., Golbeck, J., Li Ding, Finin, T., … Vallacher, R. R. (2005). Social Networks Applied. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 20(1), 80-93. doi:10.1109/mis.2005.16The Semantic Webhttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-semantic-webDecker, S., Melnik, S., van Harmelen, F., Fensel, D., Klein, M., Broekstra, J., … Horrocks, I. (2000). The Semantic Web: the roles of XML and RDF. IEEE Internet Computing, 4(5), 63-73. doi:10.1109/4236.877487OWL Web Ontology Language Overviewhttp://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/Vetere, G., & Lenzerini, M. (2005). Models for semantic interoperability in service-oriented architectures. IBM Systems Journal, 44(4), 887-903. doi:10.1147/sj.444.0887Fensel, D., & Musen, M. A. (2001). The semantic web: a brain for humankind. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 16(2), 24-25. doi:10.1109/mis.2001.920595Shadbolt, N., Berners-Lee, T., & Hall, W. (2006). The Semantic Web Revisited. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21(3), 96-101. doi:10.1109/mis.2006.62Dodds, P. S., & Danforth, C. M. (2009). Measuring the Happiness of Large-Scale Written Expression: Songs, Blogs, and Presidents. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11(4), 441-456. doi:10.1007/s10902-009-9150-9Pang, B., & Lee, L. (2008). Opinion Mining and Sentiment Analysis. Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval, 2(1–2), 1-135. doi:10.1561/1500000011Thelwall, M., Buckley, K., & Paltoglou, G. (2011). Sentiment strength detection for the social web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(1), 163-173. doi:10.1002/asi.21662Blogmeterhttp://www.blogmeter.it/Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2010). Social Network Sensors for Early Detection of Contagious Outbreaks. PLoS ONE, 5(9), e12948. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0012948Jansen, B. J., Zhang, M., Sobel, K., & Chowdury, A. (2009). Twitter power: Tweets as electronic word of mouth. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(11), 2169-2188. doi:10.1002/asi.21149Bernal, P. A. (2010). Web 2.5: The Symbiotic Web. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 24(1), 25-37. doi:10.1080/13600860903570145Mikroyannidis, A. (2007). Toward a Social Semantic Web. Computer, 40(11), 113-115. doi:10.1109/mc.2007.405Jung, J. J. (2012). Computational reputation model based on selecting consensus choices: An empirical study on semantic wiki platform. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(10), 9002-9007. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.02.03

THE SEMANTIC WEB AND TURNS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE

This research is a theoretical investigation of the semantic Web in light of the turns of social science. Social science has experienced several turns to have better understandings of social realities. If it is consistent with the turns, then the semantic Web is expected to have better representation of social realities than the conventional information systems. There are two major languages in the semantic Web: RDF and OWL. It is revealed that describing concepts by RDF conforms to the idea of phenomenology. Since RDF and OWL are based on the open-world assumption, the semantic Web is considered to be consistent with the linguistic turn. With the high consistency with social science, the semantic Web can be a good candidate of IS research topics. IS research is expected to contribute to the development of the semantic web, and the development of methodology in particula

Dependency Updates and Reasoning in KiWi

KiWi is a framework for semantic social software applica- tions that combines the Wiki philosophy with Semantic Web technolo- gies. Applications based on KiWi can therefore leverage i.a. reasoning and versioning to follow both aspects and even go beyond existing tech- nologies. For example, KiWi allows composition of content items, which poses a challenge to the versioning system. In this paper we discuss ver- sioning of composed content items and challenges related to reasoning in collaborative social software, as both topics are concerned with updates on the application state