Paper 1

Paper Title: The Semantic Web Vision: Where Are We?

Cardoso, J.;
Intelligent Systems, IEEE
Volume 22, Issue 5, Sept.-Oct. 2007 Page(s):84 – 88

Three Critical Questions

Monday

Group 1:

Member Name:Amarthaluri Abilash, Bharadwaz Somavarapu

1. How far can the web’s current content serve as proxy for semantic web?

2. If ontology production became easy, would ontologies propagate, requiring ontology matching?

3. Can there be any possibilities of making innocuous ambiguity harmful and ambiguity control costly?

Group 2:

Member Name:Sairam kota

Q)The present paper “ The semantic web vision: Where are we..?” is a nice and easy to understand paper which does not need you to spend long hours scratching your head over complex programs or algorithms. The idea is fairly simple in the sense the author asks a group of eminent people over their personal and organizational choices over semantic web and then extrapolates the finding to predict the current position of the growth of semantic web as a whole.
Q)But frankly speaking, what makes this paper simple also makes its information partially incomplete. Especially with the subtitle chosen as “where are we..?” the author made our team think that he will be discussing the amount of progress done or the amount of progress yet to be done by the semantic web vision. But, after the introduction it turns to be just figures and numbers obtained from his survey without a reference to the growth of field of semantics a whole and progress it achieved. This kind of treatment of subject was expected by our team upon reading the sub title of the paper.
Q)Additionally there were places in the paper where the author suggests interesting facts and abruptly abandons it and jumps onto a new one without any reason or explanation. For example when the author talks about an ontology language he says that a study in 2002 suggested XOL( XML based ontology exchange language) to be the next popular language, and when he moves onto the year 2007, he says OWL is now famous and not XOL. Any information at least one line onto what was the fate of XOL and its reason for demise would have been helpful.
Q)Some more information about the two famous cases briefly explained would have aptly shown the improvement which occurs when we move from a normal web to a semantic web.
Q)The use of a group to find about a trend is good, but to select a size which is in hundreds might have not properly justified the true capability of the technology accurately.

Group 3:

Member Name: Sunil Kakaraparthi

1. The author says that the major objectives of the semantic web such as the data integration and data sharing can be achieved using the RDF scheme alone, then why does many researchers prefer OWL to RDF?
2. In a survey explained in the paper, some people have mentioned that they use ontology to separate the domain knowledge and operational knowledge, and some people to generate the code and exchange data. Can the code be automatically generated using ontology without any human interaction?
3. Several techniques such as mapping, merging, aligning and integration are mentioned to expand the usage ontology in more applications. Which of these methods be best suited for the better performance?
4. The author has mentioned several surveys on demographics, tools and ontology specifics and mentioned the best proposed tools by most of the people. What factors have been considered in conducting this survey? Do the compatibility and interoperability issues have also been considered in these surveys?

Group 4:

Member Name: Ramya Devabhakthuni , Prashant Sunkari

• Survey estimates show that more than 75% of the respondents are not deploying there ontology-based system into production in immediate future. Is this situation because of the unavailability of any key software component?
• Survey show OWL and RDFS are the most popular languages used by the Semantic Web developers. Are there any specific fields of study where one is preferred over other?
• How is Ontological engineering field important in the development of the Semantic Web technology?

Group 5:

Member Name: Lokesh Reddy Gokul

• How much convincing are the results of survey? At present we can’t rely on the survey as it is one year old. There must be many changes in the facts because of research in last one year. What might be the current statistics? How much they will differ from the statistics provided by the author?
• Why are standard methods to develop ontologies not in use? What is the actual reason for using different methods for developing ontologies? And why are different industries not following any standard pattern for developing ontologies?
• What will be the future of semantic web? How much is the growth rate? (In the perspective that, how much is the usage of ontologies in various domains changing?)

Group 6:

Member Name: Palla Sangram

1) What is the main reason for the developers to switch from wait and see approach to deploy SW applications?
2) How can Semantic Web applications add value and competitive advantage to people in industry?
3) In the paper the author had mentioned that the OWL tool will help the semantic web to explore. How is this possible?

Group 7:

Member Name: Kishore Kumar Mannava & Mohana Siri Kamineni

• In the semantic web who will take initiative for “globalization”, the “common concepts and and standards for exchange of information”?
• What kinds of “mappings” are to be taken while developing the “semantic web” projects and how can we make ontologies “interoperable”?
• How much impact can the evolution of the “semantic web” make on the “business” of the several organizations?
• Author describes about the “software methodology” used by “semantic web”, what type of software process does semantic web come under?

Group 8:

Member Name:Hema Snigdha.P ,Lakshmi Bhavani.N

1)The survey results give an example of the usage of semantic web by vodafone and oracle and that vodafone has suceeded in its revenue,theres nothing mentioned about oracle,was it a success or failure.
2) Is the semantic web fit in purpose tool for all the domains.
3)Depending on the application in semantic web each context must have a separate rule which is relevant to the domain,which is surmised as harder to develop.

Wednesday

Group 1:

Member Name:pbk,voruganti,lattupalli

1.Ontology mapping alone does not alone provide sufficient success of SWT ,Don’t you think ontology integration, ontology merging and ontology aligning should all follow the mapping in order to make the SWT successful?

2. Most of the survey shows supporting the semantic web evolution in few years.Are we in the age where the revolutionary changes take place .Are we at the threshold to enter new dynamics in the web system.?

3.Suppose that In a fewer years ,a group will be definitely emerge using the semantic web but a few might not be will be using such a critical era how is that the interoperability between the emerged system and persistent system can managed?

4.According to the survey majority of the people do not use a methodology to develop an ontology.The two different systems when made intelligent with ontologies must understand each others structure and information to interact.If no single methodology is used to build ,will it not make the compatability of the systems a major issue in future?

Group 2:

Member Name: Addagalla Satyanaga Manoj Kumar; Bobbili Shrinath; Gopinath, Sreejith

1) The survey covers only a set of audience like DBWorld, SemanticWeb, googlegroups etc. Does this survey envelop global audience?
2) In the survey majority of participants did not have any plans to produce ontology based system in the future. Then how can the author conclude that Semantic web will overcome web 2.0?
3) To what standard does this survey hold well? This survey is done by university of Madeira which may not be globally recognized.

Group 3:

Member Name: Chi Zhang

1) Since the trend of the semantic web is becoming unavoidable, how fast could it be? In the paper the author used the survey on the methodology that was being considered in projects which involved ontology, and the result was not very optimistic. As we all know that lack of software engineering techniques might possibly harm the quality and speed of producing sizable software, the survey result of the last part, which is the “production” may be inaccurate.
2) Why not focusing more on computer software companies and academic researchers, since the usage of ontology is scarce in other fields? Semantic web is still not widely recognized by the public. Knowing this, the organizer of the survey should ask more questions to personnels who works in these two particular fields.
3) Who knows whether the semantic web will follow the footsteps of software engineering? It is very arbitrary to point that out without giving any substantial proof.

Group 4:

Member Name: Karunapiya Rameshwaram, ShaiV, Anusha Vunnam

Crtitical Questions:
1.)Does the output produced by protégé wil be efficient and reliable.
2.)Does OWL support extensability requirements.
3.)The paper cleary mentions that in semantic web data sharing and data integration can be also achieved by RDF then why do we prefer OWL?

Group 5:

Member Name:

Group 6:

Member Name:

Group 7:

Member Name: Saurabh Goyal, Pablo De Morais Andrade & Vamshidhar Reddy Boda

1.) Doesn't the current use of several ontology languages and ontologies themselves make the idea of convergence of concepts and Knowledge, actually the creation of isolated groups of knowledge?
2.) According to the paper, “ … a considerable number of participant said they don't plan to use such systems in the future … ” [Part of the paper enumerating the answer for “Purpose” of the System], so would be most of the projects in development today actually experimental, in contradiction to the sentence in the last two paragraphs of the paper “… 70 percent of people working on the Semantic Web plan to deploy real-world systems in less than two years”? What is the actual purpose of the systems being developed today?
3.) How much work would be necessary to create ontologies and associate to all the current Web (Web 2.0) and who would be responsible for that?

Group 8:

Member Name:Brugu kumar Bhargava Mudumba

1q ) The survey proves that Most of the people does not follow any methodology while developing ontology. Is this practically possible? If so what is the need to using a methodology?
2q) Even though OWL superseded DAML+OIL, still a significant 12.0% of the people use the DAML+OIL. The survey did not comment anything on this. What is the reason behind still using DAML+OIL? Are there any back draws in OWL?
3q) In the survey regarding the reason for using the ontology “To make domain assumptions explicit” and “to analyze domain knowledge “are considered as two different categories. What is the difference in between these categories?

Group 9:

Member Name: Satish Bhat, Holly Vo

1) Will businesses around the world be able to adapt to changes to the web in an efficient manner?
2) Does this mean we can expect intelligent web applications that respond to user queries like a human himself?
3) Does this mean there will be more understanding between web applications developed by to different companies but having the
common purpose?

Group 10:

Member Name: Sunae Shin, Hyungbae Park

1) Many of survey participants are in the area of academic and computer software. This consequence the domain of ontology development is lean toward education and computer software.
2) It is mentioned that methodology used to develop ontology is indispensable. However, the result of survey shows that many of developers didn’t use a methodology. More concrete reason is needed besides the cause that ontologies are considered software products.
3) More than 65 percent of respondents indicated ontology mapping technique to manipulate ontologies. It would be better if the reason why ontology mapping had largest respondents is presented.

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License