Semantic Web

Abstract: The Semantic Web is an effort by the W3C to enable integration and sharing of data across different applications .The Semantic Web is define as: (1) a universal library, to be readily accessed and used by humans; (2) computational agents completing sophisticated activities on behalf of their human; and (3) a method for distribute particular knowledge bases and databases to perform anticipated tasks for humans and their agents. In this paper, we examine what is Semantic web,Languages used for this technology,how information is discover from RDF Statement and use semantic framework in education . Keywords Semantic Web, Hypertext, Digital Libraries, Knowledge ,Representation, Information Systems. Introduction: The Semantic Web is a web of data. There is lots of data we all use every day, and it is not part of the web.The main purpose of the Semantic Web is make current Web more intractive and friendly for a user by allowing users to find, share, and combine information more easily.Users are capable of using the Web to carry out tasks such as reserving a library book, and searching for a cheapest story-book. However, machines can not peraform all of these tasks without human intraction, because machine are not able to read a web pages this pages only read by people. The semantic web is a source of information that can be interpreted by machines, so machines can perform more of the tedious work occurred during finding, combining upon information on the web. The Semantic Web is define in two formIt is about same formats for integration and combination of data got from different-different sources, where on the original Web only concentrated on the interchange of documents. It is also about language for recording how the web-data relates to real world objects. That allows a person, or a machine, to start from in one database, and then go through an unending set of databases which same thing. TRUST LOGIC AND PROF RDF SCHEMA RDF XML UNICODE AND URI Semantic Web layered architecture In contrast to the World Wide Web , which contain virtually unlimited information in the form of documents. computers can be used for searching of these documents, but they still have to be read and interpreted by humans not by computers. Computers only present information in front of human without understanding what the information is well enough to display the data that is most relevant in a given circumstance. The Semantic Web, on the other hand, is about having data as well as documents on the Web so that machines can process, transform, assemble, and even act on the data in useful ways.

For Example : when you are try to search about any information on your favorite search engine then you got list of information but only some information useful not all.like if you want to search about SOAP programming language when search it on serach engine you got list of dish detergents, facial soaps, and even soap operas mixed into the results. Only after sifting through multiple listings and reading through the linked pages are you able to find information about the W3Cs SOAP specifications. Because SOAP word has different semantics,the results we receive are varied in relevance, and we still have to do a lot of work to find the information. However, in a Semantic Web-enabled environment, we could use a Semantic Web agent to search the Web for SOAP where SOAP is a type of technology specification used in Web services. This time, the results of your search will be relevant.. and your agent also presents you with a list of related technologies. Now you know that WSDL, XML, and URI are all technologies related to SOAP, and that youll need to do some research on them, too. The Semantic Web agent does not include artificial intelligence rather, it relies on structured sets of information and inference rules that allow it to understand the relationship between different data resources. The computer doesnt really understand information the way a human can, but it has enough information to make logical connections and decisions. Semantics and Relationships: For implementation of semantic web we have to add semantic metadata,or data that describe data in information resources.this will allow a computer to process the data based on the semantic information that discribes it. Implementing the Semantic Web requires adding semantic metadata, or data that describes data, to information resources. This will allow machines to effectively process the data based on the semantic information that describes it. When there is enough semantic information associated with data, computers can make inferences about the data, i.e., understand what a data resource is and how it relates to other data. XML has some metadata in the form of human-readable tags that describe data. It include information about the author of a Web page, relevant keywords for search engine and the software tools used to create the XML file. For example: if i lable a element<city>indore</city> and someone else lables it <place>indore</place> so can be not understand that both are same thing without the aid of a separate, highly customized application to map between the elements.Semantic Web technologies help address this problem by making tags understandable not just to humans but to machines as well. Machines understand data only when it get data into a uniform format, for example a field labled district always has same formate and contain same information.This type of functionality can be seen in todays web-site in which they use forms that allow users to enter its information and run query.like railway website.That allow visitors to search for train and reserve sit based on a variety of criteria. But the domain of this type of method of data typing is limited and can not be scale beyond specific applications. The next method is Semantic Web that requires data from multiple domain is classified based on its properties and its relationship with other data.For this semantic Web Technology such as RDF, RDFS, and OWL come in to the light. Unicode and URI : Unicode: It is a standard for computer character representation URI : It is a Web identifier: like the strings starting with "http:" or "ftp:" that you often find on the World Wide Web. In the Semantic Web, URI not only used for identify web document

but also real-world objects like animals and cars and even abstract ideas and non-existing things. We call all these real-world objects or things.Anyone can create a URI,In fact, the World Wide Web is such a thing: anything that has a URI is considered to be "on the Web". Resource Description Framework (RDF): An official W3C recommendation, RDF is an XML-based standard for describing resources that exist on the Web, intranets, and extranets. RDF documents are written in XML. The XML language used by RDF is called RDF/XML.By using XML, RDF information can easily be exchanged between different types of computers using different types of operating systems and application languages. RDF builds on existing XML and URI (Uniform Resource Identifier) technologies, using a URI to identify every resource, and using URIs to make statements about resources. RDF statements describe a resource (identified by a URI), the resources properties, and the values of those properties. RDF statements are often referred to as triples that consist of a subject, predicate, and object, which correspond to a resource (subject) a property (predicate), and a property value (object). Below is an example of an RDF statement in plain English: (value) Nita (object) (property) is (Pridicates) (resource) Brilliant student (subject)

1. A Resource is anything that can have a URI, 2. A Property is a Resource that has a name 3. A Property value is the value of a Property RDF triples can be written with XML tags, and they are often conceptualized graphically as shown below : is Brilliant student Nita

By creating triples with subjects, predicates, and objects, RDF allows machines to make logical assertions based on the associations between subjects and objects. And since RDF uses URIs to identify resources, each resource is tied to a unique definition available on the Web. However, while RDF provides a model and syntax (the rules that specify the elements of a sentence) for describing resources, it does not specify the semantics (the meaning) of the resources. To truly define semantics, we need RDFS and OWL. When people are confronted with XML RDF for the first time, they usually have two questions: "why use RDF rather than XML?", and "do we use XML Schema in conjunction with RDF?". The answer to "why use RDF rather than XML?" is quite simple, and is two fold. Firstly, the benefit that one gets from drafting a language in RDF is that the information maps directly and unambiguously to a model, a model which is decentralized, and for which there are many generic parsers already available. This means that when you have an RDF application, you know which bits of data are the semantics of the application, and which bits are just syntactic fluff. And not only do you know that, everyone knows that, often implicitly without even reading a specification because RDF is so well known. The second

part of the two fold answer is that we hope that RDF data will become a part of the Semantic Web, so the benefits of drafting your data in RDF now draws parallels with drafting your information in HTML in the early days of the Web. The answer to "do we use XML Schema in conjunction with RDF?" is almost as brief. XML Schema is a language for restricting the syntax of XML applications. RDF already has a built in BNF that sets out how the language is to be used, so on the face of it the answer is a solid "no". However, using XML Schema in conjunction with RDF may be useful for creating datatypes and so on. Therefore the answer is "possibly", with a caveat that it is not really used to control the syntax of RDF. This is a common misunderstanding, perpetuated for too long now. RDF Schema (RDFS): RDFS is used to create vocabularies that describe groups of related RDF resources and the relationships between those resources. An RDFS vocabulary defines the allowable properties that can be assigned to RDF resources within a given domain. RDFS also allows you to create classes of resources that share common properties. Using the same triples paradigm defined by RDF, RDFS triples consist of classes, class properties, and values that define the classes and relationships between the resources with in a particular domain.In an RDFS vocabulary, resources are defined as instances of classes. A class is a resource too, and any class can be a subclass of another. This hierarchical semantic information is what allows machines to determine the meanings of resources based on their properties and classes. Example: "squirell" is a type of "Monkey", and that "Monkey" is a sub class of animal. All of the terms for RDF Schema start with "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#", which you may have noticed is in our list of "standard" aliases above. The alias "rdfs:" is often used for RDF Schema, and we continue that tradition here. The first three most important concepts that RDF and RDF Schema give us are the "Resource" (rdfs:Resource), the "Class" (rdfs:Class), and the "Property" (rdf:Property). These are all "classes", in that terms may belong to these classes. For example, all terms in RDF are types of resource. To declare that something is a "type" of something else, we just use the rdf:type property:rdfs:Resource rdf:type rdfs:Class . rdfs:Class rdf:type rdfs:Class . rdf:Property rdf:type rdfs:Class . rdf:type rdf:type rdf:Property . This simply says that "Resource is a type of Class, Class is a type of Class, Property is a type of Class, and type is a type of Property". These are all true statements.It is quite easy to make up your own classes. For example, let's create a class called "Monkey", which contains all of the dogs in the world::Monkey rdf:type rdfs:Class . Now we can say that "squirrel is a type of Monkey"::Squirrel rdf:type :Monkey . We can also create properties quite easily by saying that a term is a type of rdf:Property, and then use those properties in our RDF::name rdf:type rdf:Property .

:Squirrel :name "Squirrel" . Why have we said that Squirrel's name is "Squirrel"? Because the term ":Squirrel" is a URI, and we could quite easily have chosen any URI for Squirrel, including ":Squiggle" or ":n508s0srh". We just happened to use the URI ":Squirrel" because it's easier to remember. However, we still have to tell machines that his name is Squirrel, because although people can guess that from the URI (even though they probably shouldn't), machines can't. RDF Schema also has a few more properties that we can make use of: rdfs:subClassOf and rdfs:subPropertyOf. These allow us to say that one class or property is a sub class or sub property of another. For example, we might want to say that the class "Monkey" is a sub class of the class "Animal". To do that, we simply say::Monkey rdfs:subClassOf :Animal . Hence, when we say that Squirrel is a Dog, we are also saying that Squirrel is an Animal. We can also say that there are other sub classes of Animal::Human rdfs:subClassOf :Animal . :Duck rdfs:subClassOf :Animal . And then create new instances of those classes::Bob rdf:type :Human . :Quakcy rdf:type :Duck . And then we can invent another property, use that, and build up even more information... :owns rdf:type rdf:Property . :Bob :owns :Fido . :Bob :owns :Quacky . :Bob :name "Bob Fleming" . :Quacky :name "Quakcy" . And so on. You can see that RDF Schema is very simple, and yet allows one to build up knowledge bases of data in RDF very very quickly. Web Ontology Language (OWL) OWL is a third W3C specification for creating Semantic Web applications. Building upon RDF and RDFS, OWL defines the types of relationships that can be expressed in RDF using an XML vocabulary to indicate the hierarchies and relationships between different resources. In fact, this is the very definition of ontology in the context of the Semantic Web: a schema that formally defines the hierarchies and relationships between different resources. Semantic Web ontologies consist of a taxonomy and a set of inference rules from which machines can make logical conclusions. A taxonomy in this context is system of classification, such as the scientific kingdom/phylum/class/order/etc. system for classifying plants and animals that groups resources into classes and sub-classes based on their relationships and shared properties. Since taxonomies (systems of classification) express the hierarchical relationships that exist between resources, we can use OWL to assign properties to classes of resources and allow their subclasses to inherit the same properties. OWL also utilizes the XML Schema datatypes and supports class axioms such as subClassOf, disjointWith, etc., and class descriptions such as unionOf, intersectionOf, etc. Many other advanced concepts are included in OWL, making it the richest standard ontology description language available today.

The three sublanguages of OWL OWL provides three increasingly expressive sublanguages designed for use by specific communities of implementers and users. OWL Lite supports those users primarily needing a classification hierarchy and simple constraints. For example, while it supports cardinality constraints, it only permits cardinality values of 0 or 1. It should be simpler to provide tool support for OWL Lite than its more expressive relatives, and OWL Lite provides a quick migration path for thesauri and other taxonomies. Owl Lite also has a lower formal complexity than OWL DL. OWL DL supports those users who want the maximum expressiveness while retaining computational completeness (all conclusions are guaranteed to be computable) and decidability (all computations will finish in finite time). OWL DL includes all OWL language constructs, but they can be used only under certain restrictions (for example, while a class may be a subclass of many classes, a class cannot be an instance of another class). OWL DL is so named due to its correspondence with description logics, a field of research that has studied the logics that form the formal foundation of OWL. OWL Full is meant for users who want maximum expressiveness and the syntactic freedom of RDF with no computational guarantees. For example, in OWL Full a class can be treated simultaneously as a collection of individuals and as an individual in its own right. OWL Full allows an ontology to augment the meaning of the pre-defined (RDF or OWL) vocabulary. It is unlikely that any reasoning software will be able to support complete reasoning for every feature of OWL Full. Logic and Proof: an (automatic) reasoning system provided on top of the ontology structure to make new inferences. Thus, using such a system, a software agent can make deductions as to whether a particular resource satisfies its requirements (and vice versa). Trust: The final layer of the stack addresses issues of trust that the Semantic Web can support. This component has not progressed far beyond a vision of allowing people to ask questions of the trustworthiness of the information on the Web, in order to provide an assurance of its quality. Discovering Information : Information discovery concerns the different ways we can find information that is stored in RDF statements. There is no single method for locating information in the Semantic Web that works in all situations. Depending upon whether we know exactly what we are searching for and where the data might exist, and if we are aware of how the data is structured, we could discover the answers through navigation, searching, or querying. Navigation is the simplest form of information discovery, where we have a tool to retrieve and visualize RDF data and, triple by triple, we dereference URIs to locate additional triples with no particular plan or goal in mind. Dereferencing a URI is the process of requesting and receiving a URI resources representation (for example, a web page). This process repeats until we run out of triples or inclination. When we navigate, we may or may not be concerned with finding an answer because we might not have a question in mind; navigation can be thought of as free discovery Searching builds on navigation by not only having a goal, such as searching for information on Chinese restaurants, but also relying upon more than just our navigation tool to find information manually. Searching doesnt have to be limited to search engines, although they are good examples of common search implementations. Focusing on keyword searching, the use of keywords requires the user to have a goal (we cant perform

keyword searching without some criteria or input), and searching allows us to leverage all the Semantic Web documents and data stores that have been previously indexed by the engine. This type of information discovery might include not knowing where to find this knowledge or how much of it is available in a semantic format. Querying is the final form of information discovery that allows for complex, explicit, and structured questions to be posed, and the resulting information either succeeds or fails to answer those questions. Querying is based on formal syntax and semantics and, unless explicitly told to do so, does not return approximate information or supply answers that are good enough. This type of information discovery tends to be the most difficult because it isnt always easy or efficient to develop the optimal query. Much like software development, we may think our query should be performing correctly, yet were not seeing the results were expecting. We will explore querying through SPARQL, a W3C-based RDF query language Impact On Edution: It is difficult to predict where the Semantic Web will affect the Higher and Further Education sector as it is not yet clear where the major impact of the Semantic Web will be in general. However, there are four clear areas where there could be major implications for both teaching and research: in information management; in digital libraries; in support for interaction between virtual communities and collaborations; and in e-learning methods and tools. Information Management and Discovery Tools Perhaps the most widely developed space at the moment within the Semantic Web is in information management, i.e. the organisation and discovery of information. This is the primary motivation behind the Semantic Webs development, but people are taking a variety of approaches to developing tools to extend the current Web into a true Semantic Web. These tools typically take an existing Web component we are familiar with, such as browsers, servers and search engines, and augment them with the power to process the semantic annotations associated with webpages. Semantic Web Browsers, for example, extend the notion of the Web browser into the Semantic Web by allowing the RDF annotations of resources to be read and presented in a structured manner . The other most widely used tools on the Web, as far as a users experience is concerned, are search engines, with Google today being the most popular. Semantic Web search engines such as Swoogle are under development. Swoogle can use ontologies to refine the search, and has harvested the existing ontologies and RDF data available on the Web. Semantic Web and Digital Libraries: Libraries are a key component of the information infrastructure which underpins Further and Higher Education. They provide an essential resource for students and researchers for reference and for research. And they are increasingly converting themselves to Digital Libraries. A key aspect for the Digital Library is the provision of shared catalogues which can be published and browsed. This requires the use of common metadata to describe the fields of the catalogue (such as author, title, date, publisher), and common controlled vocabularies to allow subject identifiers to be assigned to publications. By publishing controlled vocabularies in one place, which can then be accessed by all users across the Web, library catalogues can use the same Web-accessible vocabularies for cataloguing, marking up items with the most relevant terms for the domain of interest. Then, search engines can use the same vocabularies in their search to ensure that the most relevant items of information are returned. Conclusion:

The Semantic Web has great potential, and with direct application to the Education sector. However, it has been a long time in development and does require an investment of time, expertise and resources. Nevertheless, the time does seem right to start to think how best to use the simpler applications of the technology. Institutional libraries should be considering joining collaborations to explore how Semantic Web can best be exploited and investing in training staff, with a view to providing Semantic Web solutions within the next two to three years. Information science professionals and academics working in particular fields should work together to provide the vocabularies and domain ontologies required to support particular fields. Particular communities and research groups could be looking at exploiting the emerging infrastructure to enhance the interaction of their community. In the future the Semantic Web may not even be noticeable.