Thanks for this overview.
I copied one paragraph from http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/ -- emphasis added:
The journal Semantic Web – Interoperability, Usability, Applicability (published and printed by IOS Press, ISSN: 1570-0844), in short Semantic Web journal, brings together researchers from various fields which share the vision and need for more effective and meaningful ways to share information across agents and services on the future internet and elsewhere. As such, Semantic Web technologies shall support the seamless integration of data, on-the-fly composition and interoperation of Web services, as well as more intuitive search engines. The semantics – or meaning – of information, however, cannot be defined without a context, which makes personalization, trust, and provenance core topics for Semantic Web research. New retrieval paradigms, user interfaces, and visualization techniques have to unleash the power of the Semantic Web and at the same time hide its complexity from the user. Based on this vision, the journal welcomes contributions ranging from theoretical and foundational research over methods and tools to descriptions of concrete ontologies and applications in all areas. We especially welcome papers which add a social, spatial, and temporal dimension to Semantic Web research, as well as application-oriented papers making use of formal semantics.
Though I spent many years involved with algebraic semantics, most of my time in recent years has involved fundamentals of collaboration and cooperation and shared understanding in a context of high diversity (or tension or conflict). One very able professional group working in this area is the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation: http://ncdd.org
What I personally took from our recent discussion of ontology and philosophy and the role of the individual semantic ontologist in a professional context – is that some very capable professional people here on this list prefer and presume a highly “siloed” approach – taking responsibility for some narrow elements of the broader process of establishing a shared understanding among diverse stakeholders – and not seeing any call to a broader responsibility. No doubt this has been a very reasonable approach – “that’s not part of the job – somebody else does that”. But this statement from the Semantic Web Journal seems to be calling for a broader approach – where “trust” and everything involved in creating it among stakeholders does play a critical and professionally-significant role.
It seems pretty clear to me that trying to “legislate” shared understanding in some impersonal context-independent way is probably impossible. People have to want to understand each other – or they will figure out ways not to.
Bruce Schuman, Santa Barbara CA USA
http://networknation.net/vision.cfm
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Amrapali Zaveri
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 5:41 AM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ontolog-forum] [CFP] Semantic Web Journal Special Issue on Quality Management of Semantic Web Assets (Data, Services and Systems)
The standardization and adoption of Semantic Web technologies has resulted in a variety of assets, including an unprecedented volume of data being semantically enriched and systems and services, which consume or publish this data. Although gathering, processing and publishing data is a step towards further adoption of Semantic Web, quality does not yet play a central role in these assets (e.g., data lifecycle, system/service development).
Quality management essentially refers to activities and tasks involved to guarantee a certain level of consistency and to meet the quality requirements for the assets. In general, quality management consists of the following four phases and components: (i) quality planning, (ii) quality control, (iii) quality assurance and (iv) quality improvement.
The quality planning phase in the Semantic Web typically involves the design of procedures, strategies and policies to support the management of the assets. The quality control and assurance components have their primary aim in preventing errors and to meet quality requirements pertaining to the Semantic Web standards. A core part for both components are quality assessment methods which provide the necessary input for the controlling and assurance tasks.
Quality assessment of Semantic Web Assets (data, services and systems), in particular, presents new challenges that were not handled before in other research areas. Thus, adopting existing approaches for data quality assessment is not a straightforward solution. These challenges are related to the openness of the Semantic Web, the diversity of the information and the unbounded, dynamic set of autonomous data sources, publishers and consumers (legal and software agents). Additionally, detecting the quality of available data sources and making the information explicit is yet another challenge. Moreover, noise in one data set, or missing links between different data sets, propagates throughout the Web of Data, and imposes great challenges on the data value chain.
In case of systems and services, different implementations follow the specifications for RDF and SPARQL to varying extents, or even propose and offer new, non-standardized extensions. This causes strong incompatibilities between systems, e.g., between the used SPARQL features in the query engines and support features in RDF stores. The potential heterogeneity and incompatibility poses several challenges for the quality assessments in and for such systems and services.
Eventually, quality improvement methods are used to further enhance the value of the Semantic Web Assets. One important step to improve the quality of data is identifying the root cause of the problem and then designing corresponding data improvement solutions. These solutions select the most effective and efficient strategies and related set of techniques and tools to improve quality. Quality improvement metrics for products and services entails understanding and improving operational processes and establishing valid and reliable service performance measures.
This Special Issue is addressed to those members of the community interested in providing novel methodologies or frameworks in managing, assessing, monitoring, maintaining and improving the quality of the Semantic Web data, services and systems and also introduce tools and user interfaces which can effectively assist in this management.
Topics of Interest
We welcome original high quality submissions on (but are not restricted
to) the following topics:
- Methodologies and frameworks to plan, control, assure or improve the quality of - - Semantic Web Assets
- Quality exploration and analysis interfaces
- Quality monitoring
- Developing, deploying and managing quality service ecosystems
- Assessing the quality evolution of Semantic Web Assets
- Large-scale quality assessment of structured datasets
- Crowdsourcing data quality assessment
- Quality assessment leveraging background knowledge
- Use-case driven quality management
- Evaluation of trustworthiness of data
- Web Data and LOD quality benchmarks
- Data Quality improvement methods and frameworks e.g., linkage, alignment, cleaning, enrichment, correctness
- Service/system quality improvement methods and frameworks
-- Managing sustainability issues in services
-- Guarantee of service (availability, performance)
- Systems for transparent management of open data
Submissions
October 31, 2015 - Paper submission deadline
Submissions shall be made through the Semantic Web journal website at
http://www.semantic-web-journal.net. Prospective authors must take notice of the submission guidelines posted at http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/authors. Note that you need to request an account on the website for submitting a paper. Please indicate in the cover letter that it is for the Special Issue on “Quality Management of Semantic Web Assets (Data, Services and Systems)”.
Submissions are possible in the following categories: full research papers, application reports, reports on tools and systems and case studies.
Guest editors
Amrapali Zaveri, University of Leipzig, AKSW Group, Germany Dimitris Kontokostas, University of Leipzig, AKSW Group, Germany Sebastian Hellmann, University of Leipzig, AKSW Group, Germany Jürgen Umbrich, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Austria
The editors can be reached using the following email:
swjsi-dqmangement@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J