Editorial
Issue 5 of the year 2016 contains five papers: two regular research papers, a dataset description paper, a tool/system report and an ontology design pattern description.
The first paper in this issue, OntoPedigree: Modelling Pedigrees for traceability in supply chains by Monika Solanki and Christopher Brewster is an ontology design pattern description. It presents an ontological model for capturing event based traceability information of artifacts as they move along supply chains. The model is conveyed as an ontology design pattern, i.e. as a type of reusable module for ontology engineering [1].
The second paper in this issue, A Fine-Grained Evaluation of SPARQL Endpoint Federation Systems by Muhammad Saleem, Yasar Khan, Ali Hasnain, Ivan Ermilov and Axel Ngonga is a full research paper. It reports on extensive experiments to compare state-of-the-art SPARQL endpoint federation systems using FedBench. This paper has also been selected as one out of six recent Semantic Web journal papers [2–7] which have been invited for presentation at the journals track of the 2016 International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC, in Kobe, Japan.
The third paper in this issue, Publishing DisGeNET as Nanopublications by Núria Queralt-Rosinach, Tobias Kuhn, Christine Chichester, Michel Dumontier, Ferran Sanz and Laura I. Furlong is a dataset description paper. It describes the representation of the DisGeNET database of human gene-disease associations as nanopublications in linked data form.
The fourth paper in this issue, ClioPatria: A SWI-Prolog Infrastructure for the Semantic Web by Jan Wielemaker, Wouter Beek, Michiel Hildebrand and Jacco van Ossenbruggen is a tool/system paper. It describes a comprehensive semantic web development framework based on SWI-Prolog.
The fifth paper in this issue, A content-focused method for reengineering thesauri into semantically adequate ontologies by Daniel Kless, Ludger Jansen and Simon Milton is another full research paper. It addresses the ontology acquisition bottleneck by leveraging thesauri.
References
[1] | E. Blomqvist, P. Hitzler, K. Janowicz, A. Krisnadhi, T. Narock and M. Solanki, Considerations regarding ontology design patterns, Semantic Web 7: (1) ((2016) ), 1–7. doi:10.3233/SW-150202. |
[2] | D. Calvanese, B. Cogrel, S. Komla-Ebri, R. Kontchakov, D. Lanti, M. Rezk, M. Rodriguez-Muro and G. Xiao, Ontop: Answering SPARQL queries over relational databases, Semantic Web ((2016) ), to appear. doi:10.3233/SW-160217. |
[3] | S. Mazumdar, D. Petrelli, K. Elbedweihy, V. Lanfranchi and F. Ciravegna, Affective graphs: The visual appeal of linked data, Semantic Web 6: (3) ((2015) ), 277–312. doi:10.3233/SW-140162. |
[4] | A.G. Nuzzolese, V. Presutti, A. Gangemi, S. Peroni and P. Ciancarini, Aemoo: Linked Data exploration based on knowledge patterns, Semantic Web ((2016) ), to appear. doi:10.3233/SW-160222. |
[5] | M. Saleem, Y. Khan, A. Hasnain, I. Ermilov and A.-C.N. Ngomo, A fine-grained evaluation of SPARQL endpoint federation systems, Semantic Web 7: (5) ((2016) ), 493–518. doi:10.3233/SW-150186. |
[6] | P.-Y. Vandenbussche, G.A. Atemezing, M. Poveda and B. Vatant, Linked Open Vocabularies (LOV): A gateway to reusable semantic vocabularies on the web, Semantic Web ((2016) ), to appear. doi:10.3233/SW-160213. |
[7] | A. Zaveri, A. Rula, A. Maurino, R. Pietrobon, J. Lehmann and S. Auer, Quality assessment for linked data: A survey, Semantic Web 7: (1) ((2016) ), 63–93. doi:10.3233/SW-150175. |
