SHOE System

See: Semantic Annotation System, OntoBroker System.

References

(Hein et al., 2003) ⇒ J. Hein, J. A. Hendler, and S. Luke. (2003). “SHOE: A blueprint for the semantic web.” In: D. Fensel, J. A. Hendler, H. Lieberman, and W. Wahlster, editors, "Spinning the Semantic Web." MIT Press.

(Staab et al., 2000) ⇒ Steffen Staab, J. Angele, S. Decker, Michael Erdmann, Andreas Hotho, Alexander Maedche, Hans-Peter Schnurr, R. Studerand, and York Sure. (2000). “Semantic community web portals.” In: International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2000).
- QUOTE: The approach closest to Ontobroker is SHOE [19]. In SHOE, HTML pages are annotated via ontologies to support information retrieval based on semantic information. Besides the use of ontologies and the annotation of Web pages the underlying philosophy of both systems differs significantly: in SHOE, arbitrary extensions to ontologies can be introduced onWeb pages and no central provider index is maintained. As a consequence, when specifying a query, users can not know all the ontological terms which have been used and the Web crawler will miss annotated Web pages. In contrast, Ontobroker relies on the notion of a community defining a group of Web users who share a common understanding and, thus, can agree on an ontology for a given field.

(Luke et al., 1997) ⇒ S. Luke, L. Spector, D. Rager and J. Hendler, (1997). “Ontology-based Web agents.” In: Proceedings1st International Conference on Autonomous Agents.