“Realizing What Semantic Web Can Be…….

By,
Anup Patel (07305042)
Tanmay Mande (07305051)
Sapan Shah (07305061)
Nilesh Padariya (07305064)
 Middle Agent

2020 And Beyond ……..

Prafful’s Agent Contacts

A Middle Agent to find
out some hospital in powai
New Powai Hospital
Phone:
Agent: “Your wife is
having a recently admitted had
patient named Gita.Agent:
an “Yourat
accident
admitted
Prafful:
meeting
she
“I stillNew
don’t
is
is know
re-scheduled
Prafful:
Prafful:
admitted “Isome
“Ishould
have
to
Powai
where is at
Hospital
she Ward
admitted
Prafful’s Agent Negotiates With tomorrow
hospital
inform
aNo. 5:00
in…. my PM”
powai
meeting
9” …” use
agent
with
in powai I should
Boss’s Agent and re-schedule to
myreschedule
boss and I
my agent ….”
meeting to tomorrow. ammeeting”
late …….”
Motivation
 Original driver: Automation
- Make information on the Web more “machine-friendly”
- Origins of the Semantic Web are in web metadata

 Short term goal: Interoperability

- Combining information from multiple sources
- Web Services: discovery, composition

 Long term goal: “Departure from the Tool Paradigm”

- instead of using computers like tools, make them
work on our behalf
- removing humans from the loop to the extent possible
Roadmap
1. Introduction to Semantic Web
2. Knowledge Representation
3. Agents in Semantic Web
4. Multi-Agent System Communication
5. Agent Communication Language
6. SPARQL
7. Status of Semantic Web
8. Conclusion
9. Bibliography
1. Semantic Web

The Semantic Web is an evolving extension of the

World Wide Web in which web content can be
expressed not only in natural language, but also in a
format that can be read and used by software agents,
thus permitting them to find, share and integrate
information more easily.
-- Wikipedia
1.1 Semantic Web Architecture

Trustworthiness

Reasoning

Knowledge Sharing

Knowledge
Representation
 1.2 Tree of Knowledge Technologies
Content
Semantic Management
Technology Languages
Languages
Process
Knowledge
AI Knowledge Languages
Representation
Software
Modeling
Languages
2. Ontologies in Semantic Web
 What? .. Is an ontology

 Why? .. Do we need ontology

 How? .. Do we use ontology

2.1 What?
 Ontology is a term borrowed from philosophy that refers to
the science of describing the kinds of entities in the world
and how they are related.

 An ontology is explicit specification of conceptualization

 An ontology defines the terms used to describe and

represent an area of knowledge

 Ontology provides the to be used in a knowledge domain

2.2 Why?

 Does Web today understand information?

 No
 Can we make it understand the information?
 Yes.. First provide vocabulary!!
2.3 How?
 Web Ontology Language (owl)

 Goal is to provide machine-readable descriptions of the

content and capabilities of Web accessible resources

 Ontology may include descriptions of classes, properties

and their instances.

 Given such an ontology, the OWL formal semantics

specifies how to derive its logical consequences, i.e. facts
not literally present in the ontology, but entailed by the
semantics.
2.4 OWL constructs
 Classes:
<owl:Class rdf:ID=“man">
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#human" />
</owl:Class>
 Properties:
 Datatype properties: relates objects to datatype values
 Object Properties: relates objects to objects

 Example:
. <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID=“isFatherOf">
<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#man"/>
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="#man"/>
</owl:ObjectProperty>
2.4 OWL constructs (Contd.)
 Property Restrictions: used when one requires to put some
constraints

 Example:
<owl:Restriction>
<owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#isFatherOf"/>
<owl:maxCardinality rdf:datatype="&xsd;nonNegativeInteger">
1
</owl:maxCardinality>
</owl:Restriction>

 Possible Use:
A ‘is father of’ X & B ‘is father of’ X  ‘A = B’
2.5 Example
 Interested in Buying a Ticket?

 Scenario: I am interested in buying a ticket.

 start_point: Mumbai
 end_point: Delhi
 date_of_journey: xxx

 I launch my personal "Web agent" which crawls the Web

looking for Web sites that can fulfill my request

 Assume that there exists an OWL ‘Travel’ Ontology, which the

Web agent can "consult" upon its travels across the Web.
 2.6 Example (Contd.)
The Web Agent finds this document at a Web site:
<TravelAgent rdf:ID=“TravelEasy"
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
<location>Mumbai</location>
<phone>9911224455</phone>
<catalog rdf:parseType="Collection">
<airTicket rdf:ID=“AirIndia“ xmlns="http://www.air_india.org#">
<source> Mumbai </source>
<destination> Delhi </destination>
<date> xxx </date>
<cost rdf:parseType="Resource"> Is it relevant ?
<rdf:value>3250</rdf:value>
<currency>Rs</currency>
</cost>
</airTicket>
</catalog>
</TravelAgent>
2.6 Example (Contd.)
 Is there a match ?

 To answer this question, following questions must be

answered:

 Is there a match between airTicket and ticket?

 Is there a match between start-point and source?

 Is there a match between end-point and destination?

 2.6 Example (Contd.)
 Relationship between ticket and airTicket?
 The Web agent "consults" the OWL travel Ontology.
 This OWL statement tells the Web agent that a airTicket
is a type of ticket:

<owl:Class rdf:ID=“airTicket">
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#ticket"/>
</owl:Class>
"Relationship
<TravelAgent between
rdf:ID=“TravelEasy" <owl:Class
ticket and airTicket?" rdf:ID=“airTicket">
<airTicket>
Web <rdfs:subClassOf
…
Agent rdf:resource="#ticket"/>
</airTicket>
</TravelAgent> “airTicket is a type </owl:Class>
of ticket." Travel.owl
TravelAgent.xml
2.6 Example (Contd.)
 Relationship between start-point and source?
 This OWL statement tells the Web agent that Start-point is
equivalent to source:

<owl:DatatypeProperty rdf:ID=“start-point">
<owl:equivalentProperty rdf:resource="#source"/>
<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#place"/>
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="&xsd;#airplane"/>
</owl:DatatypeProperty>

start-point is synonymous with source.

2.6 Example (Contd.)

 Relationship between date and date_of_journey?

 This OWL statement tells the Web agent that date
is equivalent to date_of_journey:

<owl:DatatypeProperty rdf:ID=“date">
<owl:equivalentProperty rdf:resource="#date_of_journey"/>
<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#airplane"/>
<rdfs:range rdf:resource="&xsd;#Date"/>
</owl:DatatypeProperty>
2.6 Example (Contd.)
 The Web agent now recognizes that the XML document it
found at the Web site
 Is talking about tickets
 It does show the start-point and end-point
 It does show a date
 Values are matching

 Thus, the Web agent recognizes that the XML document is a

match!
3. Agents in Semantic Web
 Agent in AI is any thing that can be viewed as perceiving its
environment through sensors and acting upon that
environment through effectors, showing a rational behavior.

E.g. A human agent has eyes, ears and other organs as

as sensors, and hands, legs, mouth, and other body
parts for effectors.

 Agent = Architecture + Program.

 Semantic Web Agents are agents in the web environment.

3.1 Agent Definition
 The definition of agents has not been agreed upon universally
but, we can have some good characteristic of such agents,
which are :

- Autonomy
- Reasoning Ability
- Learning Ability
- Mobility
- Sociability
- Cooperation
- Negotiation
3.1 Agent Definition (Contd..)
 From semantic web point of view agents can be thought
of as intelligent software program that host a collection
of web services.

 Unlike standard Web Services, an agent can reason

about:

- How to handle external request ?

- Order in which to carry out the request ?
3.2 Multi-Agent System (MAS)
 MAS is distributed system which incorporates more than
one independent agents.

 The collection of agents interact, and solve problems that

are outside their individual capacities.

 Agents in MAS display a dual behavior: on the one hand

they are goal directed programs that autonomously solve
problems and on the other hand have a social dimension
when they interoperate as part of MAS.

 Semantic web in future will be one large MAS containing

millions of agents communicating with each other.
3.2 Multi-Agent System (Contd.)
 Ontologies in MAS provide agents :

- The basic representation that allows them to reason about

interactions with other agents.
- Shared knowledge that they can use to communicate and
work together.

 In general we can distinguish between Private Ontologies

that allow the agent to organize its own problem solving and
reasoning, and Public Ontologies that the agent shares with
the rest of the agents in the MAS.

 Private ontologies are used to represent Private Knowledge

whereas, public ontologies are used to represent
Public Knowledge of an semantic web agent.
3.2 Multi-Agent System (Contd.)
 Example to illustrate use of private and public knowledge.

Private Knowledge Private Knowledge

Public Knowledge Public Knowledge

4. MAS Communication
 In MAS communication we are effectively seeking to mimic
the process of (verbal) communication between humans,
which by itself is very ambitious task.

 At the lowest level, there are two main techniques that

facilitate communication:

- Message Passing: The agents communicate by the direct

exchange of messages that encapsulate knowledge.
- Shared State: The Agents communicate by asserting and
retracting facts in a shared knowledge base.

 The web uses a message passing approach (TCP + UDP)

so, semantic web communication also have based on
message passing approach (HTTP + XML).
4. MAS Communication (Contd.)
 For communication on semantic web some issues must be
promptly addressed, like:

- Automatic discovery of agents.

- Effectively manage the shared knowledge.
- It must be coordinated, correct, and robust to failure.

 To solve the problem of automatic discovery of agents we

have Middle-Agent architectures.

 To solve the problem of managing shared knowledge we

have network architectures.
4.1 Middle Agent Architecture
 Middle-agents assist in locating service providers, and
connecting service providers with service requesters.

 A variety of middle agent types based on privacy

considerations of service providers capabilities and
requesters preferences are possible.

 Middle Agent Architectures are techniques to solve

problem of automated discovery of agents in MAS.
4.1 Middle Agent Architecture (Contd.)
 Two important types of middle-agent have been identified.

 Service Matchmaker:

The Matchmaker serves as a "yellow pages" of agent

capabilities, matching service providers with service
requestors based on agent capability descriptions.

The Matchmaker system allows agents to find each other by

providing a mechanism for registering each agent's
capabilities.

For each query it searches its dynamic database of

"advertisements" for a registered agent that can fulfill the
incoming request.
4.1 Middle Agent Architecture (Contd.)

Service Matchmaker
4.1 Middle Agent Architecture (Contd.)
 Service Broker:

Service Broker is similar to matchmaker, but also

processes the requests.

Service Broker
4.1 Middle Agent Architecture (Contd.)
 A variety of middle agent types based on privacy considerations
of service providers capabilities and requesters preferences are
possible.

Capabilities Initially Known By

Preferences
Initially Known By Provider & Provider & Middle
Provider Only
Middle Agent Agent & Requestor
Matchmaker /
Requestor Only Broadcaster “Front-Agent”
Yellow Pages
Requestor & Middle Personal Assistant
Anonymizer Broker
Agent / Recommender

Requestor & Middle Introducer /

Blackboard Arbitrator
Agent & Provider “Bodyguard”
4.2 Network Architecture
 Network Architectures so far, mainly assumed some kind of
centralized client/server architecture. But Service Oriented
Architectures can equally well be decentralized.

 Network Architectures are techniques to effectively store

and retrieve shared knowledge of all agents in MAS.

 We can three types of architectures possible here:

- Centralized (Client-Server)
- Decentralized (Peer-to-Peer)
- Hybrid (Client-Server and Peer-to-Peer)
4.2 Network Architecture (Contd.)
 Centralized (Client-Server):
4.2 Network Architecture (Contd.)
 In Client-Server system, a centralized server is used to
manage the shared resources.

 Servers works as central repository of the shared resources

or the shared knowledge.

 It is very easy to adapt current knowledge representation

like owl and rdf for client-server system.

 There are hard limits to number of clients that can be served

from a single server or a cluster of servers. This limits are
primarily a function of available network bandwidth.
4.2 Network Architecture (Contd.)
 Decentralized (Peer-to-Peer):
4.2 Network Architecture (Contd.)
 P2P is a self-organizing system of equal, autonomous
entities (peers) which aims for the shared usage of
distributed resources in a networked environment avoiding
central services.

 Peers interact directly with each other, usually without

central coordination. Each peer has autonomy over its own
resources.

 Peers can act as both clients and servers; i.e., no intrinsic

asymmetry of role.

 The network saturation problem does not occur to

decentralized P2P network.
4.2 Network Architecture (Contd.)
 In this approach information is copied and distributed
throughout network. Thus, when a client wish to obtain
some information it can retrieve it from multiple sources
and thereby avoid overloading at one node.
For Example: Bit Torrent, DC++

 Construction of P2P architecture for semantic web has

important design implications :

- The communicative process must be adapted to work with

specific P2P technique.
- The reasoning process must make decisions on what
information to share and how to retrieve information
required for reasoning.
4.2 Network Architecture (Contd.)
 Hybrid (Client-Server and Peer-to-Peer):
5. Agent Communication Language
 Abbreviated as ‘ACL’ for short.

 In agent communication our source of inspiration in

human communication.

 We try to mimic human communication in ACL.

 The foundation of ACL lies in the Speech Act Theory.

5.1 Speech Act
 Proposed by John Austin extended by John Searle.

 How language is used by people everyday to achieve

their goals and intentions.

 Certain natural language utterances have the

characteristics of physical actions.

 Certain performative verbs in speech act changes the

state of the world like physical actions.
5.2 Types of Speech Acts
 Representative: which commits the speaker to the truth of
what is being asserted. e.g. inform

 Directive: attempts to get the hearer to do something

e.g., ‘please make the tea’

 Commisives: which commit the speaker for doing

something, e.g., ‘I promise to…’

 Expressive: whereby a speaker expresses a mental state,

e.g., ‘thank you!’

 Declarative: effect some change on the state of affairs.

e.g. declaring war.
5.3 Components of Speech Act
 In general Two Components:

– Performative Verb (e.g., request, inform, promise, … )

– Propositional Content (e.g., “the door is closed”)

 More Examples:

performative = request
content = “the door is closed”
speech act = “please close the door”

performative = inquire
content = “the door is closed”
speech act = “is the door closed ?”
5.4 ACL Examples
 Communication is performed by exchanging messages
where each message has an associated performative-
message types.

 Agent Communication Languages define common sets of

performatives.

 Two Popular ACLs

- KQML
- FIPA-ACL.
5.5 FIPA-ACL Performative Ontology
5.6 Basic Problem of FIPA-ACL
 Semantics Verification Problem
Sincerity Assumption – agent always acts in accordance
with their intentions.

 Too restrictive in open environment – web.

 Despite these FIPA-ACL remained popular

- e.g. JADE multi agent platform – performatives are used
to facilitate the exchange of message but compliance with
formal model is not enforce.
5.7 Dialogue

 Communication rarely consists of a single act of

speech in isolation.

 It typically consists of sequence of messages

exchanges between participants such as Conversation.

 This type of communication is termed as Dialogue.

5.8 Categories of Dialogues
5.9 Dialogue frames
 Key construct – Dialogue Type
identifies dialogue type & kind of values over which it
operates.

 Different Dialogues can take different kind of values.

e.g. Beliefs, Contract, Plans

 Frame F is a tuple with four elements ( T, V , t, U)

T = Dialogue Type
V = Value over which the dialogue operates
t = Topic of the Dialogue
U = list of utterances which define the actual dialogue
steps between the participants x & y e.g. {U}
5.10 Protocols in FIPA-ACL
 It refers to the stereotyped pattern of conversation between
the agents.

 The protocols are generally pre-specified by the agent

designer & agents needs to discover which protocols to
follow during Dialogue.

 Choice of protocols to be followed can be negotiated by the

agents.

 In FIPA-ACL the convention is to put the name of the

protocol in the :protocol parameter of the message.
5.11 FIPA-Query-Protocol
5.12 ACL in MAS
 Reduce the complexity to pair wise interaction between
agents. Has limitations in terms of multicast & broadcast
communication.

 As the size of the MAS increases, the ability to

communicate reliably deteriorates. MAS operating over
web has to face some basic problems such as delay in
message passing, messages may be lost. So
Asynchronous agents are required.

 An open MAS is designed to enable interoperability

between agents from many different sources. These may
introduce problems like malicious, untrustworthy agents.
6. SPARQL
 Simple Protocol And Rdf Query Language

 SPARQL = Query Language + Protocol + XML Results Format

 It’s a Query language for RDF Data, and it involves:

- Basic graph pattern matching.

- No inference in the query language itself.

 As a Protocol it uses:

- HTTP binding
- SOAP binding

 XML Results Format are:

- Easy to transform (XSLT, XQuery)

6.1 It’s Turtles all the way down
Turtle (Terse RDF Triple Language ):
− An RDF serialization
− Triple representation of <Subject, Predicate, Object>
−<http://example/person/A> <http://xmlns.com/foaf.0.1/name>
Human-friendly alternative to RDF/XML “Nilesh”

@prefix person: <http://example/person/> .

@prefix foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/> .
person: A foaf:name “Nilesh" .
person: A foaf:mbox <mailto:nileshsp@example.net> .
person: B foaf:name “Sapan" . -------------
_:b foaf:name “Vishal" . | name |
_:b foaf:mbox <mailto:vishalv@example.org> ========
.
| “Nilesh” |
| ”Sapan”|
A "hello world" of queries | ”Vishal” |
SELECT ?name -------------
WHERE
{ ?x foaf:name ?name }
 6.2 Matching RDF Literals
@prefix dt: <http://example.org/datatype#> .
@prefix ns: <http://example.org/ns#> .
@prefix : <http://example.org/ns#> .
@prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .

:x ns:p "cat"@en . ---------

| v | ----------------------------------
:y ns:p "42"^^xsd:integer . | v |
=====
:z ns:p "abc"^^dt:specialDatatype . ----------------------------------
===================
| ----------------------------------
V
|http://example.org/ns#x | |
SELECT ?v WHERE { ?v ?p "cat" } | V |
===================
----------------------------------
SELECT ?v WHERE { ?v ?p "cat“@en } ===================
|http://example.org/ns#z |
|http://example.org/ns#y |
----------------------------------
SELECT ?v WHERE { ?v ?p 42 } ----------------------------------

SELECT ?v WHERE { ?v ?p "abc"^^<http://example.org/datatype#specialDatatype> }

6.3 Filter
@prefix dc: <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/> .
@prefix stock: <http://example.org/stock#> .
@prefix inv: <http://example.org/inventory#> .
stock:book1 dc:title "SPARQL Query Language Tutorial" .
stock:book1 dc:edition “First”
---------------------------------------------------------------------
stock:book1 inv:price| book
10 . | title |
stock:book1 inv:quantity 3.
=======================================
stock:book2 dc:title "SPARQL
| stock:book1Query Language
| "SPARQL (2nd Language
Query ed)" . Tutorial" |
stock:book2 inv:price---------------------------------------------------------------------
20 ; inv:quantity 5 .
stock:book3 dc:title "Applying XQuery“; dc:edition “Second” .
stock:book3 inv:price 20 ; inv:quantity 8 .
PREFIX dc: <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/>
PREFIX stock: <http://example.org/stock#>
PREFIX inv: <http://example.org/inventory#>
SELECT ?book ?title
WHERE {
?book dc:title ?title .
?book inv:price ?price . FILTER ( ?price < 15 )
?book inv:quantity ?num . FILTER ( ?num > 0 ) }
6.4 Other Solution Modifiers
PREFIX dc: <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/>
SELECT ?title ?edition
{ ?x dc:title ?title .
OPTIONAL {?x dc:edition ?edition }
}

PREFIX foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/>

SELECT ?name
WHERE { ?x foaf:name ?name } ORDER BY ?name

PREFIX foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/>

SELECT DISTINCT ?name
WHERE {
?x foaf:name ?name }
ORDER BY ?name
LIMIT 5 OFFSET 10
 6.5 CONSTRUCT
@prefix foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/> .
_:a foaf:givenname "Alice" .
_:a foaf:family_name "Hacker" .
_:b foaf:firstname "Bob" .
_:b foaf:surname "Hacker" .
PREFIX foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/>
PREFIX vcard: <http://www.w3.org/2001/vcard-rdf/3.0#>
CONSTRUCT { ?x vcard:N _:v .
_:v vcard:givenName ?gname .
_:v vcard:familyName ?fname }
WHERE { { ?x foaf:firstname ?gname } UNION { ?x foaf:givenname ?gname } .
{ ?x foaf:surname ?fname } UNION { ?x foaf:family_name ?fname } .}
@prefix vcard: <http://www.w3.org/2001/vcard-rdf/3.0#> .
_:v1 vcard:N _:x .
_:x vcard:givenName "Alice" .
_:x vcard:familyName "Hacker" .
_:v2 vcard:N _:z .
_:z vcard:givenName "Bob" .
_:z vcard:familyName "Hacker" .
6.6 DESCRIBE
PREFIX books: <http://example.org/book/>
PREFIX dc: <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/>
DESCRIBE ?book
WHERE
{ ?book dc:title "Harry Potter and the Prisoner Of Azkaban" }
<rdf:RDF>
<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.org/book/book3">
<dc:creator rdf:parseType="Resource">
<vcard:N rdf:parseType="Resource">
<vcard:Given>Joanna</vcard:Given>
<vcard:Family>Rowling</vcard:Family>
</vcard:N>
<vcard:FN>J.K. Rowling</vcard:FN>
</dc:creator>
<dc:title>Harry Potter and the Prisoner Of Azkaban</dc:title>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
 6.7 XML Result Set
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| name | mbox |
=========================================
| "Johnny Lee Outlaw" | <mailto:jlow@example.com> |
| | <mailto:peter@example.org> |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<sparql xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/sparql-results#">
<head>
<variable name=“name"/>
<variable name=“mbox"/>
</head>
<results ordered="false" distinct="false">
<result>
<binding name=“name"><literal>Johnny Lee Outlaw</literal></binding>
<binding name=“mbox"><uri>mailto:jlow@example.com</uri></binding>
</result>
<result>
<binding name="mbox"><uri>mailto:peter@example.org</uri></binding>
</result>
</results>
</sparql>
 6.8 ASK
@prefix foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/> .
_:a foaf:name "Alice" .
_:a foaf:homepage <http://work.example.org/alice/> .
_:b foaf:name "Bob" .
_:b foaf:mbox <mailto:bob@work.example> . Yes

PREFIX foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/>

ASK { ?x foaf:name "Alice" }

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<sparql xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/sparql-results#">
<head>
</head>
<results>
<boolean>true</boolean>
</results>
</sparql>
6.9 More Features
 RDF Dataset
- Collection of RDF Graphs
- use FROM <http://planetrdf.com/bloggers.rdf>
& FROM NAMED <http://site1.example.com/foo.rdf>

 Inbuilt functions for testing values

- IsLiteral
- IsBlank
- str
- regex
6.10 Limitation of SPARQL
 No nested queries

 No Insert, Update, Delete queries

 No aggregation functions
7. Semantic Web Status
Semantic
Communication Standard ? Applications
Web Layer
- Used for interoperability
SOAP,
XML YES Within application.
XML-RPC
- Web services.
- To and from converter
RDF SPARQL YES and many editors
- Over 107 RDF Documents
- FOAF, DOAP, Dublin
OWL OWLQL NO Core, Music Ontology, etc
are some famous ontology
Rules / ????
SWRL YES
Queries
- Jena, Racer, and Pellet
Logic & Proof DIG NO
are some of the projects

Trust TriQL.P NO ????

8. Conclusion
 Knowledge representation is very well developed in
semantic web.
 Agent communication is still an active area of
research, though we have standardized language
like SPARQL, still lot of research is required in
applying languages like FIPA-ACL to semantic web.
 Semantic web trust still remains the least explored of
all the layers of semantic web. Named graphs laid
an important foundation in this area.
 All in all semantic web is still a research field in
academia
9. Bibliography
 Introduction

- http://www.wikipedia.org/Semantic_Web
- http://www.cs.cmu.edu/%7Esoftagents/middle.html
- Agency and Semantic Web, By Christopher Walton,
Oxford Press.
- Explorers Guide To Semantic Web, By Thomas B. P.,
Manning Publication.
9. Bibliography (Contd.)
 Agent Communication

- Agency and Semantic Web, By Christopher Walton,

Oxford Press.
- Explorers Guide To Semantic Web, By Thomas B. P.,
Manning Publication.
- Lecture Notes of Multi-agent Semantic Web Systems,
University of Edinburgh.

 SPARQL

- http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-rdf-sparql-query-20070614/
- http://www.dajobe.org/2004/01/turtle/
Questions ……..??
Thank You ……..