<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>n2Mate: Exploiting social capital to create a standards-ri ch semantic network</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>David Peterson</string-name>
          <email>david@boabinteractive.com.au</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Anne Cregan</string-name>
          <email>anne.cregan@nicta.com.au</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2">2</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Rob Atkinson</string-name>
          <email>rob.atkinson@csiro.au</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>John Brisbin</string-name>
          <email>john@boabinteractive.com.au</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>BoaB interactive</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>2/84 Denham St., Tow nsville, QLD Australia 4810, +61 7 4724 2933</addr-line>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff1">
          <label>1</label>
          <institution>CSIRO Land &amp; Water, Lucas Heights Research</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Laboratories, Private Mail Bag 7, Bangor, NSW 2234</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="AU">Australia</country>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2">
          <label>2</label>
          <institution>National ICT Australia</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>223 Anzac Parade, Kensington NSW Australia 2052, +61 2 8306 0458</addr-line>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <abstract>
        <p>A significant boost on the path towards a web of linked, open data is the establishment and promotion of common semantic resources including ontologies and other operationalised vocabularies, and their instance data. Without consensus on these, we are hamstrung by the famous “n-squared” mapping problem. In addition, each vocabulary has its own associated attributes to do with why it was developed, what purposes it is best suited for, and how accurate and reliable it is at both a content and technical level, but most of this information is opaque to the general community. Our theory is that it is the lack of socially -sensitised processes highlighting who is using what and why, that have led to the current unmanageable plethora of vocabularies, where it is far easier to build your own vocabulary than try to find a suitable, reliable existing one. We therefore suggest that there is considerable value in the development of an online facility that performs the function of providing a space listing vocabulary and ontology resources with their associated authority, governance and quality of service attributes. Presenting this in a visual form and providing pivotable search facilities enhances recognition and comprehension. Additionally, and critically, the facility provides a focal point where discourse communities can make authority claims, rate vocabularies on various parameters, register their commitment to or usage of particular vocabularies, and provide feedback on their experiences. Through social interaction, we expect the most solid and useful vocabularies to emerge and form a stable semantic platform for content representation and interlinked knowledge. Our strategy is to become sufficiently enmeshed in the native information habits of people and their derivative institutions to reveal and collect their standards-seeking needs and activities with a minimum of effort on their part. This paper describes a pilot facility testing the theory above. Dubbed “n2M ate”, it is a novel exploitation of social networking software to provide a lightweight and flexible platform for testing the efficacy of leveraging social networks to link existing registers and „seed‟ an information space focussing on the use of standards in online information management.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>eol&gt;Registers</kwd>
        <kwd>vocabularies</kwd>
        <kwd>standards</kwd>
        <kwd>linking density</kwd>
        <kwd>rdf graph</kwd>
        <kwd>social networking</kwd>
        <kwd>knowledge re-use</kwd>
        <kwd>n2M ate</kwd>
        <kwd>n-squared</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>-</title>
      <p>The paper uses examples from the Australian context to provide
clear illustration of the central arguments.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>1. SOCIAL AND TECHNICAL CONTEXT</title>
      <p>The current emergence of a data web has re-focussed our attention
on standards. To be truly effective, the semantic web needs to
evolve towards a minimum number of ontologies, highly re-used,
and densely interlinked, rather than a sparse network with
minimal interoperability .</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>1.1 The standard proble m with standards</title>
      <p>The project to link open data can be realised through explicit
declarations by one data source in relation to another. These
“hard” linkages provide a high degree of certainty, but make data
maintenance exponentially difficult as the number of hard
linkages grows.</p>
      <p>Standards, understood as nodes of agreed meaning, provide a
more scalable approach to data linking. By agreein g to use the
same term to describe similar ideas in our different data, we
establish an implicit (semantic) linkage between our data. The
project to conceive, negotiate, and promote standards, however,
has proven to be even more difficult than the maintenance of hard
linkages.</p>
      <p>It is often noted, with some irony , that the great thing about
standards is that there are so many to choose from...and if you
can‟t find one you like, you can always create your own. .
While these sentiments provide excellent platforms for pub-based
oratory, the realities are not so easily dismissed. Application
designers, knowledge seekers, and agencies with a mandate to
interoperate are all too familiar with the significant resource
drains that occur when standards are hard to locat e, difficult to
app ly, or confusing to distinguish between.</p>
      <p>Standard vocabularies and data definitions have been quietly
multiplying in traditional media since ancient Sumer (ca.
Wikipedia, Cuneiform) but in more recent times the Semantic
Web has inspired a hyperbolic growth in contributions to the
standards project. For instance, a search in Swoogle on the word
“address” returns 12,834 semantic web documents; on “book” it
returns 19,601 (at 2008-01-24). For someone seeking to exercise
the efficiencies of knowledge reuse, this wealth of choice is
simply overwhelming and self-defeating. The current state of
affairs reveals semantic fragmentation, not semantic integration
and knowledge creation.</p>
      <p>Even within a narrow domain like the Australian government,
there are a wealth of terminologies and metadata “standards”
available for government agencies to consider. It is not clear if a
whole of government survey of standards has ever been
undertaken, but informal observation suggests that there are
hundreds of attempts to describe very similar concept spaces.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>1.2 Does anyone have a wheel like mine ? 1.3 Scalable register networks</title>
      <p>People have been trying to standardise themselves in one way or
another for quite some time. The most obvious benefit of this
instinct toward standardisation is communication efficiency, a
direct input to the rate of knowledge creation. By speaking the
same language, we can communicate and collaborate far more
effectively. Yet the barriers to standardisation appear to take on
new forms as fast as we evolve knowledge.</p>
      <p>In our present age the benefits of information interoperability are
now well understood, if only through their absence. M ost people
and institutions involved in project scoping, information product
development, and online service provision clearly grasp the power
of knowledge re-use and the cost efficiencies of standards-based
interoperation. This assertion is supported by the existence of an
entire government department whose mandate is to promote
effective and efficient information sharing, governance structures,
tools, methods and re-usable technical components across the
Australian Government.</p>
      <p>The Australian Government Information M anagement Office
(AGIM O) published a Government Architecture Reference M odel
1that discusses “...a repository of architectural artefacts (including
standards, guidelines, designs and solutions) that may be utilised
by agencies to deliver an increasing range of Whole of
Government services.”
In practice, however, we find that the task of identifying and
verifying the suitability of existing artefacts is simply too
timeconsuming. As a consequence, there are a great many ontologies
and informal vocabularies used by a very limited number of
organisations or agencies, with a great sparsity of intermappings
between them, even though there is a very large amount of
crossover in terms of content.</p>
      <p>
        M ore globally, the Linking Open Data (LOD) project [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ] holds
datasets that currently comprise over 2 billion triples but reveal
only about 3 million links (SWEO, 2007), so overall the graph is
very sparsely interconnected [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>In many ways the current situation is akin to a train network that
has millions of stations (nodes) covering the same area
(knowledge domains) but with a great sparsity of tracks
(mappings) between stations, and hardly any trains and passengers
(services, publishers, agents, users) running on the vast majority
of them.</p>
      <p>Our experience with efficient rail networks shows that we want to
reach a necessary minimum of stations interconnected with an
optimised number of tracks, and attract a maximum number of
trains to utilise the infrastructure. This obviously gives us a far
more robust and useful semantic network to traverse.</p>
      <p>In related research, it should be possible to show how the density
of interconnectedness in the RDF graph improves the efficiency
of machine process operation without producing a debilitating
level of ambiguity. We would argue that the degree of
interconnectedness implemented between ontologies can be taken
as a proxy indicator of interoperability across the knowledge
domain.</p>
      <sec id="sec-4-1">
        <title>1 http://www.agimo.gov.au/services/GovDex</title>
        <p>As we have argued, there are many technical standards and
common policies in use across a wide range of government
activities, but the very number of such activities and standards is
in itself posing a significant challenge.</p>
        <p>AGIM O and others have a role in promoting the use of common
approaches, but it is increasingly difficult to track which standards
apply to which set of problems.</p>
        <p>In general, there is an issue about the scalability of any approach
for improving interconnectedness. We believe that the most
promising strategy is to utilise registers to hold metadata about
standards and their implementation, including records of
organisations, projects, standards, controlled vocabularies (and
associated people and roles). A network of such registers, coupled
through normal web services mechanisms, has the potential to
form a semantic fabric that addresses the business-level needs of
people and institutions. Whilst this is potentially a vast
undertaking, the bulk of target information already exists, and
there are already a great many people actively tasked with
identifying, using and promoting standards. These people are
likely to be receptive to an effort such as n2M ate.</p>
        <p>A network of registers, supported by a “register of registers”
addresses the most important questions: who is doing what, which
standards are relevant, who can I talk to, what is the governance
model for these artefacts, and how trustworthy is the source.
Through a richly populated network of registers, these become
questions any organisation can rapidly address, and in doing so
can promote commonality of approach within and amongst
various discourse communities.</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>1.4 Socially -sensitive metadata</title>
      <p>
        One of the dark secrets of the machine-based knowledge project is
the enormous loss of content as we move from people‟s minds to
their documents and datasets. David Snowden, amongst many
others, has pointed to the impossibility of “collecting” knowledge
from people without providing a meaningful context:
“Human knowledge is deeply contextual, it is triggered by
circumstance and need, and is revealed in action. .... to ask
someone what he or she knows is to ask a meaningless question in
a meaningless context. Tacit knowledge ... comes about when our
skilled performance is p unctuated in new ways through social
interaction” [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>A socially -sensitised strategy provides the meaningful context and
familiar atmosphere that people require before they can (or will)
reveal their knowledge in a useful way.</p>
      <p>We suggest there is a cluster of persistent problems in complex
information spaces that can be socially characterised as follows:</p>
      <sec id="sec-5-1">
        <title>Who and what:</title>
        <p>



</p>
        <p>Owner: Who owns it?
Creation: Who created it?
M aintenance: Who is responsible for maintaining it?
Domain: which domains is it relevant to? This will
include a number of different ways of considering
domains.</p>
        <p>Usage: Who uses it?
How does it relate to other standards in the space?
User experiences</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-6">
      <title>2. SOCIAL ARCHITECTURES AND</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-7">
      <title>SEMANTIC N ETWORKS</title>
      <p>The principle social platform techniques we seek to exploit
include:




</p>
      <p>Popularity Rankings: number of times a standards artefact
is referenced (implemented).</p>
      <p>Authority Badges: mechanism to advertise an authority
claim over a standards artefact.</p>
      <sec id="sec-7-1">
        <title>Related to (“Friends of a S tandard (FOAS )” ): linkages</title>
        <p>from standards artefacts to their cohort of implementers.
Trust ratings: showing satisfaction with the custodian of a
standards artefact.</p>
        <p>Hero worship: most interlinked, most trusted, most useful
Each of these techniques have corresponding interface strategies
that provide a powerful social platform in which people (and
institutional roles) can operate quite naturally.</p>
        <p>Each of these techniques also forms a search facet that can be
traversed with high efficiency faceted search and browsing tools.</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-8">
      <title>2.1 Use Case</title>
      <p>A simple use case will help us set the stage for describing the
technical architecture proposed.</p>
      <p>A researcher is preparing her research plan on a section of the
Great Barrier Reef. Although she is an experienced marine
scientist, she is new to the GBR and to her host research facility.
She suspects she should be using:
standard naming conventions for the GBR regions;
standard identifications for the particular reefs;
standard data sampling techniques appropriate to the
Australian tropics;
standard data formats, enumerators, and vocabularies in
her datasets;
standard citations of agencies, programmes, and people
referenced in her work;
standard metadata fields and vocabularies to describe
her research output;</p>
      <sec id="sec-8-1">
        <title>Quality of Service Parameters:</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-8-2">
        <title>Other Considerations:</title>
        <p> standard project management practice in reporting on
her project‟s progress.</p>
        <p>In the absence of a useful standards locator, it‟s not likely that she
will achieve a high standard of conformance to the norms of her
discourse community.</p>
        <p>In the absence of a socially -sensitised register space, it is not
likely her discourse community is actively sharing their
experience and wisdom with standards.</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-9">
      <title>2.2 Instance Data</title>
      <p>The facility needs to be designed around a sufficient minimum of
predicates that embody the “business logic” of the facility and
establish the semantic armature we require for inferencing.
We propose the following [shows predicate] as a starting point:
Organisations are [responsible for] people, projects,
standards, and vocabularies
People are [associated with] Projects
Projects are [implemented by] Standards
Standards are [expressed with] vocabularies</p>
      <p>Trust or utility of Standards are [ranked by] People
Using these indicative predicates as a starting point, we can
answer a matrix of discovery questions through faceted
visualisation. In each search operation, the user can rotate to a
facet of interest to continue the discovery process.</p>
      <p>
        I know someone like me [PersonName] &gt; What projects
are they associated with?
Those p rojects are like mine [ProjectName] &gt; What
standards are used in them?
Those standards are of interest [StandardName] &gt; How
can I decide which one is most appropriate for me?








The logic described here is possible because we have imposed a
limited set of predicate types. These types are native to the
n2M ate facility. To take advantage of existing social networks
that utilise other predicate types, Semantic Web vocabularies such
as SIOC [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ] and FOAF [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5 ref8">5</xref>
        ] will be used.
      </p>
      <p>The facility will also consider structured lists of resources, like a
list of country names available from the same address, to itself be
a kind of register. For instance, many applications need a list of
every valid country name for users to input their address
information. The ability to reference an external source that is
authoritative, accurate, up -to-date and reliably available and
derefenceable reduces the need for application maintenance.
The metadata held in these registers can be typed according to
existing conceptualisations. For example, the National Data
Network 2 draws on ideas from the M etadata Open Forum 3 to
classify their metadata as: Discovery metadata; Quality metadata;
and Definitional metadata.</p>
      <p>We note that the semantic register network can also list web
services in addition to typical standards artefacts such as
ontologies and vocabularies.</p>
      <sec id="sec-9-1">
        <title>2 http://www.nationaldatanetwork.org/</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-9-2">
        <title>3 http://metadataopenforum.org/</title>
        <p>We intend to specifically tune this facility to the needs of
govern ment and community agencies that have a mandate to
participate in the creation and maintenance of highly effective
approaches to service improvement.</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-10">
      <title>3. IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS</title>
      <p>A demonstrator version of n2M ate can be established using
readily available tools and datasets so that a more detailed critique
can be pursued with a minimum of upfront overhead. In this
section we discuss some of the more promising approaches.
3.1</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-11">
      <title>Key compo nents</title>
      <p>The registration process, and maintaining a
network of linked objects, is the function of
traditional registry technologies, such as ebXM L
Registry . Navigating and efficiently query ing the
contents and relationships is not well supported by
this environment.</p>
      <p>It is proposed to automate the harvesting of object
relationships from the “Register of Registers” into
a triple-store. This is the same pattern found in
data-mining, where transactional database content
is restructured into generalised query -oriented
structures. For our p urposes, automated discovery
of patterns is not the focus: fast , efficient visual
presentation is essential.</p>
      <p>Users will be parsing through extensive data
structures, and may need to prop ose and ref ine
their discovery logic in quick, exploratory sorties.</p>
      <sec id="sec-11-1">
        <title>Visualisation and face t search: Gnizr +</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-11-2">
        <title>Solr</title>
        <p>
          We want a tool that thinks natively in URIs and
triples. Gnizr 4 is an open source front end that
handles user account management, bookmarking,
tagging, and semantic sear ch
Every object stored by gnizr is a bookmark (URI),
and the folksonomy tag interface is SKOS [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
          ]
enabled.
        </p>
        <p>Solr 5 is an open source enterp rise search server
based on the Lucene Java search library , with
XM L/HTTP and JSON APIs, hit highlighting, faceted search,
caching, r eplication, and a web administration interface.
Solr could be used to facet the data into searchable and
browseable components. For example, if users are interested in
what ontologies Sun M icrosystems is using, they select Sun from
the „Who is Using‟ facet. The other facets instantly re-order and
re-number themselves and the user is free to further refine the
results by selecting additional facets.</p>
        <p>Faceted search visualisation can be negotiat ed through cluster
maps (eg, Aduna 6) with a high degree of efficiency.</p>
        <sec id="sec-11-2-1">
          <title>4 http://code.google.com/p/gnizr/</title>
        </sec>
        <sec id="sec-11-2-2">
          <title>5 http://lucene.apache.or g/solr/</title>
        </sec>
        <sec id="sec-11-2-3">
          <title>6 http://www.aduna-software.org</title>
        </sec>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-11-3">
        <title>Semantic inter pretati on: MOAT</title>
        <p>MOAT 7 (M eaning of a Tag) could serv e as the basis for giving
extended quality of information to free form folksonomy tagging.
This will allow users of the bookmarking system to have the
flexibility of folksonomy and the interlinked structure of the
Semantic Web. The added benefit is that M OAT is a distributed
system and can tap into other servers to give extended meaning to
free-form tags.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-11-4">
        <title>Tri ple-store : Sesame</title>
        <p>
          Sesame 8 could provide backend triple store, graph manipulation,
RDF inferencing, and r emote SPARQL [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
          ] endpoint access.
        </p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-11-5">
        <title>Policy l ayer: P LING</title>
        <p>The development of robust approaches to policy negotiation is
being driven by a W3C Interest Group 9. The n2M ate project
could field test various strategies for handling issues of personal
privacy, information reuse, and access control.</p>
        <sec id="sec-11-5-1">
          <title>7 http://moat-project.org/</title>
        </sec>
        <sec id="sec-11-5-2">
          <title>8 http://sourceforge.net/projects/sesame/</title>
        </sec>
        <sec id="sec-11-5-3">
          <title>9 http://www.w3.org/Policy/pling/</title>
        </sec>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-11-6">
        <title>Trust and Governance: POWDER</title>
        <p>POWDER 10 is the W3C‟s Protocol for Web Description
Resources, currently in development.</p>
        <p>Governance: is related to the idea of trust. In the context of this
project, we want to explore two aspects of governance:
1. How to make it easy for agencies who have a mandate to be an
authority for some asset to dischar ge their duty in an efficient and
useful way.
2. How to provide users with a suite of trust measures that will
allow them to evaluate the qualities of a particular asset in relation
to their needs.</p>
        <p>POWDER seeks to develop a mechanism through which
structured metadata can be authenticated and applied to group s of
web resources.</p>
        <p>POWDER provides us with a means to both retrieve information
about a block of Web Resources and authenticate that this
information may be attributed to the owners of the information.</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-12">
      <title>3.2 Testing the system with existing resources</title>
      <p>There are already many semantically rich registers implicit in the
operations of government, including the identifier of govern ment
agencies, registers of company names, standards recognised by
Standards Australia, legislation and r egulations, management
areas for land, water, soils, health etc. This represents a wealth of
entities about which assertions can be made, to create a
semantically rich environment.</p>
      <p>
        Semantic Web data can be rou gh ly broken down into 3 levels: [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ]
Vocabulary / Ontology
Individual occurr ence of those terms and actual
instances of non-information resources
      </p>
      <p>The links that tie the vocabularies to their occurrences
All three of these need to be captured with adequate provenance
data to bootstrap n2M ate.</p>
      <p>The following web services can be utilised to populate/update
information as well as add important metadata to the Register of
Registers component of n2M ate.</p>
      <p>Watson 11: A gateway to the Semantic Web, focusing
on: semantic data quality; relations between ontologies;
access to semantic data
Talis S chema Cache 12: Cross-linked and navigable
index of ontologies and vocabular ies.</p>
      <p>S woogle 13: Search engine for Semantic Web artefacts
Sindice 14: Indexes the RDF web and pulls out the
triples. From there it essentially creates a reverse
lookup.</p>
      <p>Falcons 15: Currently indexing 34,566,728 objects
(2008-02-01), Provides bi-directional resource linking.
1.
2.
10 http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/
11 http://watson.kmi.open.ac.uk/Overview.html
12 http://schemacache.test.talis.com/
13 http://swoogle.umbc.edu
14 http://sindice.com
15 http://iws.seu.edu.cn/services/f alcons/
</p>
      <p>Ping the Semantic Web 16: archives the location of
recently created/updated, web-accessible RDF
3.3</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-13">
      <title>Data harvesting and processing</title>
      <p>n2M ate can lever age existing sear ch engine services, such as
those listed above, to collect data instances from target registers
and sources. M any of these have or are developing APIs that
facilitate direct access to their collections and service points.
Where well-formed registers and artefact collections exist already,
n2M ate could establish harvesting relationships (presumably
through appropriate API arrangements). OWL files, RDF data
dumps, and SPARQL endpoints could be pointed to the n2M ate
system for automated data fetching and processing.</p>
      <p>Additionally, trust algorithms would be created from graph
inferencing, metadata and social data to further guide the
prospective n2M ate user, allowing them to more quickly
determine what is the best artefact to use in their situation. This
will be an evolving process that will occur ov er time as the quality
of data and user interactions flows back and forth.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-14">
      <title>4. CONCLUS ION</title>
      <p>The unique aspect of this proposal is that it leverages the hidden
formal and infor mal knowledge networks created by existing
business processes, and marries this information with social
networking models to provide a useful way of organising and
navigating the wealth of available information. It uses the
community of people using vocabularies to empower others,
starting with the places where agreements already exist.
The n2M ate provides a tool that encourages use of standardised
artefacts by exposing existing registers, leveraging social
networks and building a central reference point for users that will
assist them to identify relevant semantic assets for their needs,
choose amongst them, and feel confident about their utilisation.
Further, research into the strategy proposed should provide
contributions to related projects, such as the development of:


</p>
      <p>A lightweight mechanism r evealing the state
interconnectedness in and between discourse communities.
of
A bridging space between gov ernment, business, community ,
academia and science knowledge assets to enhance
broadscale interop erability.</p>
      <p>A genetic algorithm to breed, select, and hybridise various
standards artefacts such as ontologies, services, and trust
authorities.</p>
      <p>In conclusion, we suggest that there is currently a signif icant level
of inefficiency in the applied domain of project scoping,
information product development, and online service provision
due to the inadequacy and irrelevance of existing knowledge
registers.</p>
      <p>We further suggest that a promising solution strategy involves
using the power of social networks, coupled with semantic
discovery and visualisation tools, to create a socially -sensitised
semantic network of standards registers.
16 http://pingthesemanticweb.com/</p>
      <p>Renato Iannella provided background thinking on the Policy
Aware Web. Alan Ruttenberg of the Science Commons and Tom
Heath of the Linking Open Data project provided encouragement
and wisdom from their broad experience. Steve M atheson from
the Australian Bureau of Statistics corroborated our intuition that
social platforms could play an important role in standards
adoption.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          [1]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
            <surname>Bizer</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
            <surname>Heath</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
            <surname>Ayers</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Y.</given-names>
            <surname>Raimond</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Interlinking Open Data on the Web (Poster)</article-title>
          .
          <source>In 4th European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC2007)</source>
          , pages
          <fpage>802</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>815</lpage>
          ,
          <year>2007</year>
          . http://esw.w3.org/topic/SweoIG/TaskForces/CommunityProje cts/LinkingOpenData
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          [2]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M .</given-names>
            <surname>Hausenblas</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>W.</given-names>
            <surname>Halb</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Y.</given-names>
            <surname>Raimond</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
            <surname>Heath</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>What is the Size of the Semantic Web? - M etrics for M easuring the Giant Global Graph</article-title>
          ,
          <year>2007</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          [3]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Snowden</surname>
          </string-name>
          , Dave.
          <source>Information vs Knowledge</source>
          . http://www.rkrk.net.au/index.php/Information_Vs_Knowledge
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          [4]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            <surname>Breslin</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            <surname>Harth</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>U.</given-names>
            <surname>Bojars</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            <surname>Decker. Towards Semantically -Interlinked Online</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Communities</article-title>
          . In Second European Semantic Web Conference,
          <string-name>
            <surname>ESWC</surname>
          </string-name>
          <year>2005</year>
          , Heraklion, Crete, Greece, M ay 29-June 1,
          <year>2005</year>
          . Proceedings,
          <year>2005</year>
          . http://sioc-project.org/
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          [5]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
            <surname>Brickley</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <surname>L.</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>M iller. FOAF Vocabulary Specication</article-title>
          .
          <source>Namespace Document 2 Sept</source>
          <year>2004</year>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>FOAF</given-names>
            <surname>Project</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <year>2004</year>
          . http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          [6]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
            <surname>Brickley</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <surname>A.</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>M iles</article-title>
          .
          <source>SKOS core vocabulary specication</source>
          <year>2005</year>
          -
          <volume>11</volume>
          -02. W3C working draft,
          <source>W3C</source>
          ,
          <year>November 2005</year>
          . updated version under http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp -skoscore-spec.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          [7]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>E.</given-names>
            <surname>Prud</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>'hommeaux, A</article-title>
          . Seaborne, eds, SPARQL Query Language for RDF http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>5.2 Special thanks….</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>