<!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>Linking the Semantic Web to ODR: the Ontomedia project</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Marta Poblet</string-name>
          <email>Marta.Poblet@uab.cat</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Pompeu Casanovas</string-name>
          <email>Pompeu.Casanovas@uab.cat</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>José Manuel López Cobo</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2">2</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>ICREA Researcher at the Institute of Law and Technology</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff1">
          <label>1</label>
          <institution>Institute of Law and Technology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Facultat de Dret</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>08193 Bellaterra</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="ES">Spain</country>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2">
          <label>2</label>
          <institution>Ximetrix Network Thoughts</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <fpage>28</fpage>
      <lpage>37</lpage>
      <abstract>
        <p>Despite the conceptual vagueness of definitions, both Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 are opening up for ever-growing communities of users new forms of online interaction and customization of information. In this article we explore some of the critical features of Web 2.0 and 3.0 developments applied to different conflict domains, and then present some of the basic components of the Ontomedia platform. The Ontomedia project aims to provide mediation experts and users with a semantically enriched mediation platform where they are able to interact, mediate, and retrieve useful information on related cases in an effective and friendly way.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>Online Dispute Resolution (ODR)</kwd>
        <kwd>Semantic Web</kwd>
        <kwd>Web 3</kwd>
        <kwd>0</kwd>
        <kwd>Web 2</kwd>
        <kwd>0</kwd>
        <kwd>ontologies</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>1. Introduction</title>
      <p>
        Nearly at the end of the second decade of the Web, the boundaries delimiting the
notions of Web 2.0, Web 3.0, and the Semantic Web are not clearly drawn. To some
people, Web 2.0 and 3.0 are buzzwords, blanket terms or marketing concepts [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1 ref2">1, 2</xref>
        ].
To some others, they are shortcuts to refer to the second and third decades of the
Web, respectively [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ]. And to many, Web 2.0 is equivalent to the Social Web, since a
crucial aspect of its present development is about users (or prosumers, to use another
trendy word) creating and sharing contents within social networks. As regards Web
3.0, there is no similar consensus yet on what is it all about, although the notion
already resonates with openness (of protocols, standards, data, etc.), intelligent
applications, or semantically enriched contents. Spivack forecasts that “the focus of
this decade is going to be about enriching the structure of the Web and transforming
the Web from something that today is very much like a file server into something that
is more like a database” [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ]. To MacManus, “Web 3.0 is about open and more
structured data, which essentially makes the Web more ‘intelligent’” [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>
        And, then, the Semantic Web comes into play as a distinctive set of technologies
and languages whose functionalities are perceived in different senses: adding
structure to Web 2.0 as to make it evolve to Web 3.0 [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5 ref6 ref7">5,6,7</xref>
        ], letting machines to get
the meaning of information to transform, organize or synthesize data intelligently [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ],
or, more generally transforming the Web into a Giant Global Graph [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>
        Now, how ODR services may benefit from the advancements and opportunities
of Web 2.0, Web 3.0, and the Semantic Web? For fifteen years now, ODR services
have evolved in parallel to the extension of the Web. In 2006, Colin Rule predicted
that “ODR will be one of the biggest beneficiaries of these new technologies, because
they are squarely aimed at ODR’s core functionality areas: communication,
collaboration, and interactivity” [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>
        ]. Yet, experts have also warned that ODR services
may be lagging behind the curve of both Web 2.0 and Semantic Web recent
developments [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10 ref9">9,10</xref>
        ]. In the pages that follow we will try to offer some answers by
providing some recent examples and describing our particular contribution to the
field, the Ontomedia project.
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>2. New approaches to ODR</title>
      <p>For roughly two years now, new horizons and opportunities for ODR have incredibly
expanded with the emergence of new web tools and services focusing on conflict
prevention, conflict tracking, debate, or negotiation. For the sake of clarity, we will
distinguish here two different sets of tools: open source platforms and mashups. Even
though different in nature and purpose, they all have in common featured aspects of
state-of-the-art Web 2.0: open source software, free access, multiplatform facilities,
and crowdsourced data.
2.1 Open source platforms
− Ushahidi—“testimony” in Swahili—is a free, open source platform that allows its
users to gather distributed data via SMS, email or web and visualize it on a map or
timeline.1 Through Ushahidi people report real time information of events such as
political disruption or natural disasters and the platform aggregates this incoming
information for use in a crisis response. The website was created at the beginning
of 2008 as a simple mashup, using user-generated reports and Google Maps to map
reports of violence in Kenya after the post-election fallout. Ushahidi has recently
released the open Beta version of its platform and has been used in different
projects in India, Congo, and South Africa.
− Swift is a free and open source toolset for crowdsourced situational awareness.2
The first use of Swift has been as a complement to Ushahidi to monitor the Indian
2009 Elections. Swift embraces Semantic Web open standards “such as FOAF,
iCal, Dublin Core, as well as open publishing endpoints such as Freebase” to add
structure to crisis data and make them shareable.
− RapidSMS is an open source web-based platform for data collection, logistics
coordination, and communication developed by the Innovations and Development
team of UNICEF.3 With the RapidSMS web interface, multiple users can
simultaneously access the system to view incoming data as it arrives, export new
data-sets, and send text messages to users (UNICEF Innovation, 2009).
− Debategraph is a web-based, Creative Commons project that has developed a wiki
visualization tool to participate in already existing debates or create new ones. The</p>
      <sec id="sec-2-1">
        <title>1 http://www.ushahidi.com/</title>
        <p>2 http://swiftapp.org/
3 http://www.unicefinnovation.org/mobile-and-sms.php
tool includes editing options to raise new points or rating others’ arguments and
proposals, and RSS feeds to share, monitor or reuse the debate maps. The first
featured debate in Debategraph is “Peace in the Middle East”, which evaluates the
contentious issues and potential paths to long-term, sustainable peace in the Middle
East.</p>
        <sec id="sec-2-1-1">
          <title>2.2 Mashups</title>
          <p>
            − Vikalpa is a Sri Lanka citizen journalism initiative that in May 2008 launched a
micro-site on Twitter with short reports on election related violence and
malpractices. Reports were generated by the citizen journalist network in the
Eastern Province of the country.4 The micro-blogging initiative was complemented
with a Google Maps based solution for the Centre for Monitoring Election
Violence (CMEV) to locate election related incidents on a map [
            <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>
            ].
          </p>
        </sec>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-2">
        <title>4 http://www.vikalpa.org/archives/category/languages/english/</title>
        <p>
          − WarViews: Visualizing and Animating Geographic Data on Conflict. WarViews is
a project of The Swiss Federal Institute of Technology that has developed an
interface for the exploration of GIS data on conflict. WarViews is offered in two
different versions: a static version that runs in a web browser and allows the user to
switch between different data sets, and a dynamic version based on Google Earth
that can time-animate geographic data such that the development over time can be
monitored [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
          ]. WarViews targets both researchers and practitioners in the conflict
management and resolution domains.
− WikiCrimes is an initiative at the University of Fortaleza (Brazil) that allows
posting and accessing criminal occurrences in a Google map.
        </p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>3. The Ontomedia project</title>
      <p>
        According to Spivack, “there is in fact a natural and very beneficial fit between the
technologies of the Semantic Web and what Tim O’Reilly defines Web 2.0 to be
about (essentially collective intelligence)” [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">13</xref>
        ]. From these cross-roads between Web
2.0 and the Semantic Web emerges what is currently known as Web 3.0. Web 3.0,
therefore, is about bringing the “connective intelligence” against the already
established “collective intelligence” brought by the Web 2.0 [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref14">14</xref>
        ]. Or, to put in
Spivack’s words, “about connecting data, concepts, applications and ultimately
people” [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">13</xref>
        ]. The use of semantic technologies allows the connectivity through
devices, multimedia elements, text and any other Web resource by means of the
hyperdata.5 The Semantic Web is a collective effort led by the W3C in which an
evolved Web describes data in a shared and formal format as to be useful for people
and machines alike, allowing data to be shared and reused across applications,
enterprises, and community boundaries.
5 Hyperdata is about data that links to other data, as opposed to hypertext which is text linking
to other text.
      </p>
      <p>The Ontomedia project combines some of these trends and technologies to provide
a set of functionalities to a broad community of both professionals of the mediation
domain and end-users of mediation services.</p>
      <p>From the Ontomedia standpoint, we believe that Web 3.0 technologies can make
significant advances into the ODR field, helping professionals in gathering valuable
resources relevant to the mediation services they are providing, and helping users as
well to share and contribute to harness the connective intelligence about ODR that can
be found on the Web.</p>
      <p>To some extent, ODR is to ADR what blogs are to newspapers. In that sense, we
are talking not only about texts but mainly about videos (mobile or webcam taken),
speech, images and pictures. As Web 2.0 implied the massive contribution of content
from people, in Web 3.0 people will still be contributing with content, but this content
will be automatically annotated to its further use by software agents, connecting one
resource to another as the expression of a relationship described in a formal model,
known as ontology.</p>
      <p>In a nutshell, Ontomedia will allow users and professionals to meet in a
community-driven Web portal where contents are provided by users and annotated by
the ODR Web Platform. The ODR Web platform is generic, and can be tailored to be
effective in several domains such as family, health care, labour, environment, etc.</p>
      <p>Citizens (both professionals and users of mediation services) can use any kind of
devices to access the portal (computers, mobiles), and in any format suitable to their
purposes (text, speech, video, pictures). Users will therefore be able to participate in
online mediation services as they do in a face-to-face basis, but with the advantages of
distributed and even remote access.</p>
      <p>
        In Ontomedia we also foresee the application of mediation services as tasks within
a mediation process that will be formally described by means of both process
ontologies and mediation ontologies [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15">15</xref>
        ]. These services will be described, stored and
made accessible through a service bus that will ensure end to end communication
between consumers and providers, as well as a semantic execution engine that takes
care of the execution of semantically enhanced mediation processes.
      </p>
      <p>Ontologies will be used to annotate all kind of contents and also to help analyze
multimedia content (see Fig. 5). The multimedia analysis is devoted to enhancing the
information a mediator possess during a mediation session, capturing mood changes
of the parties and any other psychological information inputs that can be useful for
mediators, just as if they were in a room with the users of the mediation service. All
types of metadata will be automatically extracted and stored to be further used within
the mediation process.</p>
      <p>The access to the portal will be secured and private, and contents will be shown
only to profiles of users holding required authorizations. However, if content is
authorised to be made available, both users and professionals will have a huge case
repository where obtains valuable information concerning a similar case.</p>
      <p>Ontomedia will also develop tools to encourage users to exploit the advantages of
sharing information and experiences with others. In this way, users will be able to tag
and store content that are useful or interesting to them, and to find similar cases. In
doing so, they will be able to create social communities of people with common
interests.</p>
      <p>Related with those initiatives mentioned earlier, Ontomedia will provide a
mashable suite of features that will allow users to find in a map similar cases to theirs.
The semantic geoposition of those cases and its representation in a map is a trivial
feature. What seems more interesting from the user perspective is the posibility to
have tag clouds of concepts related with each case and a timeline of concepts against
a case.</p>
      <p>The set of Web 3.0 features that will be enabled and accesible to users of the
Ontomedia platform can be summarised here:
- Annotation of all types of contents. With this feature, a user can easily know
if another case has some conceptual similarity with hers. Given a case, a
useful visualization feature is the representation of those concepts more
relevant in a case as a tag cloud. Just clicking in one concept or other in the
tag cloud will show you a set of cases that also are related to that concept.
Jointly with the annotation, some metadata extraction is automatically
conducted, including geoposition of cases, time location and named entity
recognition.</p>
      <p>
        o With geoposition, users can see in a map cases similar to theirs,
given the set of concepts related to the issues. The tagcloud will
always show the concepts that are relevant to cases appearing in the
map. Categorization and segmentation will be possible by means of
several icons and with just a glimpse the user of the platform will
have a powerful tool for visualization and conceptual identification.
o With time location, users will have a timeline. Timelines can show
the location of cases against time with respect a particular concept
(the aparition of a case related to a concept in a particular time).
With this feature, users will be able to see the evolution of the
frequency of cases where a concept is concerned.
o Where NER (Named Entity Recognition) is concerned, the platform
will be able to detect where well-known entities are mentioned. In
Ontomedia, well-known entities are concepts that trascend domain
Ontologies like person names, organizations, dates, places, figures
and some others. The power behind this feature is that doing so, we
will be able to connect well-know entities with well-know facts as
those defined with the LOD (Linked Open Data) principles [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref16">16</xref>
        ].
Where the name of a person is mentioned, if it exists, we will
retrieve her FOAF6 profile. Where a place is mentioned, we will
extract the GeoName7 information available, and so on. This
information can be used within Ontomedia to add formal restrictions
and reason over it.
      </p>
      <p>Each concept, each piece of information, each resource is susceptible to have
a comment from any user. Users are encouraged to participate within the
platform and to build it jointly with other users.
5</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>Conclusions and future work</title>
      <p>Despite the conceptual vagueness of the definitions, both Web 2.0 and Web 3.0
developments offer new forms to interact with the Web that are most relevant to
ODR. To be sure, some of their critical features—openness, standardization, free
access, connectedness, crowdsourcing effects, etc.—make it possible to enrich ODR
services in a wider perspective. The Ontomedia project attempts to learn from these
innovations so as to provide an easy-to-use web platform for both mediation domain
experts and end-users. A distinctive aspect of Ontomedia, nevertheless, is the</p>
      <sec id="sec-4-1">
        <title>6 FOAF. Friend of a Friend. http://www.foaf-project.org/</title>
        <p>
          7 Geonames. http://www.geonames.org/about.html
application of Semantic Web technologies to enhance online mediation processes. On
the one hand, Ontomedia will use ontologies to annotate any kind of content (either
textual or multimedia) to help users to participate in the process and search any useful
information on related cases. On the other, a semantic execution engine will take care
of the execution of the semantically enhanced mediation processes. At the present
moment we are developing a mediation core ontology [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15">15</xref>
          ] and mediation domain
ontologies. Future work also includes semantic geoposition of cases and Named
Entity Recognition.
        </p>
        <sec id="sec-4-1-1">
          <title>6. Acknowledgments</title>
          <p>The research presented in this paper has been developed within the framework of two
different projects: (i) ONTOMEDIA: Platform of Web Services for Online Mediation,
Spanish Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Commerce (Plan AVANZA I+D,
TSI020501-2008, 2008-2010); (ii) ONTOMEDIA: Semantic Web, Ontologies and ODR:
Platform of Web Services for Online Mediation (2009-2011), Spanish Ministry of
Science and Innovation (CSO-2008-05536-SOCI)
7. References</p>
        </sec>
      </sec>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          1.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Schmidt</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <source>E. Web 2.0 vs. Web 3</source>
          .0. http://koreacrunch.com/archive/eric-schmidt-web30.
          <article-title>(</article-title>
          <year>2008</year>
          )
          <article-title>(accessed 7 May 2009</article-title>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          2.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Boutin</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <source>The definitive definition of Web 3</source>
          .0, http://www.semanticsincorporated.com/
          <year>2008</year>
          /10/the-definitive
          <article-title>-definition-of-web-30</article-title>
          .html (
          <year>2008</year>
          )
          <article-title>(accessed</article-title>
          12 May
          <year>2009</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          3.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Spivack</surname>
          </string-name>
          , N. http://thenextweb.com/
          <year>2008</year>
          /06/03/video-nova
          <article-title>-spivack-making-sense-of-thesemantic-web/ (</article-title>
          <year>2008</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          4. MacManus,
          <source>Understanding the New Web Era: Web</source>
          <volume>3</volume>
          .0,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Linked</surname>
            <given-names>Data</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , Semantic
          <string-name>
            <surname>Web</surname>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2009</year>
          ) http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/understanding_the_
          <article-title>new_web_era_web_30_linked_ data_s.php</article-title>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          5.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Greaves</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Mika</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <source>Semantic Web and Web 2.0. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web</source>
          , Vol.
          <volume>6</volume>
          (
          <issue>1</issue>
          ), pp.
          <fpage>1</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>3</lpage>
          (
          <year>2008</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          6.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Gruber</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Collective knowledge systems: Where the Social Web meets the Semantic Web</article-title>
          .
          <source>Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 6</source>
          , Vol.
          <volume>6</volume>
          (
          <issue>1</issue>
          ), pp.
          <fpage>4</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>13</lpage>
          (
          <year>2008</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          7.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hendler</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <source>J. Web</source>
          <volume>3</volume>
          .0 emerging. Computer, IEE, pp.
          <fpage>88</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>91</lpage>
          (
          <year>2009</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          8.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Berners-Lee</surname>
          </string-name>
          , T. Giant Global Graph http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/215 (
          <year>2007</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          9.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Rule</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          “
          <source>ODR and Web 2</source>
          .0” available at http://www.odr.info/colin/smu/odr%20and%
          <fpage>20web</fpage>
          %
          <fpage>202</fpage>
          .
          <string-name>
            <surname>doc</surname>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2006</year>
          )
          <article-title>(accessed</article-title>
          11 May
          <year>2009</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          10.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hattotuwa</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.:</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>The Future of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR): Technologies to Keep an Eye On</article-title>
          .
          <source>In 2008 Online Dispute Resolution Forum, June</source>
          <volume>22</volume>
          ,
          <year>2008</year>
          , http://ict4peace.wordpress.com/
          <year>2008</year>
          /06/
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          11.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hattotuwa</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Maps of election violence and malpractices in Eastern province elections</article-title>
          ,
          <source>10th May</source>
          <year>2008</year>
          , http://ict4peace.wordpress.com/
          <year>2008</year>
          /05/10/maps-of
          <article-title>-election-violence-andmalpractices-eastern-province-elections-sri-</article-title>
          <string-name>
            <surname>lanka-</surname>
          </string-name>
          10th-may-2008/.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref12">
        <mixed-citation>
          12.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Weidmann</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>N.B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kuse</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>WarViews: Visualizing and Animating Geographic Data on Civil War</article-title>
          .
          <source>International Studies Perspectives</source>
          , Vol.
          <volume>10</volume>
          (
          <issue>1</issue>
          ), pp.
          <fpage>36</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>48</lpage>
          (
          <year>2009</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref13">
        <mixed-citation>
          13.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Spivack</surname>
          </string-name>
          , N. “
          <article-title>The Semantic Web, Collective Intelligence</article-title>
          and Hyperdata”, available at http://novaspivack.typepad.com/nova_spivacks_weblog/
          <year>2007</year>
          /09/hyperdata.html (
          <year>2007</year>
          )
          <article-title>(accesed</article-title>
          13 May
          <year>2009</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref14">
        <mixed-citation>
          14.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>O</given-names>
            <surname>'Reilly</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>T.</surname>
          </string-name>
          “
          <article-title>Web 2.0 Compact Definition: Trying Again”</article-title>
          , available at http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/12/web-20-compact.html (
          <year>2006</year>
          )
          <article-title>(accessed</article-title>
          12 May
          <year>2009</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref15">
        <mixed-citation>
          15.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Poblet</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Casellas</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>N.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Torralba</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Casanovas</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          “
          <article-title>Modeling Expert Knowledge in the Mediation Domain: A Mediatio Core Ontology”</article-title>
          , in N. Casellas et al. (eds.)
          <source>Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Legal Ontologies and Artificial Intelligence Techniques (LOAIT'09)</source>
          , forthcoming
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref16">
        <mixed-citation>
          16.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Berners-Lee</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          Linked Data http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html (
          <year>2006</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>