# Web 3.0 and health librarians: an introduction

Allan Cho and Dean Giustini

## Key messages

* Web 3.0 refers to the *third* decade of the Web from 2010–2020. Some experts believe we are entering a *pre*-Web 3.0 period.

* The current Web is characterized by global information overload and repetitive searching and browsing using Google.

* Debates about Web 3.0 are still somewhat theoretical, but a common theme is “developing an integrated web of data” based on sound principles of information systems design. Some experts say that the principles of librarianship should play a role in improving how the Web is organized.

* In 2008, semantic technologies are being used to solve information retrieval problems in bioinformatics, which may have specific applications in medicine. The term “Semantic Web” is occasionally used as a synonym for Web 3.0 (and vice versa), though some disagree with that usage.

* Health librarians should be thinking ahead about how to design better domain-specific search tools and user experiences (including virtual) in Web 3.0.

## Introduction

This paper introduces some of the main concepts and principles of Web 3.0 for health librarians. In doing so, it aims to explore some of the issues and terminologies associated with the Web's projected development over the next 10 years, and at a level of generality that we hope will raise awareness and encourage debate. Many health librarians have recently adopted the underlying principles and social software tools of Web 2.0 into practice [1]. Can we be moving into the early stages of Web 3.0 already?

To answer that question, let's begin with some of the many conflicting definitions of Web 3.0. According to Wikipedia, “There is considerable debate as to what the term Web 3.0 means, and what a suitable definition might be” [2]. Web futurist Nova Spivack says that Web 3.0 refers to the third decade of the Web's development from 2010–2020 (Table 1). Spivack states that Web 3.0 is “...[a] more connected, open, and intelligent Web, using semantic technologies, distributed databases, natural language processing, machine

learning and machine reasoning...” [3]. A number of Internet experts say that we are already moving toward using the technologies that herald this new era [4]. But some librarians say that these definitions do little to clarify what Web 3.0 is (E. Barsky and G. Rowell, personal communication, 23 February 2008). One librarian blogger is vehement that Web versions do not (or should not) exist [5].

In 2007, the trade journal *PC Magazine* stated, “In case you missed it, the Web now has version numbers” [6]. We view the use of Web versions as simply a kind of shorthand. As the Web evolves, periods of time designated by numbers serve as useful guideposts in the digital age. Think of how terms like Generation X have entered the zeitgeist and how the Web has spawned terms like the Internet Generation (iGen). It seems natural to us to use these terms as tags or memes because they help to refer to a trend or a set of trends quickly. In fact, some futurists have already begun to list the features of the Web beyond its third generation to Web 4.0 [7]. Despite some misuse, versioning seems likely to continue for the foreseeable future.

What's important, in our view, are the Web 3.0 information trends that health librarians should be anticipating, watching, and thinking about for the future:

* (1) The idea of transforming the Web into a large database

* (2) Creating “information” pathways for artificial intelligence and machine-based reasoning

* (3) Applying varied technologies of the Semantic Web to improve information retrieval

* (4) Assimilating three-dimensional (3D), virtual, and simulated worlds into the Web experience [8]

The common theme here is a focus on information organization and retrieval. We are interested in these issues because they are so dominant in our work as health librarians. Although Web 3.0 and the Semantic Web have distinct connotations, we argue that both concepts point to the need for a sea change in the way that Web information is organized, described, and located. This similarity may explain why the two terms are often used interchangeably and (or) synonymously. Where possible, we try to make distinctions between Web 3.0 and the Semantic Web, but we too are grappling with a number of vague definitions.

## Everything is miscellaneous and fragmented

To clarify Web 3.0 concepts, information retrieval seems a natural starting point for health librarians. Simply put, Web

**A. Cho.** Reference Librarian, Humanities and Social Sciences, Walter C. Koerner Library, 1958 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z2, Canada (e-mail: allan.cho@ubc.ca).

**D. Giustini.** Reference Librarian, Biomedical Branch Library, Gordon and Leslie Diamond Health Care Centre, 2775 Laurel Street, Floor 2, Vancouver, BC V5Z 1M9, Canada (e-mail: dean.giustini@ubc.ca).
<table><caption>**Table 1.** Stages in the development of the Web.</caption><tr><td>Web 1.0</td><td>Web 2.0</td><td>Web 3.0</td></tr><tr><td>1990–2000</td><td>2000–2010</td><td>2010–2020</td></tr><tr><td>Read or write Web</td><td>Social Web</td><td>Semantic Web</td></tr></table>

3.0—an extended, *better* version of the Web created over the next 10 years—is needed because of the problems we have in performing effective information retrieval. As many expert searchers know, cumulating the medical evidence via the Web has become increasingly difficult in an “everything-is-miscellaneous” universe [9]. For systematic reviews, health librarians must invest vast amounts of time and energy in locating relevant studies from multiple databases. There is often considerable hesitancy on the part of health librarians in doing systematic reviews because finding all studies on clinical interventions is so onerous. As health librarians, we would like to explore better methods of federated searching and metasearching in Web 3.0.

Some of the root causes of poor integration in information retrieval seem self-evident to us. As Svenonius writes, “The essential and defining objective of a system for organizing information is to bring *like* information together and to differentiate what is *not* alike” [10]. The current Web does an extremely poor job of bringing information together (co-location) and differentiating between closely related concepts (disambiguation). Another pernicious problem is how fragmented the biomedical literature has become; even meta-search tools such as the Trip Database and SumSearch cannot completely remedy the problems that health librarians face in conducting searches for a disseminated literature. While it is true that designing better systems of organization and using greater precision help, the information age has simply become too efficient in creating vast amounts of new medical knowledge.

Another problem for health librarians is that the Web is growing faster than we can possibly index it, given the proliferation of open access journals, self-archiving practices, and institutional repositories on the Web. That means we must investigate new systems of organization and automate some of our indexing processes. It means exploring the newest information technologies with an eye to their successful implementation outside our borders to knowledge-based organizations globally. The temptation is to rely on our venerable databases like MEDLINE or EMBASE for the most reliable information; however, we run the risk of becoming increasingly irrelevant or incompetent in the information age if we don’t look beyond them.

With fewer health professionals using our print collections (many of whom want to locate information on the Web for themselves) [11], our attention should shift away from our physical libraries to “the Web as library”. If we don’t, our work may be overtaken by other information professionals, or perhaps our users themselves. To keep in step with changes needed over the long term, we must explore new ways of resolving information problems beyond our profession’s limited ideologies [12].

## Information themes in Web 3.0

A common library theme in this discourse is that Web 3.0 responds to a public service need and prompts information

professionals to think about better principles of organization. In a 2007 *British Medical Journal* editorial, one health professional is quoted as saying that Web 3.0 should be where “pathways” for retrieval are supported by better descriptive standards [13]. To us, this notion sounds rather like the underlying purpose and architecture of MEDLINE. Further, these pathways are not unlike those we use to build our online catalogues. The importance of what documents *mean* and using words carefully to describe what they mean is an important aspect of indexing and the Semantic Web. Incidentally, “semantics” is a term derived from the Greek to give signs, meaning, or to make significant—a central goal of the Semantic Web.

In his landmark *Scientific American* paper, Sir Tim Berners-Lee said that semantic annotation of Web sites (adding metadata, for example) will create a global “‘Web of data’...and help to solve humankind’s most complex problems” [14]. In a very real sense, we agree that this is also one of the primary goals of Web 3.0: moving toward integrated data, information, and knowledge. But not all information on the Web needs to be co-located, since so much of it is of questionable value. Why is this?

In recent years, the increase in worldwide production of information due to the participatory aspects of Web 2.0 has resulted in information overload. Spam, remix, and duplication are enormous problems. Is it any surprise that our users settle for something in Google (“a few good papers”) when they could be doing more structured searching in MEDLINE? For our part, health librarians teach users how to find synthesized information in point-of-care tools like Cochrane, Clinical Evidence, and DynaMed. But how many physicians use these tools with any regularity? By missing important, seminal papers, physicians end up making decisions with incomplete or misleading evidence, leading to tragic results [15].

Some librarians point to an exclusive reliance on keyword searching as a source of many information problems. The lack of subject-oriented approaches is at the root of many of our end-users’ search problems. But do they have many alternatives? As health librarians, we argue that keyword searching on the Web can only be recommended for “known item” searching or browsing (again, “a few good papers”). Google’s drive to digitize any and all information and make it accessible is a noble goal. But much of this information is not described, indexed, or found easily. Will it be found? Or will that depend on luck and serendipity? Although free content may be very useful and convenient to access, digitization projects and open access journals do add to information overload.

The logical first step in resolving overload is to isolate authoritative information. To move toward the Semantic Web, we will need to make the Web documents that contain meaningful information understandable to machines [16]. And let’s put the *evidence* where end-users are searching. In Web 3.0, we literally need to tell computers what to do with containers of knowledge, the documents. This is achieved through rules-based inferences and telling computers what we want them to do with a certain set of documents. Changing how we organize knowledge will require a shift in our thinking. Some information professionals suggest that
we begin to think of the open Web not as a place for ephem-
era but as a massive, searchable database [17].

Controlled terms and ontologies

By the way, while some health librarians develop their
own sophisticated databases, most of us have not gone be-
yond creating basic relational databases by using simple
tools like Microsoft Access. Typically, as reference librari-
ans, we are asked to participate in creating index vocabular-
ies and then to critique the interfaces used to extract
information from the database. Hence, our focus has been on
developing and (or) using subject-specific vocabularies to
find things [18]. Even though we understand how terms and
their variants are used in information retrieval, our experi-
ence is somewhat limited in building retrieval systems. This
is one of the reasons why Google and search engine devel-
opers have usurped much of our work in the information
age, not to mention vast fame and fortune.

For the billions of documents created in the future and
stored on the Web, who will index this material? Will
Google implement post-hoc controlled vocabularies as a
means of organizing the world's information? Or will
Google's hegemony in searching be challenged by semantic
technologies? The National Library of Medicine (NLM) is
working on automated indexing, which may be part of what
we can use in the future [19]. Clearly, more librarian-led re-
search and development need to be done.

Another challenge we anticipate is how to teach end-users
about controlled vocabularies. Will we decentralize indexing
by delegating the mountain of work to end-users as they
publish their papers? Will health professionals want to learn
how to index or create their own metadata? Is it reasonable
to teach researchers how to index as part of information lit-
eracy? Health professionals have used keywords to annotate
their journal articles for some time, so we can build on those
efforts. If we are serious about finding better ways of doing
things, health librarians will need to be creative.

With respect to grants, we believe that resource descrip-
tion will become an added step in applying for funding from
the National Institutes of Health and the Canadian Institutes
of Health Research in the future. Providing access to the
published results of government-funded studies is now a re-
quirement in both Canada and the United States [20,21].
Without the ability to apply controlled vocabularies and cre-
ate metadata, researchers will be at a disadvantage as they
self-archive their work. Where research is placed on the Web
without proper metadata or in a form unreadable to comput-
ers, it will remain a fugitive literature—*hidden in the deep
Web* [22]. At least one medical librarian suggests that a num-
ber of medical ontologies be used to create metadata, such
as SNOMED and the Unified Medical Language System
(UMLS) [23,24].

Semantics in medicine

The Semantic Web is linked to globalization as English
has become the Web's *lingua franca*. A homogenized, uni-
versal language makes it easier to implement semantic tech-
nologies and controlled vocabularies, and promotes
standards that help to clarify concepts. But even where Eng-

lish is widely used, natural language variations creep into
the vocabulary. As health librarians, we know that a consis-
tent use of MeSH in MEDLINE will result in more accurate,
complete searching. For example, doing MeSH searches for
documents *about* the field of thoracic oncology or about the
diseases lung cancer and small-cell lung neoplasia are easier
when using a controlled vocabulary. Think about doing the
same searches in Google and the variations of meaning and
ambiguity that are encountered as a result of natural lan-
guage terms.

Several semantic technologies have already been tested to
disambiguate and clarify the confusion of overlapping con-
cepts within millions of documents. These language-
enabling technologies include an alphabet soup of acronyms,
such as the RDF (Resource Description Framework), OWL
(Web Ontology Language), FOAF (Friend of a Friend), and
SKO (Simple Knowledge Organization System) [25–28].
The Web 2.0 tool, RSS (Really Simple Syndication), is also
a descriptive framework [29] and enables RSS feeds to be
read by all readers and aggregators despite potential incom-
patibilities.

Whether social tagging and folksonomies will result in
useful data for use in Web 3.0 is an important question. A
great deal of tagging work has already taken place on social
bookmarking sites by consumers and patients. If we expect
health professionals to learn more about applying labels to
their work for the benefit of finding it later, the same expec-
tation should be placed on general Web users. Of course, the
problem with social tagging is its arbitrary nature as it is a
kind of “indexing of the crowds”. Marking your own work
creates messy data and offers no controls for synonyms,
homonyms, and spelling [16]. This is not a problem for a fi-
nite group of documents but becomes increasingly problem-
atic as datasets increase. Moreover, the data created on
tagging sites may be unusable unless health librarians can
find ways to map it to an acceptable ontological framework.

Some health consumers and patients are using data lan-
guage and ontologies in innovative ways [30]. Friend of a
Friend (FOAF) is a decentralized social networking project
(or system) that started in a grassroots way. Consumers have
created a semantic vocabulary for describing people's
names, ages, locations, jobs, and relationships, using them to
reveal common interests. Users post information, photos,
and video in all formats and connect them—something
MySpace and Facebook cannot do on their own. More than
one million individuals have already interlinked their
FOAFs, including users of the blogging services Livejournal
and TypePad. Health librarians should explore how to apply
medical vocabularies to pre-existing datasets such as those
on social networking and bookmarking sites, as they could
potentially save considerable investments of time and re-
sources.

Web 3.0 as a searchable catalogue

Semantic Web experts, especially those from computer
science fields, can learn a great deal from library experts
who are pushing the boundaries of automated cataloguing
and indexing. In health libraries, technical experts at the
NLM and the Canada Institute for Scientific and Technical
Information (CISTI) are logical contacts. There are undoubt-
edly many experts across the globe doing interesting work in
this area, and we welcome their input.

A major library document currently in development that
may have an impact on the direction of Web 3.0 is the soon-
to-be-released Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules
(AACR3). By 2009, the Resource Description and Access
(RDA)—the new name for AACR3—will be a critical text
for describing digital materials and establishing information
principles well into the 21st century [31]. The issue of
whether librarians can adjust their approach to Web 3.0 or
be bound by their profession’s “persnickety standards” [32]
is open for debate. We suggest that health librarians enter
into a discussion with their colleagues about RDA and plan
for its implementation, not only within their institutions but
with librarians in other disciplines and jurisdictions.

The Semantic Web has been described in terms that seem
rather close in spirit to library databases. Searching in Web
3.0 has been described as “searching a large database” of
millions of records, similar to our online catalogues. For the
Semantic Web to work, it will need to describe items and
provide multiple access points so that we can find them dur-
ing our retrieval. In that sense, the Semantic Web will need
to bring materials together in the same way that John Shaw
Billings’ *Index Medicus* brought journal literature together in
the 19th century [33].

The catalogue metaphor can be taken further. Extensible
markup language (XML) (used to format Web pages) and
the efforts of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) point
to new methods of presenting information [34]. The Online
Computer Library Center (OCLC), long known for its con-
tributions to descriptive frameworks, is working on better
methods of describing objects and their intellectual content
through the Dublin Core Project [35]. Bibliographic records
for commonly held books and information sources are typi-
cally obtained through the Z39.50 standard; RDF technolo-
gies merely build on those organizational principles from
our print-based library culture. But there is a sense that the
two groups—library professionals and semantic technolo-
gists—do not communicate or see their potential synergies.

If libraries expect to participate in Web 3.0, our new cata-
loguing code, the Resource Description and Access (RDA),
could play a prominent role. Libraries have a long history of
data-sharing using consensus exchange standards and proto-
cols. However, we discern some challenges ahead with RDA.
Current standardization has become a “straightjacket” in re-
sponse to changes in the digital landscape. Our legacy tools,
such as MeSH, LCSH, and LCC, are difficult to apply outside
of AACR2 and MARC-based records [36]. Some librarians
argue that the next generation of library vocabularies should
be “webified” [37]. Unless the new AACR developers can
shift focus and find a way to work with professionals outside
their field of expertise, there may be no significant change to
how librarians will implement the code in Web 3.0.

Members from the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative and the RDA Joint Steering Committee produced a statement recently to ensure that the library community strives to collaborate on a metadata standard, one fully compatible with emerging Web architectures [38]. Developing controlled thesauri compatible with those on the Semantic Web is a positive but preliminary step as we move forward into Web 3.0.

The Semantic Web in bioinformatics

Semantic technologies are already being used on the Web
particularly in the area of bioinformatics [39]. Retrieving
relevant biomedical information from numerous databases is
difficult owing to many different formats and data distribu-
tion across systems. The public and private network proto-
cols that bioinformaticians encounter do not always work
together and the interfaces used to filter information are of-
ten dissimilar. But somehow bioinformatics professionals
have found a way to bring all of this data together using Se-
mantic Web technologies. Think of the information derived
from biomedical data mining as semantic *mashups*, a merg-
ing of tools that were formerly incompatible but now work
together [40].

The NLM has designed a way to co-relate genome data
with disease information in PubMed. Three bioinformatics
tools—Entrez Gene, Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man,
and the Gene Ontology—are used to look at genomes and
disease information in tandem [41]. The bridging of geno-
types and phenotypes in these resources normally requires
manual effort or the development of customized software to
process information. However, RDF was used to integrate
these resources and enables seamless access to them as a
unified resource [42].

WikiProteins is an important and exciting bioinformatics
project; it incorporates annotation built by a community of
scientists into a semantic framework [43]. In targeting scien-
tists, Wikiproteins has potential application in several biomed-
ical disciplines. It plans to import data from the world's
leading biological databases such as PubMed and UniProt.
Entries for every gene will contain relevant *data* such as its
functional domains, areas of expression, and publications that
discuss it. The merging of these databases yields more than
two million relationships and five billion relationship pairs.

These examples of how semantic technologies can be used
to further biomedical knowledge provide a glimpse into
what is possible, where disparate sources of information can
be brought together and viewed from new perspectives.

Open access and data in Web 3.0

Unless commercial interests overtake it, the Semantic
Web should be an open space where previously incompatible
systems work together. However, we believe that Web tech-
nologies are outpacing the legislation passed to control
them. Openness and accessibility are not absolutes and need
to be controlled. Confidential data, for example, will need to
be protected in Web 3.0. Copyright concerns will obviously
be front and centre in this emerging digital space. The re-
strictions imposed by copyright already inhibit access, and
information retrieved in any future Web context may not be
fully accessible owing to copyright. A good example of lim-
ited or reduced access because of copyright is the snippets
feature in Google Books and Amazon.

The Google Health project and Microsoft's HealthVault
may test society's tolerance for pushing the boundaries of
accessible personal health information. Because accessing
health information online can compromise patient confiden-
tiality and privacy, openness on the Web will be a constant
source of tension in Web 3.0. Consider that any digital activ-
Available from http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/12614/1/Semantic_Web_Revisted.pdf.

18. Adams K. The Semantic Web: differentiating between taxonomies and ontologies. *Online*. 2002;26(4):20–3.

► 19. Humphrey SM. Automatic indexing of documents from journal descriptors: a preliminary investigation. *J Am Soc Info Sci*. 1999 June;50(8):661–74.

20. National Institutes of Health. Public Access Policy [cited 2008 Feb 24]. Available from http://publicaccess.nih.gov/.

21. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. CIHR's Policy on access to research outputs in now in effect [cited 2008 Feb 24]. Available from http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/35683.html.

22. Schmidt K, Shelburne WA, Vess D. Fugitive literature: approaches to selection, access and collection development in the Web world [cited 2008 Feb 24]. Available from http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=karen_schmidt.

► 23. Slaughter L, Soergel D, Rindflesch T. Semantic representation of consumer questions and physician answers. *Int J Med Inform*. 2006;75:513–29.

24. Robu I. Semantic Web applications in the biomedical field. *Journal of the EAHIL*. 2008 Feb [cited 2008 Feb 24];4(1): 39–42. Available from http://www.eahil.net/newsletter/journal_2008_vol4_n1.pdf.

► 25. McCathie-Nevile J, Méndez E. Library cards for the 21st Century. *Catalog Class Q*. 2007;43(3/4):21–45.

26. Legg C. Ontologies on the Semantic Web. In: Cronin B, editor. *ARIST*. 2007;41:432–3.

► 27. Miles A, Pérez-Agüera J. SKOS: simple knowledge organisation for the Web. *Catalog Class Q*. 2007;43(3/4):69–83.

► 28. Graves M, Constabaris A, Brickley D. FOAF: Connecting people on the Semantic Web. *Catalog Class Q*. 2007;43(3/4):191–202.

► 29. Greenberg J, Mendez E. Toward a more library-like Web via semantic knitting. *Catalog Class Q*. 2007;43(3/4):1–8.

30. Golbeck J, Rothstein M. Linking Social Networks on the Web with FOAF. WWW2008, 2008 April 21–25; Beijing, China [cited 2008 Feb 24]. Available from http://www.slimAACom.com/~golbeck/downloads/foaf.pdf.

31. Joint Steering Committee (JSC) for Development of RDA (Resource Description and Access). Collections Canada. Prospectus documents [cited 2008 Feb 24]. Available from http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/jsc/index.html.

32. Coyle K, Hillmann D. Resource Description and Access (RDA). *D-Lib Magazine*. 2007;13(1/2):1082.

33. Lyndenberg HM. *John Shaw Billings: creator of the National Medical Library, and its catalogue*. Chicago: American Library Association; 1924.

34. Marshall C, Shipman, F. Which Semantic Web? *Proc ACM Hypertext*. 2003 [cited 2008 Feb 24]. Available from http://www.csdl.tamu.edu/~marshall/ht03-sw-4.pdf.

35. Borland J. A smarter Web. *Tech Rev*. 2007 Mar/Apr [cited 2008 Feb 24]. Available from http://www.technologyreview.com/ http://www.technologyreview.com/.

36. Styles R, Ayers D, Shabir N. Semantic MARC, MARC 21, and the Semantic Web. *Proceedings of WWW*. 2008 Jan 27 [cited 2008 Feb 24]. Available from http://www dynamicorange.com/ blog/archives/Semantic%20Marcup.pdf.

37. Hillman D. Great leaps forward. *Technicalities*. 2007;27(4):10–3.

38. Hillman D. Structures and standards for our bibliographic future. Presentation given May 9, 2007 at the Chicago hearing of the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control [cited 2008 Feb 24]. Available from http://ecommons.library.cornell.edu/handle/1813/7576.

39. Post LJG, Roos M, Marshall MS, van Driel R, Breit, TM. A Semantic Web approach applied to integrative bioinformatics experimentation: a biological use case with genomics data. *Bioinformatics*. 2007 Sep 19 [cited 2008 Feb 24]. Available from http://bioinformatics.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/btm461v1.

40. Ankolekar A, Krötzsch M, Tran T, Vrandecic D. The two cultures: mashing up Web 2.0 and the Semantic Web. *Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on World Wide Web*. 2007 [cited 2008 Feb 24]; Banff, Alberta. Available from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1242572.1242684.

► 41. Michon J. Biomedicine and the Semantic Web: a knowledge model for visual phenotype. *Catalog Class Q*. 2007;43(3/4):149–60.

42. Robu I, Robu V, Thirion B. An introduction to the Semantic Web for health sciences librarians. *J Med Libr Assoc*. 2006 Apr;94(2):198–205.

43. WikiProteins [homepage on the Internet]. 2008 Jan 29 [cited 2008 Feb 24]. Available from http://www.wikiprofessional.com.

44. Tynan D. Five ways to defend your online profile. *PC World*. 22 Feb 2008 [cited 2008 Feb 24]. Available from http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,142721-c,internetnetworking/article.html.

► 45. Giustini D. How Google is changing medicine. *BMJ*. 2005;331:1487–8.

► 46. Tang H, Ng JHK. Googling for a diagnosis: use of Google as a diagnostic aid: an internet-based study. *BMJ*. 2006;333:1143–5.

47. Book of Joe [weblog]. The Deep Web: ‘size matters’ [cited 2008 Feb 24]. Available from http://www.bookofjoe.com/ 2008/01/the-deep-web-si.html.

► 48. O’Looney J. Social work and the new semantic information revolution. *Admin Soc Work*. 2005;29(4): 5–34.
This article has been cited by:

1. Allison McArthur. 2009. Health information professionals and the Semantic Web: a symbiotic relationship?. *Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association* **30**:3, 81-84. [Abstract] [PDF] [PDF Plus]