"... In PAGE 5: ...t al., 2001; McIlraith et al., 2001). The purposes for the development of ontology of services, DAML-S (The SAML Services Coalition, 2003) under the DARPA Agent Markup Language (DAML) program, are closely related to various Web services standards as indicated in Table1 . The Semantic Web research community is main ly grounded in artificial intelligence discipline while Web services standards are developed mainly by practitioners and sponsored by software vendors such as IBM and Microsoft.... ..."

"... In PAGE 3: ... 3 The Evaluation of the Semantic Web Lay- ered Architecture The criteria for layered architectures are useful for the de- sign of new architectures or the evaluation of existing ones. In Table1 we summarise the adherence of the Semantic Web language architectures of Figures 1 and 2 using the criteria list from section 2.3.... ..."

"... In PAGE 4: ... While the Semantic Web is data-oriented and the World Wide Web is docu- ment-oriented, both are fundamentally decentralised, heterogeneous, and open: anyone can make any statement at any location, using any vocabulary or struc- ture. In contrast, as shown in Table1 , traditional database-driven Web appli- cations are typically centralised, with a fixed schema, a fixed vocabulary and a... ..."

"... In PAGE 33: ... The architecture of SWS describes the components needed for accomplishing the activities defined for SWS. The service ontology defines all concepts models and relations for the description of a semantic web service (see Table1 ). The service ontology essentially integrates the information that has been defined by web services standards (UDDI and WSDL) at the knowledge level.... ..."

"... In PAGE 12: ... Finally, none of these engines provide indexing based on \linked data quot; paradigm reasoning, SPARQL endpoint indexing and the ability to index large repositories consciously through the Sitemap extention. Table1 shows an overall comparison of our approach against on the one hand traditional Web search engines such as Google or Yahoo! and on the other hand Semantic Web (SW) search engines such as SWSE or Swoogle. Whereas tradi- tional Web search focuses on document retrieval for HTML documents, and SW search focuses on building a global database of retrieved triples, we provide a doc- ument retrieval service for RDF documents.... ..."

"... In PAGE 23: ...Q1 dc:subject=dummy Q2 dc:title=NM2 Q3 dc:title= Q4 geo:location=athens Q5 dc:dummy=test (empty match) Table1 . Query Types Note, that more than 80% of the photos were tagged with dc:subject=dummy, hence Q1 exhibits an exception.... In PAGE 55: ... While the Semantic Web is data-oriented and the World Wide Web is docu- ment-oriented, both are fundamentally decentralised, heterogeneous, and open: anyone can make any statement at any location, using any vocabulary or struc- ture. In contrast, as shown in Table1 , traditional database-driven Web appli- cations are typically centralised, with a fixed schema, a fixed vocabulary and a... ..."

"... In PAGE 5: ...LEADING-EDGE DEVELOPMENTS IN TOURISM ICT AND v Figure 19: Simulated Gui Interface For Testing Various Puis ______________________________________ 50 Figure 20: Traditional Usability Laboratory: (A) Photograph Of The Participant Room, (B) Laboratory Configuration ___________________________________________________________________________ 51 Figure 21: Monitoring System Screen Capture__________________________________________________ 51 Figure 22: New Usability Laboratory Setup: (A) Photograph Of The Participant Room, (B) Laboratory Configuration ___________________________________________________________________________ 53 Figure 23: Task Completion Time Logging Screen ______________________________________________ 53 Figure 24: Comparison Of The Task Completion Times For The Traditional And Re-Engineered Usability Testing Approach ________________________________________________________________________ 55 Figure 25: Comparison Of The Error Count For The Traditional And Re-Engineered Usability Testing Approach_______________________________________________________________________________ 55 Figure 26: Usability Testing Laboratory At Victoria University (A) Photograph Of The Participant Room, (B) Overall Laboratory Configuration____________________________________________________________ 57 Figure 27: Lab-In-A-Box Set-Up (Reproduced With Permission)___________________________________ 61 Figure 28: Mobile Usability Testing (Must). A) For Onsite Testing, B) Offsite Location Setup For The Facilitator And The Participant, C) Offsite Setup For The Observer _________________________________ 62 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Some Themes In Tourism Ontology And Corresponding Terms______________________________ 7 Table 2: Applications For Travel And Hospitality _______________________________________________ 16 Table 3: Survey Scenario And Results ________________________________________________________ 17 Table 4: Challenges And Limitation For Mobile Guides __________________________________________ 18 Table 5: Survey Results ___________________________________________________________________ 19 Table 6: Push / Pull Notifications For Each Application __________________________________________ 20 Table 7: First-Generation Ict In Tourism (Gds/Other) ____________________________________________ 25 Table 8: Travel Portal Software Architecture (Reference) _________________________________________ 30 Table9 : Semantic Web Technology Maturity (Reference) ________________________________________ 34 Table 10: Cost Of Mobile Equipment Required For A Mobile Usability Testing (Must) Facility___________ 62 Table 11: Cost Of Other Equipment Required For A Mobile Usability Testing (Must) Facility ____________ 63 ... ..."