Web Semantics: Cutting Edge and

Future Directions in Healthcare 1st

Edition Sarika Jain
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/web-semantics-cutting-edge-and-future-directions-in-
healthcare-1st-edition-sarika-jain/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Social Networks with Rich Edge Semantics 1st Edition

Quan Zheng

https://textbookfull.com/product/social-networks-with-rich-edge-
semantics-1st-edition-quan-zheng/

Cutting-Edge Technology for Carbon Capture,

Utilization, and Storage 1st Edition Karine Ballerat-
Busserolles

https://textbookfull.com/product/cutting-edge-technology-for-
carbon-capture-utilization-and-storage-1st-edition-karine-
ballerat-busserolles/

Technologies for Modern Digital Entrepreneurship:

Understanding Emerging Tech at the Cutting-Edge of the
Web 3.0 Economy Abeba N. Turi

https://textbookfull.com/product/technologies-for-modern-digital-
entrepreneurship-understanding-emerging-tech-at-the-cutting-edge-
of-the-web-3-0-economy-abeba-n-turi/

Future Directions in Social Development 1st Edition

James Midgley

https://textbookfull.com/product/future-directions-in-social-
development-1st-edition-james-midgley/
Building Modern Networks Create and manage cutting edge
networks and services 1st Edition Steven Noble

https://textbookfull.com/product/building-modern-networks-create-
and-manage-cutting-edge-networks-and-services-1st-edition-steven-
noble/

Automotive Innovation The Science and Engineering

behind Cutting Edge Automotive Technology 1st Edition
Patrick Hossay

https://textbookfull.com/product/automotive-innovation-the-
science-and-engineering-behind-cutting-edge-automotive-
technology-1st-edition-patrick-hossay/

Automotive Innovation: The Science and Engineering

behind Cutting-Edge Automotive Technology 1st Edition
Patrick Hossay (Author)

https://textbookfull.com/product/automotive-innovation-the-
science-and-engineering-behind-cutting-edge-automotive-
technology-1st-edition-patrick-hossay-author/

Ontology-Based Information Retrieval for Healthcare

Systems 1st Edition Vishal Jain

https://textbookfull.com/product/ontology-based-information-
retrieval-for-healthcare-systems-1st-edition-vishal-jain/

Artificial Intelligence in Financial Markets: Cutting

Edge Applications for Risk Management, Portfolio
Optimization and Economics 1st Edition Christian L.
Dunis
https://textbookfull.com/product/artificial-intelligence-in-
financial-markets-cutting-edge-applications-for-risk-management-
portfolio-optimization-and-economics-1st-edition-christian-l-
WEB SEMANTICS
 WEB
SEMANTICS
Cutting Edge and Future Directions
in Healthcare

Edited by

SARIKA JAIN
Department of Computer Applications, National Institute of Technology Kurukshetra, Haryana, India

VISHAL JAIN
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, School of Engineering and Technology, Sharda University,
Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India

VALENTINA EMILIA BALAS

Faculty of Engineering, Aurel Vlaicu University of Arad, Romania
Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier
125 London Wall, London EC2Y 5AS, United Kingdom
525 B Street, Suite 1650, San Diego, CA 92101, United States
50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States
The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, United Kingdom
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from
the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our
arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be
found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions.
This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as
may be noted herein).
Notices
Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our
understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary.

Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any
information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should be
mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility.
To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any
injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or
operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress

ISBN: 978-0-12-822468-7

For Information on all Academic Press publications

visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals

Publisher: Mara Conner

Acquisitions Editor: Chris Katsaropoulos
Editorial Project Manager: Megan Healy
Production Project Manager: Omer Mukthar
Cover Designer: Mark Rogers

Typeset by MPS Limited, Chennai, India

 Contents

List of contributors ix 4. Semantic interoperability: the future of

Preface xi healthcare
Rashmi Burse, Michela Bertolotto, Dympna O’Sullivan
1. Semantic intelligence - An overview and Gavin McArdle
Sarika Jain
4.1 Introduction 31
1.1 Overview 1 4.2 Semantic web technologies 32
4.3 Syntactic interoperability 37
4.4 Semantic interoperability 40
4.5 Contribution of semantic web
Section I technology to aid healthcare
Representation interoperability 46
4.6 Discussion and future work 49
2. Convology: an ontology 4.7 Conclusion 51
References 51
for conversational agents in
digital health
5. A knowledge graph of medical
Mauro Dragoni, Giuseppe Rizzo and Matteo A. Senese
institutions in Korea
2.1 Introduction 7 Haklae Kim
2.2 Background 9
2.3 The construction of convology 10 5.1 Introduction 55
2.4 Inside convology 12 5.2 Related work 56
2.5 Availability and reusability 16 5.3 Medical institutions in Korea 57
2.6 Convology in action 17 5.4 Knowledge graph of medical institutions 60
2.7 Resource sustainability and maintenance 19 5.5 Conclusion 66
2.8 Conclusions and future work 20 References 67
References 21
6. Resource description framework based
3. Conversion between semantic semantic knowledge graph for clinical
data models: the story so far, and the decision support systems
road ahead Ravi Lourdusamy and Xavierlal J. Mattam
Shripriya Dubey, Archana Patel and Sarika Jain
6.1 Introduction 69
3.1 Introduction 23 6.2 Knowledge representation using RDF 71
3.2 Resource Description Framework as a semantic 6.3 Simple knowledge organization system 75
data model 24 6.4 Semantic knowledge graph 77
3.3 Related work 25 6.5 Semantic knowledge graph for clinical
3.4 Conceptual evaluation 27 decision support systems 81
3.5 Findings 28 6.6 Discussion and future possibilities 83
3.6 Concluding remarks 29 6.7 Conclusion 84
References 30 References 84

v
vi Contents

7. Probabilistic, syntactic, and semantic 10. Health care cube integrator for health
reasoning using MEBN, OWL, and PCFG care databases
in healthcare Shivani A Trivedi, Monika Patel and Sikandar Patel
Shrinivasan Patnaikuni and Sachin R. Gengaje
10.1 Introduction: state-of-the-art health care
7.1 Introduction 87 system 129
7.2 Multientity Bayesian networks 89 10.2 Research methods and literature findings of
7.3 Semantic web and uncertainty 90 research publications 131
7.4 MEBN and ontology web language 91 10.3 HCI conceptual framework and designing
7.5 MEBN and probabilistic context-free framework 136
grammar 92 10.4 Implementation framework and experimental
7.6 Summary 93 setup 140
References 93 10.5 Result analysis, conclusion, and future
enhancement of work 148
Acknowledgment 149
References 149
Section II
Reasoning 11. Smart mental healthcare systems
Sumit Dalal and Sarika Jain

8. The connected electronic health record: 11.1 Introduction 153

a semantic-enabled, flexible, and unified 11.2 Classification of mental healthcare 154
electronic health record 11.3 Challenges of a healthcare environment 155
Salma Sassi and Richard Chbeir 11.4 Benefits of smart mental healthcare 158
11.5 Architecture 159
8.1 Introduction 97 11.6 Conclusion 161
8.2 Motivating scenario: smart health unit 99 References 162
8.3 Literature review 100
8.4 Our connected electronic health record system
approach 105 12. A meaning-aware information
8.5 Implementation 110 search and retrieval framework for
8.6 Experimental results 111 healthcare
8.7 Conclusion and future works 113
V.S. Anoop, Nikhil V. Chandran and S. Asharaf
References 114
12.1 Introduction 165
9. Ontology-supported rule-based 12.2 Related work 167
reasoning for emergency management 12.3 Semantic search and information retrieval in
Sarika Jain, Sonia Mehla and Jan Wagner healthcare 170
12.4 A framework for meaning-aware healthcare
9.1 Introduction 117 information extraction from unstructured
9.2 Literature review 119 text data 170
9.3 System framework 120 12.5 Future research dimensions 174
9.4 Inference of knowledge 122 12.6 Conclusion 174
9.5 Conclusion and future work 127 Key terms and definitions 174
References 127 References 175
 Contents vii
13. Ontology-based intelligent 17. Classification of genetic mutations
decision support systems: using ontologies from clinical documents
A systematic approach and deep learning
Ramesh Saha, Sayani Sen, Jayita Saha, Asmita Nandy, Punam Bedi, Shivani, Neha Gupta,
Suparna Biswas and Chandreyee Chowdhury Priti Jagwani and Veenu Bhasin

13.1 Introduction 177 17.1 Introduction 233

13.2 Enabling technologies to implement decision 17.2 Clinical Natural Language Processing 234
support system 178 17.3 Clinical Natural Language Processing
13.3 Role of ontology in DSS for knowledge (Clinical NLP) techniques 235
modeling 182 17.4 Clinical Natural Language Processing and
13.4 QoS and QoE parameters in decision Semantic Web 242
support systems for healthcare 187 17.5 Case study: Classification of Genetic
13.5 Conclusion 190 Mutation using Deep Learning and Clinical
References 191 Natural Language Processing 245
17.6 Conclusion 249
14. Ontology-based decision-making References 249
Mark Douglas de Azevedo Jacyntho and Matheus D. Morais

14.1 Introduction 195

14.2 Issue-Procedure Ontology 198 Section III
14.3 Issue-Procedure Ontology for Medicine 203
14.4 Conclusion 208 Security
References 208
18. Security issues for the Semantic Web
15. A new method for profile Prashant Pranav, Sandip Dutta and Soubhik Chakraborty
identification using ontology-based
18.1 Introduction 253
semantic similarity
18.2 Related work 258
Abdelhadi Daoui, Noreddine Gherabi and Abderrahim Marzouk
18.3 Security standards for the Semantic
Web 259
15.1 Introduction 211
18.4 Different attacks on the Semantic Web 262
15.2 Proposed method 212
18.5 Drawbacks of the existing privacy and
15.3 Conclusion 218
security protocols in W3C social web
References 218
standards 263
16. Semantic similarity based descriptive 18.6 Semantic attackers 264
18.7 Privacy and Semantic Web 264
answer evaluation
18.8 Directions for future security protocols
Mohammad Shaharyar Shaukat, Mohammed Tanzeem,
for the Semantic Web 265
Tameem Ahmad and Nesar Ahmad
18.9 Conclusion 266
16.1 Introduction 221 References 266
16.2 Literature survey 222
16.3 Proposed system 223 Index 269
16.4 Algorithm 227
16.5 Data set 227
16.6 Results 228
16.7 Conclusion and discussion 229
Acknowledgments 230
References 230
 List of contributors

Nesar Ahmad Department of Computer Sumit Dalal National Institute of Technology

Engineering, Zakir Husain College of Kurukshetra, Haryana, India
Engineering and Technology, Aligarh Abdelhadi Daoui Department of Mathematics
Muslim University, Aligarh, India and Computer Science, Hassan 1st
Tameem Ahmad Department of Computer University, FST, Settat, Morocco
Engineering, Zakir Husain College of Matheus D. Morais Coordination of
Engineering and Technology, Aligarh Informatics, Fluminense Federal Institute,
Muslim University, Aligarh, India Campos dos Goytacazes, Rio de Janeiro,
V.S. Anoop Kerala Blockchain Academy, Brazil
Indian Institute of Information Technology Mark Douglas de Azevedo Jacyntho
and Management Kerala (IIITM-K), Coordination of Informatics, Fluminense
Thiruvananthapuram, India Federal Institute, Campos dos Goytacazes,
S. Asharaf Indian Institute of Information Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Technology and Management - Kerala Mauro Dragoni Fondazione Bruno Kessler,
(IIITM-K), Thiruvananthapuram, India Trento, Italy
Punam Bedi Department of Computer Science, Shripriya Dubey Department of Computer
University of Delhi, Delhi, India Applications, National Institute of
Michela Bertolotto School of Computer Science, Technology Kurukshetra, Haryana, India
University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland Sandip Dutta Department of Computer
Veenu Bhasin P.G.D.A.V. College, University Science and Engineering, Birla Institute of
of Delhi, Delhi, India Technology, Mesra, Ranchi, India
Suparna Biswas Department of Computer Sachin R. Gengaje Department of Computer
Science & Engineering, Maulana Abul Kalam Science and Engineering, Walchand Institute
Azad University of Technology, Kolkata, India of Technology, Solapur, Maharashtra, India
Rashmi Burse School of Computer Science, Noreddine Gherabi Sultan Moulay Slimane
University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland University, ENSAK, LASTI Laboratory,
Khouribga, Morocco
Soubhik Chakraborty Department of
Mathematics, Birla Institute of Technology, Neha Gupta Department of Computer Science,
Mesra, Ranchi, India University of Delhi, Delhi, India
Nikhil V. Chandran Data Engineering Lab, Priti Jagwani Aryabhatta College, University
Indian Institute of Information Technology of Delhi, Delhi, India
and Management - Kerala (IIITM-K), Sarika Jain Department of Computer
Thiruvananthapuram, India Applications, National Institute of
Richard Chbeir Univ Pau & Pays Adour, E2S/ Technology Kurukshetra, Haryana, India
UPPA, LIUPPA, EA3000, Anglet, France Haklae Kim Chung-Ang University, Seoul,
Chandreyee Chowdhury Department of South Korea
Computer Science & Engineering, Jadavpur Ravi Lourdusamy Sacred Heart College
University, Kolkata, India (Autonomous), Tirupattur, India

ix
x List of contributors

Abderrahim Marzouk Department of Giuseppe Rizzo LINKS Foundation, Torino,

Mathematics and Computer Science, Italy
Hassan 1st University, FST, Settat, Morocco Jayita Saha Department of Artificial Intelligence
Xavierlal J. Mattam Sacred Heart College and Data Science, Koneru Lakshmaiah
(Autonomous), Tirupattur, India Education Foundation Deemed to be
Gavin McArdle School of Computer Science, University, Hyderabad, India
University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland Ramesh Saha Department of Information
Technology, Gauhati University, Guwahati,
Sonia Mehla National Institute of Technology
Assam, India
Kurukshetra, Haryana, India
Salma Sassi VPNC Lab., FSJEGJ, University of
Asmita Nandy Department of Computer
Jendouba, Jendouba, Tunisia
Science & Engineering, Jadavpur University,
Kolkata, India Sayani Sen Department of Computer
Application, Sarojini Naidu College for
Dympna O’Sullivan School of Computer
Women, Kolkata, India
Science, Technological University Dublin,
Dublin, Ireland Matteo A. Senese LINKS Foundation, Torino,
Italy
Archana Patel Institute of Computer Science,
Freie Universität, Berlin, Germany Mohammad Shaharyar Shaukat Technical
University of Munich, Germany
Monika Patel S.K. Patel Institute of Management
and Computer Studies-MCA, Kadi Sarva Shivani Department of Computer Science,
Vishwavidyalaya, India University of Delhi, Delhi, India
Sikandar Patel National Forensic Sciences Mohammed Tanzeem Adobe, India
University, Gandhinagar, India Shivani A Trivedi S.K. Patel Institute of
Shrinivasan Patnaikuni Department of Management and Computer Studies-MCA,
Computer Science and Engineering, Kadi Sarva Vishwavidyalaya, India
Walchand Institute of Technology, Solapur, Jan Wagner RheinMain University of Applied
Maharashtra, India Sciences, Germany
Prashant Pranav Department of Computer
Science and Engineering, Birla Institute of
Technology, Mesra, Ranchi, India
 Preface

Over the last decade, we have witnessed • Reasoning: When “Semantic Web” will
an increasing use of Web Semantics as a finally happen, machine will be able to
vital and ever-growing field. It incorporates talk to machines materializing the so-
various subject areas contributing to the called “intelligent agents.” The services
development of a knowledge-intensive data offered will be useful for web as well as
web. In parallel to the movement of con- for the management of knowledge
cept from data to knowledge, we are now within an organization.
also experiencing the movement of web • Security: In this new setting, traditional
from document model to data model where security measures will not be
the main focus is on data compared to the suitable anymore; and the focus will
process. The underlying idea is making the move to trust and provenance. The
data machine understandable and process- semantic security issues are required to
able. In light of these trends, conciliation of be addressed by the security
Semantic and the Web is of paramount professionals and the semantic
importance for further progress in the area. technologists.
The 17 chapters in this volume, authored
This book will help the instructors and
by key scientists in the field are preceded
students taking courses of Semantic Web
by an introduction written by one of the
getting abreast of cutting edge and future
volume editors, making a total of 18 chap-
directions of semantic web, hence provid-
ters. Chapter 1, Introduction, by Sarika Jain
ing a synergy between healthcare processes
provides an overview of technological
and semantic web technologies. Many
trends and perspectives in Web Semantics,
books are available in this field with two
defines Semantic Intelligence, and discusses
major problems. Either they are very
the technologies encompassing the same in
advanced and lack providing a sufficiently
view of their application within enterprises
detailed explanation of the approaches, or
as well as in web. In all, 76 chapter propo-
they are based on a specific theme with
sals were submitted for this volume mak-
limited scope, hence not providing details
ing a 22% acceptance rate. The chapters
on crosscutting areas applied in the web
have been divided into three sections as
semantic. This book covers the research
Representation, Reasoning, and Security.
and practical issues and challenges, and
• Representation: The semantics have to be Semantic Web applications in specific con-
encoded with data by virtue of texts (in this case, healthcare). This book
technologies that formally represent has varied audience and spans industrial
metadata. When semantics are professionals, researchers, and academi-
embedded in data, it offers significant cians working in the field of Web
advantages for reasoning and Semantics. Researchers and academicians
interoperability. will find a comprehensive study of the state

xi
xii Preface

of the art and an outlook into research chal- the future of healthcare Burse et al. have
lenges and future perspectives. The industry beautifully elaborated the syntactic and
professionals and software developers will semantic interoperability issues in healthcare.
find available tools and technologies to use, They have reviewed the various healthcare
algorithms, pseudocodes, and implementa- standards in an attempt to solve the interop-
tion solutions. The administrators will find a erability problem at a syntactic level and then
comprehensive spectrum of the latest view- moves on to examine medical ontologies
point in different areas of Web Semantics. developed to solve the problem at a semantic
Finally, lecturers and students require all of level. The chapter explains the features of
the above, so they will gain an interesting semantic web technology that can be lever-
insight into the field. They can benefit in aged at each level. A literature survey is car-
preparing their problem statements and ried out to gage the current contribution of
finding ways to tackle them. semantic web technologies in this area along
The book is structured into three sections with an analysis of how semantic web tech-
that group chapters into three otherwise nologies can be improved to better suit the
related disections: health-informatics domain and solve the
healthcare interoperability challenge. Haklae
Kim in his Chapter 5, A knowledge graph of
Representation medical institutions in Korea, has proposed a
knowledge model for representing medical
The first section on Representation com- institutions and their characteristics based on
prises six chapters that specifically focus on related laws. The author also constructs a
the problem of choosing a data model for knowledge graph that includes all medical
representing and storage of data for the Web. institutions in Korea with an aim to enable
Chapter 2, Convology: an ontology for con- users to identify appropriate hospitals or
versational agents in digital health by other institutions according to their require-
Dragoni et al. propose an ontology, namely, ments. Chapter 6, Resource description
Convology, aiming to describe conversational framework based semantic knowledge graph
scenarios with the scope of providing a tool for clinical decision support systems, by
that, once deployed into a real-world applica- Lourdusamy and Mattam advocates the use
tion, allows to ease the management and of Semantic Knowledge Graphs as the repre-
understanding of the entire dialog workflow sentation structure for Clinical Decision
between users, physicians, and systems. The Support Systems. Patnaikuni and Gengaje in
authors have integrated Convology into a liv- Chapter 7, Probabilistic, syntactic, and seman-
ing lab concerning the adoption of conversa- tic reasoning using MEBN, OWL, and PCFG
tional agents for supporting the self- in healthcare, exploit the key concepts and
management of patients affected by asthma. terminologies used for representing and rea-
Dubey et al. in Chapter 3, Conversion soning uncertainties structurally and semanti-
between semantic data models: the story so cally with a case study of COVID-19 Corona
far, and the road ahead, provide the trends in Virus. The key technologies are Bayesian net-
converting between various semantic data works, Multi-Entity Bayesian Networks,
models and reviews the state of the art of the Probabilistic Ontology Web Language, and
same. In Chapter 4, Semantic interoperability: probabilistic context-free grammars.
 Preface xiii

Reasoning Smart mental healthcare systems, by Dalal

and Jain provides an architecture for a
At the scale of www, logic-based reason- smart mental healthcare system along with
ing is not appropriate and poses numerous the challenges and benefits incurred.
challenges. As already stated in different Chapter 12, A meaning-aware information
chapters of Section 1, RDF provides a search and retrieval framework for health-
machine-processable syntax to the data on care, by Anoop et al. discusses a frame-
the web. Reasoning on Semantic Web work for building a meaning-aware
involves deriving facts and relationships information extraction from unstructured
that are not explicit in the knowledge base. EHRs. The proposed framework uses medi-
This section groups 10 contributions based cal ontologies, a medical catalog-based ter-
on reasoning within the knowledge bases. minology extractor and a semantic
There is an absence of a reference model reasoner to build the medical knowledge
for describing the health data and their base that is used for enabling a semantic
sources and linking these data with their information search and retrieval experience
contexts. Chapter 8, The connected elec- in the healthcare domain. In Chapter 13,
tronic health record: a semantic-enabled, Ontology-based intelligent decision sup-
flexible, and unified electronic health port systems: a systematic approach, Saha
record, by Sassi and Chbeir addresses this et al. emphasize several machine learning
problem and introduces a semantic- algorithms and semantic technologies to
enabled, flexible, and unified electronic design and implement intelligent decision
health record (EHR) for patient monitoring support system for effective healthcare
and diagnosis with Medical Devices. The support satisfying quality of service and
approach exploits semantic web technolo- quality of experience requirements.
gies and the HL7 FHIR standard to provide Jacyntho and Morais in Chapter 14,
semantic connected EHR that will facilitate Ontology-based decision-making, have
data interoperability, integration, informa- described the architecture and strengths of
tion search and retrieval, and automatic knowledge-based decision support sys-
inference and adaptation in real-time. Jain tems. They have defined a method for the
et al. in Chapter 9, Ontology-supported creation of ontology-based knowledge
rule-based reasoning for emergency man- bases and a corresponding fictitious health
agement, have proposed an ontology- care case study but with real-world chal-
supported rule-based reasoning approach lenges. As the data are exploding over the
to automate the process of decision support web, Daoui et al. in Chapter 15, A new
and recommending actions faster than a method for profile identification using
human being and at any time. Chapter 10, ontology-based semantic similarity, aim to
Healthcare-Cube Integrator for Healthcare treat and cover a new system in the
Databases by Trivedi et al. proposes the domain of tourism in order to offer users
Healthcare-cube integrator as a knowledge of the system a set of interesting places
base that is storing health records collected and tourist sites according to their prefer-
from various healthcare databases. They ences. The authors focus on the design of a
also propose a processing tool to extract new profile identification method by defin-
data from assorted databases. Chapter 11, ing a semantic correspondence between
xiv Preface

keywords and the concepts of an ontology Security

using an external resource WordNet.
Compared to the objective type assessment, Though posed as the future of web, is
the descriptive assessment has been found semantic web secure? In the semantic web set-
to be more uniform and at a higher level of ting, traditional security measures are no
Bloom’s taxonomy. In Chapter 16, Semantic more suitable. This section closes the book by
similarity-based descriptive answer evalua- providing Chapter 18, Security issues for the
tion, Shaukat et al. have put in efforts to semantic web, by Pranav et al. providing the
deal with the problem of automated com- security issues in the semantic web. This chap-
puter assessment in the descriptive exami- ter also suggested ways of potentially aligning
nation. Lastly in this section, Chapter 17, the protocols so as to make them more robust
Classification of genetic mutations using to be used for semantic web services.
ontologies from clinical documents and As the above summary shows, this book
deep learning, by Bedi et al. have pre- summarizes the trends and current research
sented a framework for classifying cancer- advances in web semantics, emphasizing
ous genetic mutation reported in EHRs. the existing tools and techniques, methodol-
They have utilized clinical NLP, Ontologies ogies, and research solutions.
and Deep Learning for the same over
Catalog of Somatic Mutations in Cancer Sarika Jain (India)
Mutation data and Kaggle’s cancer- Vishal Jain (India)
diagnosis dataset. Valentina Emilia Balas (Romania)
 C H A P T E R

1
Semantic intelligence: An overview
Sarika Jain
Department of Computer Applications, National Institute of Technology Kurukshetra,
Haryana, India

1.1 Overview

Due to many technological trends like IoT, Cloud Computing, Smart Devices, huge data
is generated daily and at unprecedented rates. Traditional data techniques and platforms
do not prove to be efficient because of issues concerning responsiveness, flexibility, perfor-
mance, scalability, accuracy, and more. To manage these huge datasets and to store the
archives for longer periods, we need granular access to massively evolving datasets.
Addressing this gap has been an important and well-recognized interdisciplinary area of
Computer Science.
A machine will behave intelligently if the underlying representation scheme exhibits
knowledge that can be achieved by representing semantics. Web Semantics strengthen
the description of web resources for exploiting them better and making them more
meaningful for both human and machine. As semantic web is highly interdisciplinary,
it is emerging as a mature field of research that facilitates information integration from
variegated sources. Semantic web converts data to meaningful information and is
therefore a web of meaningful, linked, and integrated data by virtue of metadata.
Current web is composed primarily of unstructured data, such as HTML pages and
search in current web is based on keyword search. These searches are not able to make
out the type of information on the HTML page, that is, it is not possible to extract dif-
ferent pieces of data from different web pages about a concept and then give integrated
information about the concept. The semantic web provides such a facility with lesser
human involvement.
As the web connects documents, in the same manner, semantic web connects pieces of
information. In addition to publishing data on the World Wide Web, the semantic web is
being utilized in enterprises for myriad of use cases. The Artificial Intelligence technolo-
gies, the Machine Intelligence technologies, and the semantic web technologies together
make up the Semantic Intelligence technologies (SITs). SITs have been found as the most

Web Semantics
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-822468-7.00011-0 1 © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
2 1. Semantic intelligence: An overview

important ingredient in building artificially intelligent knowledge-based systems as they

aid machines in integrating and processing resources contextually and intelligently.
This book describes the three major compartments of the study of Web Semantics, namely
representation, reasoning, and security. It also covers the issues related to the successful deploy-
ment of semantic web. This chapter addresses the key knowledge and information needs of the
audience of this book. It provides easily comprehensible information on Web Semantics includ-
ing semantics for data and semantics for services. Further, an effort has been made to cover the
innovative application areas semantic web goes hand in hand with a focus on Health Care.

1.2 Semantic Intelligence

Semantic Intelligence refers to filling the semantic gap between the understanding of
humans and machines by making a machine look at everything in terms of object-oriented
concepts as a human look at it. Semantic Intelligence helps us make sense of the most vital
resource, that is, data; by virtue of making it interpretable and meaningful. The focus is on
information as compared to the process. To whatever application, the data will be put to; it is
to be represented in a manner that is machine-understandable and hence human-usable. All
the important relationships (including who, what, when, where, how, and why) in the
required data from any heterogeneous data source are required to be made explicit.
The primary technology standards of the SITs are RDF (Resource Description
Framework) and SPARQL (SPARQL Protocol and RDF Query Language). RDF is the data
model/format/serialization used to store data. SPARQL is the query language designed to
query, retrieve, and process data stored as RDF across various systems and databases.
Both of these technologies are open-ended making them a natural fit for iterative, flexible,
and adaptable software development in a dynamic environment; hence suitable for a myr-
iad of open-ended problems majorly including unstructured information. It is even benefi-
cial to wrap up the existing relational data stores with the SPARQL end points to integrate
them with any intelligent application. This all is possible because semantic web operates
on the principle of Open World Assumption; wherein all the facts are not anticipated in
the beginning; and in the absence of some fact, it cannot be assumed false.
Semantics is no more than discovering “relationships between things.” These relation-
ships when discovered and represented explicitly help manage the data more efficiently
by making sense of it. In addition to storing and retrieving information, semantic intelli-
gence provides a flexible model by acting as an enabler for machines to infer new facts
and derive new information from existing facts and data. In all such systems with a large
amount of unstructured and unpredictable data, SITs prove to be less cost-intensive and
maintainable. By virtue of being able to interpret all the data, machines are able to perform
sophisticated tasks for the mankind. In today’s world SITs are serving a very broad range
of applications, across multiple domains, within enterprises, and on the web. A full-
fledged industry in its own sense has emerged in the last 20 years when these technologies
were merely drafts. In addition to publishing and consuming data on the web, SITs are
being used in enterprises for various purposes.

Web Semantics
 1.1 Overview 3
1.2.1 Publishing and consuming data on the web
Publishing data on the web involves deciding upon the format and the schema to use.
Best practices exist to publish, disseminate, use, and perform reasoning on high-quality
data over the web. RDF data can be published in different ways including the linked data
(DBPedia), SPARQL endpoint, metadata in HTML (SlideShare, LinkedIn, YouTube,
Facebook), feeds, GRDDL, and more. Semantic interlinked data is being published on the
web in all the domains including e-commerce, social data, and scientific data. People are
consuming this data through search engines and specific applications. Publishing semantic
web data about the web pages, an organization ensures that the search results now also
include related information like reviews, ratings, and pricing for the products. This added
information in search results does not increase ranking of a web page but significantly
increases the number of clicks this web page can get. Here are some popular domains
where data is published and consumed on the semantic web.
• E-commerce: The Schema.org and the GoodRelations vocabulary are global schema for
commerce data on the web. They are industry-neutral, syntax-neutral, and valid across
different stages of value chain.
• Health care and life sciences: HealthCare is a novel application domain of semantic web
that is of prime importance to human civilization as a whole. It has been predicted as
the next big thing in personal health monitoring by the government. Big pharma
companies and various scientific projects have published a significant amount of life
sciences and health care data on the web.
• Media and publishing: The BBC, The FT, SpringerNature, and many other media and
publishing sector companies are benefitting their customers by providing an ecosystem
of connected content to provide more meaningful navigation paths across the web.
• Social data: A social network is a two-way social structure made up of individuals
(persons, products, or anything) and their relationships. The Facebook’s “social graph”
represents connections between people. Social networking data using friend-of-a-friend
as vocabulary make up a significant portion of all data on the web.
• Linked Open Data: A powerful data integration technology is the practical side of
semantic web. DBPedia is a very large-linked dataset making the content of Wikipedia
available to the public as RDF. It incorporates links to various other datasets as
Geonames; thus allowing applications to exploit the extra and more precise knowledge
from other datasets. In this manner, applications can provide a high user experience by
integrating data from multiple linked datasets.
• Government data: For the overall development of the society, the governments around
the world have taken initiatives for publishing nonpersonal data on the web making the
government services transparent to the public.

1.2.2 Semantic Intelligence technologies applied within enterprises

Enterprise information systems comprise complex, distributed, heterogeneous, and
voluminous data sources. Enterprises are leveraging SITs to achieve interoperability and
implement solutions and applications. All documents are required to be semantically
tagged with the associated metadata.

Web Semantics
4 1. Semantic intelligence: An overview

• Information classification: The knowledge bases as are used by the giants Facebook,
Google, and Amazon today are said to shape up and classify data and information in
the same manner as the human brain does. Along with data, a knowledge base also
contains expert knowledge in the form of rules transforming this data and information
into knowledge. Various organizations represent their information by combining the
expressivity of ontologies with the inference support.
• Content management and situation awareness: The organizations reuse the available
taxonomic structures to leverage their expressiveness to enable more scalable
approaches to achieve interoperability of content.
• Efficient data integration and knowledge discovery: The data is scaling up in size
giving rise to heterogeneous datasets as data silos. The semantic data integration allows
the data silos to be represented, stored, and accessed using the same data model; hence
all speaking the same universal language, that is, SITs. The value of data explodes
when it is linked with other data providing more flexibility compared to the traditional
data integration approaches.

1.3 About the book

This book contains the latest cutting-edge advances and future directions in the field of
Web Semantics, addressing both original algorithm development and new applications of
semantic web. It presents a comprehensive up-to-date research employing semantic web
and its health care applications, providing a critical analysis of the relative merit, and
potential pitfalls of the technique as well as its future outlook.
This book focuses on a core area of growing interest, which is not specifically or com-
prehensively covered by other books. This book describes the three major compartments
of the study of Web Semantics, namely Representation, Reasoning, and security. It covers
the issues related to the successful deployment of semantic web. Further, an effort has
been made to cover the innovative application areas semantic web goes hand in hand with
focus on HealthCare by providing a separate section in every chapter for the case study of
health care, if not explicitly mentioned. The book will help the instructors and students
taking courses of semantic web getting abreast of cutting edge and future directions of
semantic web, hence providing a synergy between health care processes and semantic
web technologies.

Web Semantics
 C H A P T E R

2
Convology: an ontology for
conversational agents in digital
health
Mauro Dragoni1, Giuseppe Rizzo2 and Matteo A. Senese2
1
Fondazione Bruno Kessler, Trento, Italy 2LINKS Foundation, Torino, Italy

2.1 Introduction

The conversation paradigm has been implemented for the realization of conversational
agents overwhelmingly in the last years. Natural and seamless interactions with auto-
mated systems introduce a shift from using well-designed and sometimes complicated
interfaces made of buttons and paged procedures to textual or vocal dialogs. Asking ques-
tions naturally has many advantages with respect to traditional app interactions. The main
one is that the user does not need to know how the specific application works, everyone
knows how to communicate, and in this case, the system is coming toward the user
to make the interaction more natural. This paradigm has been integrated into mobile
applications for supporting users from different perspectives and into more well-known
systems built by big tech players like Google Assistant and Amazon Alexa. These kinds of
systems dramatically reduce the users’ effort for asking and communicating information
to systems that, by applying natural language understanding (NLU) algorithms, are able
to decode which are the actual users’ intentions and to reply properly. However, by per-
forming a deeper analysis of these systems, we can observe a strong limitation of their
usage into complex scenarios. The interactions among users and bots are often limited to a
single-turn communication where one of the actor sends an information request (e.g., a
question like “How is the weather today in London?” or a command like “Play the We
Are The Champions song”) and the other actor provides an answer containing the
required information or performs the requested action (e.g., “Today the weather in
London is cloudy.” or the execution of the requested song).

Web Semantics
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-822468-7.00004-3 7 © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
 2.7 Resource sustainability and maintenance 19

FIGURE 2.3 Exemplification of the reasoning process.

and physical activity). The second scenario relates to support users affected by diabetes
concerning its self-management of the disease. One of the most common issue in self-
managing chronic disease is given by psychological barriers avoiding users in performing
self-monitoring actions (e.g., measuring glycemia value). Convology will be deployed into
an application used for knowing which are the barriers affecting each user. With respect
to the first scenario and to the PuffBot application, the main challenge that will be
addressed by the domain experts is the definition of all relevant Intent associated with
each barrier that has to be detected. This modeling task will require a strong interaction
between psychologists and linguistics in order to identify all natural language expressions
that can be linked with each barrier.

2.7 Resource sustainability and maintenance

As mentioned in the previous section, the presented ontology is the result of a collabo-
rative work between several experts. While, on the one hand, this collaboration led to the

I. Representation
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
amendments in a subsequent, to preclude those in a prior part, or e
converso.]
When the committee is through the whole, a member moves that
the committee may rise, and the chairman report the paper to the
House, with or without amendments, as the case may be. 2 Hats.,
289, 292; Scob., 53; 2 Hats., 290; 8 Scob., 50.
When a vote is once passed in a committee, it cannot be altered
but by the House, their votes being binding on themselves. 1607,
June 4.
The committee may not erase, interline, or blot the bill itself; but
must, in a paper by itself, set down the amendments, stating the
words which are to be inserted or omitted, Scob., 50, and where, by
references to page, line, and word of the bill. Scob., 50.

SEC. XXVII.—REPORT OF COMMITTEE.

The chairman of the committee, standing in his place, informs the

House that the committee to whom was referred such a bill, have,
according to order, had the same under consideration, and have
directed him to report the same without any amendment, or with
sundry amendments (as the case may be), which he is ready to do
when the House pleases to receive it. And he or any other may move
that it be now received; but the cry of “now, now,” from the House,
generally dispenses with the formality of a motion and question. He
then reads the amendments, with the coherence in the bill, and
opens the alterations and the reasons of the committee for such
amendments, until he has gone through the whole. He then delivers
it at the Clerk’s table, where the amendments reported are read by
the Clerk without the coherence; whereupon the papers lie upon the
table till the House, at its convenience, shall take up the report.
Scob., 52; Hakew., 148.
The report being made, the committee is dissolved, and can act no
more without a new power. Scob., 51. But it may be revived by a vote,
and the same matter recommitted to them. 4 Grey, 361.

SEC. XXVIII.—BILL, RECOMMITMENT.

 After a bill has been committed and reported, it ought not, in an
ordinary course, to be recommitted; but in cases of importance, and
for special reasons, it is sometimes recommitted, and usually to the
same committee. Hakew., 151. If a report be recommitted before
agreed to in the House, what has passed in committee is of no
validity; the whole question is again before the committee, and a new
resolution must be again moved, as if nothing had passed. 3 Hats.,
131—note.
In Senate, January, 1800, the salvage bill was recommitted three
times after the commitment.
A particular clause of a bill may be committed without the whole
bill, 3 Hats., 131; or so much of a paper to one and so much to
another committee.
 SEC. XXIX.—BILL, REPORTS TAKEN UP.

When the report of a paper originating with a committee is taken

up by the House, they proceed exactly as in committee. Here, as in
committee, when the paragraphs have, on distinct questions, been
agreed to seriatim, 5 Grey, 366; 6 Grey, 368; 8 Grey, 47, 104, 360; 1
Torbuck’s Deb., 125; 3 Hats., 348, no question needs be put on the
whole report. 5 Grey, 381.
On taking up a bill reported with amendments, the amendments
only are read by the Clerk. The Speaker then reads the first, and puts
it to the question, and so on till the whole are adopted or rejected,
before any other amendment be admitted, except it be an
amendment to an amendment. Elsynge’s Mem., 53. When through
the amendments of the committee, the Speaker pauses, and gives
time for amendments to be proposed in the House to the body of the
bill; as he does also if it has been reported without amendments:
putting no questions but on amendments proposed; and when
through the whole, he puts the question whether the bill shall be read
a third time?

SEC. XXX.—QUASI-COMMITTEE.

If on motion and question the bill be not committed, or if no

proposition for commitment be made, then the proceedings in the
Senate of the United States and in Parliament are totally different.
The former shall be first stated.
[The 25th rule of the Senate says: “All bills on a second reading
shall first be considered by the Senate in the same manner as if the
Senate were in Committee of the Whole before they shall be taken up
and proceeded on by the Senate agreeably to the standing rules,
unless otherwise ordered;” (that is to say, unless ordered to be
referred to a special committee.) And when the Senate shall consider
a treaty, bill, or resolution, as in Committee of the Whole, the Vice-
President or President pro tempore may call a member to fill the
chair during the time the Senate shall remain in Committee of the
Whole; and the chairman (so called) shall, during such time, have
the powers of a President pro tempore.]
[The proceeding of the Senate as in a Committee of the Whole, or
in quasi-committee, is precisely as in a real Committee of the Whole,
taking no questions but on amendments. When through the whole,
they consider the quasi-committee as risen, the House resumed
without any motion, question, or resolution to that effect, and the
President reports that “the House, acting as in a Committee of the
Whole, have had under their consideration the bill entitled, &c., and
have made sundry amendments, which he will now report to the
House.” The bill is then before them, as it would have been if
reported from a committee, and questions are regularly to be put
again on every amendment; which being gone through, the President
pauses to give time to the House to propose amendments to the body
of the bill, and, when through, puts the question whether it shall be
read a third time?]
[After progress in amending the bill in quasi-committee, a motion
may be made to refer it to a special committee. If the motion
prevails, it is equivalent in effect to the several votes, that the
committee rise, the House resume itself, discharge the Committee of
the Whole, and refer the bill to a special committee. In that case, the
amendments already made fall. But if the motion fails, the quasi-
committee stands in statu quo.]
[How far does this 25th rule subject the House, when in quasi-
committee, to the laws which regulate the proceedings of
Committees of the Whole?] The particulars in which these differ
from proceedings in the House are the following: 1. In a committee
every member may speak as often as he pleases. 2. The votes of a
committee may be rejected or altered when reported to the House. 3.
A committee, even of the whole, cannot refer any matter to another
committee. 4. In a committee no previous question can be taken: the
only means to avoid an improper discussion is to move that the
committee rise; and if it be apprehended that the same discussion
will be attempted on returning into committee, the House can
discharge them, and proceed itself on the business, keeping down the
improper discussion by the previous question. 5. A committee cannot
punish a breach of order in the House or in the gallery. 9 Grey, 113. It
can only rise and report it to the House, who may proceed to punish.
[The first and second of these peculiarities attach to the quasi-
committee of the Senate, as every day’s practice proves, and it seems
to be the only ones to which the 25th rule meant to subject them; for
it continues to be a House, and therefore, though it acts in some
respects as a committee, in others it preserves its character as a
House. Thus (3) it is in the daily habit of referring its business to a
special committee. 4. It admits of the previous question. If it did not,
it would have no means of preventing an improper discussion: not
being able, as a committee is, to avoid it by returning into the House,
for the moment it would resume the same subject there, the 25th rule
declares it again a quasi-committee. 5. It would doubtless exercise its
powers as a House on any breach of order. 6. It takes a question by
yea and nay, as the House does. 7. It receives messages from the
President and the other House. 8. In the midst of a debate it receives
a motion to adjourn, and adjourns as a House, not as a committee.]

SEC. XXXI.—BILL, SECOND READING IN THE HOUSE.

In Parliament, after the bill has been read a second time, if on the
motion and question it be not committed, or if no proposition for
commitment be made, the Speaker reads it by paragraphs, pausing
between each, but putting no question but on amendments
proposed; and when through the whole, he puts the question
whether it shall be read a third time? if it came from the other
House; or, if originating with themselves, whether it shall be
engrossed and read a third time? The Speaker reads sitting, but rises
to put questions. The Clerk stands while he reads.
[[99]But the Senate of the United States is so much in the habit of
making many and material amendments at the third reading, that it
has become the practice not to engross a bill till it has passed—an
irregular and dangerous practice; because in this way the paper
which passes the Senate is not that which goes to the other House,
and that which goes to the other House as the act of the Senate, has
never been seen in Senate. In reducing numerous, difficult, and
illegible amendments into the text, the Secretary may, with the most
innocent intentions, commit errors which can never again be
corrected.]
 The bill being now as perfect as its friends can make it, this is the
proper stage for those fundamentally opposed to make their first
attack. All attempts at earlier periods are with disjointed efforts,
because many who do not expect to be in favor of the bill ultimately,
are willing to let it go on to its perfect state, to take time to examine it
themselves and to hear what can be said for it, knowing that after all
they will have sufficient opportunities of giving it their veto. Its two
last stages, therefore, are reserved for this—that is to say, on the
question whether it shall be engrossed and read a third time? and,
lastly, whether it shall pass? The first of these is usually the most
interesting contest; because then the whole subject is new and
engaging, and the minds of the members having not yet been
declared by any trying vote the issue is the more doubtful. In this
stage, therefore, is the main trial of strength between its friends and
opponents, and it behooves every one to make up his mind decisively
for this question, or he loses the main battle; and accident and
management may, and often do, prevent a successful rallying on the
next and last question, whether it shall pass?
When the bill is engrossed, the title is to be indorsed on the back,
and not within the bill.—Hakew., 250.

SEC. XXXII.—READING PAPERS.

Where papers are laid before the House or referred to a

committee, every member has a right to have them once read at the
table before he can be compelled to vote on them; but it is a great
though common error to suppose that he has a right, toties quoties,
to have acts, journals, accounts, or papers on the table, read
independently of the will of the House. The delay and interruption
which this might be made to produce evince the impossibility of the
existence of such a right. There is, indeed, so manifest a propriety of
permitting every member to have as much information as possible
on every question on which he is to vote, that when he desires the
reading, if it be seen that it is really for information and not for delay,
the Speaker directs it to be read without putting a question, if no one
objects; but if objected to, a question must be put.—2 Hats., 117, 118.
 It is equally an error to suppose that any member has a right,
without a question put, to lay a book or paper on the table, and have
it read, on suggesting that it contains matter infringing on the
privileges of the House.—Ib.
For the same reason, a member has not a right to read a paper in
his place, if it be objected to, without leave of the House. But this
rigor is never exercised but where there is an intentional or gross
abuse of the time and patience of the House.
A member has not a right even to read his own speech, committed
to writing, without leave. This also is to prevent an abuse of time,
and therefore is not refused but where that is intended.—2 Grey,
227.
A report of a committee of the Senate on a bill from the House of
Representatives being under consideration: on motion that the
report of the committee of the House of Representatives on the same
bill be read in the Senate, it passed in the negative.—Feb. 28, 1793.
Formerly, when papers were referred to a committee, they used to
be first read; but of late only the titles, unless a member insists they
shall be read, and then nobody can oppose it.—2 Hats., 117.

SEC. XXXIII.—PRIVILEGED QUESTIONS.

[[100] While a question is before the Senate, no motion shall be

received, unless for an amendment, for the previous question, or for
postponing the main question, or to commit it, or to adjourn.—Rule
8.]
It is no possession of a bill unless it be delivered to the Clerk to
read, or the Speaker reads the title.—Lex. Parl., 274; Elsynge Mem.,
85; Ord. House of Commons, 64.
It is a general rule that the question first moved and seconded
shall be first put. Scob., 28, 22; 2 Hats., 81. But this rule gives way to
what may be called privileged questions; and the privileged
questions are of different grades among themselves.
A motion to adjourn simply takes place of all others; for otherwise
the House might be kept sitting against its will, and indefinitely. Yet
this motion cannot be received after another question is actually put,
and while the House is engaged in voting.
Orders of the day take place of all other questions, except for
adjournment—that is to say, the question which is the subject of an
order is made a privileged one, pro hac vice. The order is a repeal of
the general rule as to this special case. When any member moves,
therefore, for the order of the day to be read, no further debate is
permitted on the question which was before the House; for if the
debate might proceed, it might continue through the day and defeat
the order. This motion, to entitle it to precedence, must be for the
orders generally, and not for any particular one; and if it be carried
on the question “Whether the House will now proceed to the orders
of the day?” they must be read and proceeded on in the course in
which they stand, 2 Hats., 83; for priority of order gives priority of
right, which cannot be taken away but by another special order.
After these there are other privileged questions, which will require
considerable explanation.
It is proper that every parliamentary assembly should have certain
forms of questions, so adapted as to enable them fitly to dispose of
every proposition which can be made to them. Such are, 1. The
previous question. 2. To postpone indefinitely. 3. To adjourn a
question to a definite day, 4. To lie on the table. 5. To commit. 6. To
amend. The proper occasion for each of these questions should be
understood.
1. When a proposition is moved which it is useless or inexpedient
now to express or discuss, the previous question has been introduced
for suppressing for that time the motion and its discussion. 3 Hats.,
188, 189.
2. But as the previous question gets rid of it only for that day, and
the same proposition may recur the next day, if they wish to suppress
it for the whole of that session, they postpone it indefinitely. 3 Hats.,
183. This quashes the proposition for that session, as an indefinite
adjournment is a dissolution, or the continuance of a suit sine die is a
discontinuance of it.
3. When a motion is made which it will be proper to act on, but
information is wanted, or something more pressing claims the
present time, the question or debate is adjourned to such day within
the session as will answer the views of the House. 2 Hats., 81. And
those who have spoken before may not speak again when the
adjourned debate is resumed. 2 Hats., 73. Sometimes, however, this
has been abusively used by adjourning it to a day beyond the session,
to get rid of it altogether, as would be done by an indefinite
postponement.
4. When the House has something else which claims its present
attention, but would be willing to reserve in their power to take up a
proposition whenever it shall suit them, they order it to lie on their
table. It may then be called for at any time.
5. If the proposition will want more amendment and digestion
than the formalities of the House will conveniently admit, they refer
it to a committee.
6. But if the proposition be well digested, and may need but few
and simple amendments, and especially if these be of leading
consequence, they then proceed to consider and amend it
themselves.
The Senate, in their practice, vary from this regular gradation of
forms. Their practice comparatively with that of Parliament stands
thus:
FOR THE PARLIAMENTARY: THE SENATE USES:

Postponement indefinite, Postponement to a day beyond the session.

Adjournment, Postponement to a day within the session.

Postponement indefinite.
Lying on the table.
Lying on the table.
In their eighth rule, therefore, which declares that while a question
is before the Senate no motion shall be received, unless it be for the
previous question, or to postpone, commit, or amend the main
question, the term postponement must be understood according to
their broad use of it, and not in its parliamentary sense. Their rule,
then establishes as privileged questions, the previous question,
postponement, commitment, and amendment.
But it may be asked: Have these questions any privilege among
themselves? or are they so equal that the common principle of the
“first moved first put” takes place among them? This will need
explanation. Their competitions may be as follows:
1. Previous question
and postpone
commit amend
2. Postpone and
previous question
In the first, second, and the third classes, and the first
commit amend
member of the fourth class, the rule “first moved first
3. Commit and put” takes place.
previous question
postpone amend
4. Amend and
previous question
postpone commit
In the first class, where the previous question is first moved, the
effect is peculiar; for it not only prevents the after motion to
postpone or commit from being put to question before it, but also
from being put after it; for if the previous question be decided
affirmatively, to wit, that the main question shall now be put, it
would of course be against the decision to postpone, or commit; and
if it be decided negatively, to wit, that the main question shall not
now be put, this puts the House out of possession of the main
question, and consequently there is nothing before them to postpone
or commit. So that neither voting for nor against the previous
question will enable the advocates for postponing or committing to
get at their object. Whether it may be amended shall be examined
hereafter.
Second class. If postponement be decided affirmatively, the
proposition is removed from before the House, and consequently
there is no ground for the previous question, commitment, or
amendment; but if decided negatively, (that it shall not be
postponed,) the main question may then be suppressed by the
previous question, or may be committed, or amended.
The third class is subject to the same observations as the second.
The fourth class. Amendment of the main question first moved,
and afterwards the previous question, the question of amendment
shall be first put.
Amendment and postponement competing, postponement is first
put, as the equivalent proposition to adjourn the main question
would be in Parliament. The reason is that the question for
amendment is not suppressed by postponing or adjourning the main
question, but remains before the House whenever the main question
is resumed; and it might be that the occasion for other urgent
business might go by, and be lost by length of debate on the
amendment, if the House had it not in their power to postpone the
whole subject.
Amendment and commitment. The question for committing,
though last moved shall be first put; because, in truth, it facilitates
and befriends the motion to amend. Scobell is express: “On motion
to amend a bill, any one may notwithstanding move to commit it,
and the question for commitment shall be first put.” Scob., 46.
We have hitherto considered the case of two or more of the
privileged questions contending for privilege between themselves,
when both are moved on the original or main question; but now let
us suppose one of them to be moved, not on the original primary
question, but on the secondary one, e. g.:
Suppose a motion to postpone, commit, or amend the main
question, and that it be moved to suppress that motion by putting a
previous question on it. This is not allowed: because it would
embarrass questions too much to allow them to be piled on one
another several stories high; and the same result may be had in a
more simple way—by deciding against the postponement,
commitment, or amendment. 2 Hats., 81, 2, 3, 4.
Suppose a motion for the previous question, or commitment or
amendment of the main question, and that it be then moved to
postpone the motion for the previous question, or for commitment or
amendment of the main question. 1. It would be absurd to postpone
the previous question, commitment, or amendment, alone, and thus
separate the appendage from its principal; yet it must be postponed
separately from its original, if at all; because the eighth rule of Senate
says that when a main question is before the House no motion shall
be received but to commit, amend, or pre-question the original
question, which is the parliamentary doctrine also. Therefore the
motion to postpone the secondary motion for the previous question,
or for committing or amending, cannot be received. 2. This is a piling
of questions one on another; which, to avoid embarrassment, is not
allowed. 3. The same result may be had more simply by voting
against the previous question, commitment, or amendment.
Suppose a commitment moved of a motion for the previous
question, or to postpone or amend. The first, second, and third
reasons, before stated, all hold good against this.
Suppose an amendment moved to a motion for the previous
question. Answer: The previous question cannot be amended.
Parliamentary usage, as well as the ninth rule of the Senate, has fixed
its form to be, “Shall the main question be now put?”—i. e., at this
instant; and as the present instant is but one, it can admit of no
modification. To change it to to-morrow, or any other moment, is
without example and without utility. But suppose a motion to amend
a motion for postponement, as to one day instead of another, or to a
special instead of an indefinite time. The useful character of
amendment gives it a privilege of attaching itself to a secondary and
privileged motion: that is, we may amend a postponement of a main
question. So, we may amend a commitment of a main question, as by
adding, for example, “with instructions to inquire,” &c. In like
manner, if an amendment be moved to an amendment, it is
admitted; but it would not be admitted in another degree, to wit, to
amend an amendment to an amendment of a main question. This
would lead to too much embarrassment. The line must be drawn
somewhere, and usage has drawn it after the amendment to the
amendment. The same result must be sought by deciding against the
amendment to the amendment, and then moving it again as it was
wished to be amended. In this form it becomes only an amendment
to an amendment.
[When motions are made for reference of the same subject to a
select committee and to a standing committee, the question on
reference to the standing committee shall be first put. Rule 48.]
[In filling a blank with a sum, the largest sum shall be first put to
the question, by the thirteenth rule of the Senate,[101]] contrary to the
rule of Parliament, which privileges the smallest sum and longest
time. [5 Grey, 179; 2 Hats., 8, 83; 3 Hats., 132, 133.] And this is
considered to be not in the form of an amendment to the question,
but as alternative or successive originals. In all cases of time or
number, we must consider whether the larger comprehends the
lesser, as in a question to what day a postponement shall be, the
number of a committee, amount of a fine, term of an imprisonment,
term of irredeemability of a loan, or the terminus in quem in any
other case; then the question must begin a maximo. Or whether the
lesser includes the greater, as in questions on the limitation of the
rate of interest, on what day the session shall be closed by
adjournment, on what day the next shall commence, when an act
shall commence, or the terminus a quo in any other case where the
question must begin a minimo; the object being not to begin at that
extreme which, and more, being within every man’s wish, no one
could negative it, and yet, if he should vote in the affirmative, every
question for more would be precluded; but at that extreme which
would unite few, and then to advance or recede till you get to a
number which will unite a bare majority. 3 Grey, 376, 384, 385. “The
fair question in this case is not that to which, and more, all will agree,
but whether there shall be addition to the question.” 1 Grey, 365.
Another exception to the rule of priority is when a motion has been
made to strike out, or agree to, a paragraph. Motions to amend it are
to be put to the question before a vote is taken on striking out or
agreeing to the whole paragraph.
But there are several questions which, being incidental to every
one, will take place of every one, privileged or not; to wit, a question
of order arising out of any other question must be decided before
that question. 2 Hats., 88.
A matter of privilege arising out of any question, or from a quarrel
between two members, or any other cause, supersedes the
consideration of the original question, and must be first disposed of.
2 Hats., 88.
Reading papers relative to the question before the House. This
question must be put before the principal one. 2 Hats., 88.
Leave asked to withdraw a motion. The rule of Parliament being
that a motion made and seconded is in the possession of the House,
and cannot be withdrawn without leave, the very terms of the rule
imply that leave may be given, and, consequently, may be asked and
put to the question.

SEC. XXXIV.—THE PREVIOUS QUESTION.

 When any question is before the House, any member may move a
previous question, “Whether that question (called the main question)
shall now be put?” If it pass in the affirmative, then the main
question is to be put immediately, and no man may speak anything
further to it, either to add or alter. Memor. in Hakew., 28; 4 Grey,
27.
The previous question being moved and seconded, the question
from the Chair shall be, “Shall the main question be now put?” and if
the nays prevail, the main question shall not then be put.
This kind of question is understood by Mr. Hatsell to have been
introduced in 1604. 2 Hats., 80. Sir Henry Vane introduced it. 2
Grey, 113, 114; 3 Grey, 384. When the question was put in this form,
“Shall the main question be put?” a determination in the negative
suppressed the main question during the session; but since the
words “now put” are used, they exclude it for the present only;
formerly, indeed, only till the present debate was over, 4 Grey, 43,
but now for that day and no longer. 2 Grey, 113, 114.
Before the question “Whether the main question shall now be
put?” any person might formerly have spoken to the main question,
because otherwise he would be precluded from speaking to it at all.
Mem. in Hakew., 28.
The proper occasion for the previous question is when a subject is
brought forward of a delicate nature as to high personages, &c., or
the discussion of which may call forth observations which might be
of injurious consequences. Then the previous question is proposed;
and in the modern usage, the discussion of the main question is
suspended, and the debate confined to the previous question. The
use of it has been extended abusively to other cases; but in these it
has been an embarrassing procedure; its uses would be as well
answered by other more simple parliamentary forms, and therefore
it should not be favored, but restricted within as narrow limits as
possible.
Whether a main question may be amended after the previous
question on it has been moved and seconded? 2 Hats., 88, says, if the
previous question has been moved and seconded, and also proposed
from the Chair, (by which he means stated by the Speaker for
debate,) it has been doubted whether an amendment can be
admitted to the main question. He thinks it may, after the previous
question moved and seconded; but not after it has been proposed
from the Chair. In this case, he thinks the friends to the amendment
must vote that the main question be not now put; and then move
their amended question, which being made new by the amendment,
is no longer the same which has been just suppressed, and therefore
may be proposed as a new one. But this proceeding certainly
endangers the main question, by dividing its friends, some of whom
may chose it unamended, rather than lose it altogether; while others
of them may vote, as Hatsell advises, that the main question be not
now put, with a view to move it again in an amended form. The
enemies of the main question, by this maneuver to the previous
question, get the enemies to the amendment added to them on the
first vote, and throw the friends of the main question under the
embarrassment of rallying again as they can. To support this
opinion, too, he makes the deciding circumstance, whether an
amendment may or may not be made, to be, that the previous
question has been proposed from the Chair. But, as the rule is that
the House is in possession of a question as soon as it is moved and
seconded, it cannot be more than possessed of it by its being also
proposed from the Chair. It may be said, indeed, that the object of
the previous question being to get rid of a question, which it is not
expedient should be discussed, this object may be defeated by
moving to amend; and in the discussion of that motion, involving the
subject of the main question. But so may the object of the previous
question be defeated, by moving the amended question, as Mr.
Hatsell proposes, after the decision against putting the original
question. He acknowledges, too, that the practice has been to admit
previous amendments, and only cites a few late instances to the
contrary. On the whole, I should think it best to decide it ab
inconvenienti, to wit: Which is most inconvenient, to put it in the
power of one side of the House to defeat a proposition by hastily
moving the previous question, and thus forcing the main question to
be put unamended; or to put it in the power of the other side to force
on, incidentally at least, a discussion which would be better avoided?
Perhaps the last is the least inconvenience; inasmuch as the Speaker,
by confining the discussion rigorously to the amendment only, may
prevent their going into the main question; and inasmuch also as so
great a proportion of the cases in which the previous question is
called for, are fair and proper subjects of public discussion, and
ought not to be obstructed by a formality introduced for questions of
a peculiar character.

SEC. XXXV.—AMENDMENTS.

On an amendment being moved, a member who has spoken to the

main question may speak again to the amendment. Scob., 23.
If an amendment be proposed inconsistent with one already
agreed to, it is a fit ground for its rejection by the House, but not
within the competence of the Speaker to suppress as if it were against
order. For were he permitted to draw questions of consistence within
the vortex of order, he might usurp a negative on important
modifications, and suppress, instead of subserving, the legislative
will.
Amendments may be made so as totally to alter the nature of the
proposition; and it is a way of getting rid of a proposition, by making
it bear a sense different from what it was intended by the movers, so
that they vote against it themselves. 2 Hats., 79; 4, 82, 84. A new bill
may be ingrafted, by way of amendment, on the words “Be it
enacted,” &c. 1 Grey, 190, 192.
If it be proposed to amend by leaving out certain words, it may be
moved, as an amendment to this amendment, to leave out a part of
the words of the amendment, which is equivalent to leaving them in
the bill. 2 Hats., 80, 9. The parliamentary question is, always,
whether the words shall stand part of the bill.
When it is proposed to amend by inserting a paragraph, or part of
one, the friends of the paragraph may make it as perfect as they can
by amendments before the question is put for inserting it. If it be
received, it cannot be amended afterward, in the same stage, because
the House has, on a vote, agreed to it in that form. In like manner, if
it is proposed to amend by striking out a paragraph, the friends of
the paragraph are first to make it as perfect as they can by
amendments, before the question is put for striking it out. If on the
question it be retained, it cannot be amended afterward, because a
vote against striking out is equivalent to a vote agreeing to it in that
form.
 When it is moved to amend by striking out certain words and
inserting others, the manner of stating the question is first to read
the whole passage to be amended as it stands at present, then the
words proposed to be struck out, next those to be inserted, and lastly
the whole passage as it will be when amended. And the question, if
desired, is then to be divided, and put first on striking out. If carried,
it is next on inserting the words proposed. If that be lost, it may be
moved to insert others. 2 Hats., 80, 7.
A motion is made to amend by striking out certain words and
inserting others in their place, which is negatived. Then it is moved
to strike out the same words and to insert others of a tenor entirely
different from those first proposed. It is negatived. Then it is moved
to strike out the same words and insert nothing, which is agreed to.
All this is admissible, because to strike out and insert A is one
proposition. To strike out and insert B is a different proposition. And
to strike out and insert nothing is still different. And the rejection of
one proposition does not preclude the offering a different one. Nor
would it change the case were the first motion divided by putting the
question first on striking out, and that negatived; for, as putting the
whole motion to the question at once would not have precluded, the
putting the half of it cannot do it.
[The practice in the United States Senate in this respect is now
fixed by the 31st rule, as follows: If the question in debate contains
several points, any Senator may have the same divided; but on a
motion to strike out and insert, it shall not be in order to move for a
division of the question; but the rejection of a motion to strike out
and insert one proposition shall not prevent a motion to strike out
and insert a different proposition, nor prevent a subsequent motion
simply to strike out; nor shall the rejection of a motion simply to
strike out prevent a subsequent motion to strike out and insert.]
But if it had been carried affirmatively to strike out the words and
to insert A, it could not afterward be permitted to strike out A and
insert B. The mover of B should have notified, while the insertion of
A was under debate, that he would move to insert B; in which case
those who preferred it would join in rejecting A.
After A is inserted, however, it may be moved to strike out a
portion of the original paragraph, comprehending A, provided the
coherence to be struck out be so substantial as to make this
effectively a different proposition; for then it is resolved into the
common case of striking out a paragraph after amending it. Nor does
anything forbid a new insertion, instead of A and its coherence.
In Senate, January 25, 1798 a motion to postpone until the second
Tuesday in February some amendments proposed to the
Constitution; the words “until the second Tuesday in February,” were
struck out by way of amendment. Then it was moved to add, “until
the first day of June.” Objected that it was not in order, as the
question should be first put on the longest time; therefore, after a
shorter time decided against, a longer cannot be put to question. It
was answered that this rule takes place only in filling blanks for time.
But when a specific time stands part of a motion, that may be struck
out as well as any other part of the motion; and when struck out, a
motion may be received to insert any other. In fact, it is not until they
are struck out, and a blank for the time thereby produced, that the
rule can begin to operate, by receiving all the propositions for
different times, and putting the questions successively on the
longest. Otherwise it would be in the power of the mover, by
inserting originally a short time, to preclude the possibility of a
longer; for till the short time is struck out, you cannot insert a longer;
and if, after it is struck out, you cannot do it, then it cannot be done
at all. Suppose the first motion had been made to amend by striking
out “the second Tuesday in February,” and inserting instead thereof
“the first of June,” it would have been regular, then, to divide the
question, by proposing first the question to strike out and then that
to insert. Now this is precisely the effect of the present proceeding;
only, instead of one motion and two questions, there are two motions
and two questions to effect it—the motions being divided as well as
the question.
When the matter contained in two bills might be better put into
one, the manner is to reject the one, and incorporate its matter into
another bill by way of amendment. So if the matter of one bill would
be better distributed into two, any part may be struck out by way of
amendment, and put into a new bill. If a section is to be transposed,
a question must be put on striking it out where it stands and another
for inserting it in the place desired.
A bill passed by the one House with blanks. These may be filled up
by the other by way of amendments, returned to the first as such, and
passed. 3 Hats., 83.
The number prefixed to the section of a bill, being merely a
marginal indication, and no part of the text of the bill, the Clerk
regulates that—the House or committee is only to amend the text.

SEC. XXXVI.—DIVISION OF THE QUESTION.

If a question contains more parts than one, it may be divided into

two or more questions. Mem. in Hakew., 29. But not as the right of
an individual member, but with the consent of the House. For who is
to decide whether a question is complicated or not—where it is
complicated—into how many propositions it may be divided? The
fact is that the only mode of separating a complicated question is by
moving amendments to it; and these must be decided by the House,
on a question, unless the House orders it to be divided; as, on the
question, December 2, 1640, making void the election of the knights
for Worcester, on a motion it was resolved to make two questions of
it, to wit, one on each knight. 2 Hats., 85, 86. So, wherever there are
several names in a question, they may be divided and put one by one.
9 Grey, 444. So, 1729, April 17, on an objection that a question was
complicated, it was separated by amendment. 2 Hats., 79.
The soundness of these observations will be evident from the
embarrassments produced by the twelfth rule of the Senate, which
says, “if the question in debate contains several points, any member
may have the same divided.”
1798, May 30, the alien bill in quasi-committee. To a section and
proviso in the original, had been added two new provisos by way of
amendment. On a motion to strike out the section as amended, the
question was desired to be divided. To do this it must be put first on
striking out either the former proviso, or some distinct member of
the section. But when nothing remains but the last member of the
section and the provisos, they cannot be divided so as to put the last
member to question by itself; for the provisos might thus be left
standing alone as exceptions to a rule when the rule is taken away; or
the new provisos might be left to a second question, after having
been decided on once before at the same reading, which is contrary
to rule. But the question must be on striking out the last member of
the section as amended. This sweeps away the exceptions with the
rule, and relieves from inconsistence. A question to be divisible must
comprehend points so distinct and entire that one of them being
taken away, the other may stand entire. But a proviso or exception,
without an enacting clause, does not contain an entire point or
proposition.
May 31.—The same bill being before the Senate. There was a
proviso that the bill should not extend—1. To any foreign minister;
nor, 2. To any person to whom the President should give a passport;
nor, 3. To any alien merchant conforming himself to such regulations
as the President shall prescribe; and a division of the question into
its simplest elements was called for. It was divided into four parts,
the 4th taking in the words “conforming himself,” &c. It was objected
that the words “any alien merchant,” could not be separated from
their modifying words, “conforming,” &c., because these words, if left
by themselves, contain no substantive idea, will make no sense. But
admitting that the divisions of a paragraph into separate questions
must be so made as that each part may stand by itself, yet the House
having, on the question, retained the two first divisions, the words
“any alien merchant” may be struck out, and their modifying words
will then attach themselves to the preceding description of persons,
and become a modification of that description.
When a question is divided, after the question on the 1st member,
the 2d is open to debate and amendment; because it is a known rule
that a person may rise and speak at any time before the question has
been completely decided, by putting the negative as well as the
affirmative side. But the question is not completely put when the
vote has been taken on the first member only. One-half of the
question, both affirmative and negative, remains still to be put. See
Execut. Jour., June 25, 1795. The same decision by President Adams.

SEC. XXXVII.—COEXISTING QUESTIONS.

It may be asked whether the House can be in possession of two

motions or propositions at the same time? so that, one of them being
decided, the other goes to question without being moved anew? The
answer must be special. When a question is interrupted by a vote of