Countries citing papers authored by Jan Wielemaker
Since
Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of Jan Wielemaker's research. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by Jan Wielemaker with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Jan Wielemaker more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Jan Wielemaker. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers produced by Jan Wielemaker. The network helps show where Jan Wielemaker may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Jan Wielemaker
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Jan Wielemaker.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Jan Wielemaker based on the total number of
citations received by their joint publications. Widths of edges
represent the number of papers authors have co-authored together.
Node borders
signify the number of papers an author published with Jan Wielemaker. Jan Wielemaker is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
All Works
20 of 20 papers shown
1.
Leuschel, Michaël, Vı́tor Santos Costa, Verónica Dahl, et al.. (2022). Fifty Years of Prolog and Beyond. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming. 22(6). 776–858.16 indexed citations
Beek, Wouter van & Jan Wielemaker. (2016). SWISH : An integrated semantic web notebook. Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS). 1690.1 indexed citations
6.
Wielemaker, Jan. (2013). Porting and refactoring Prolog programs: the PROSYN case study.. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming. 13.3 indexed citations
7.
Aroyo, Lora, Alessandro Bozzon, Wan Fokkink, et al.. (2013). Personalized Nichesourcing: Acquisition of Qualitative Annotations from Niche Communities.. VU Research Portal. 997.3 indexed citations
8.
Boer, Victor de, Jan Wielemaker, Michiel Hildebrand, et al.. (2013). Amsterdam Museum Linked Open Data. Semantic Web. 4(3). 237–243.20 indexed citations
Wielemaker, Jan, Tom Schrijvers, Markus Triska, & Torbjörn Lager. (2011). SWI-Prolog. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming. 12(1-2). 67–96.178 indexed citations
11.
Wielemaker, Jan, et al.. (2009). Processing OWL2 ontologies using thea: an application of logic programming. Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS). 89–98.30 indexed citations
12.
Wielemaker, Jan, Zhisheng Huang, & Lourens van der Meij. (2008). SWI-Prolog and the web. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming. 8(3). 363–392.30 indexed citations
13.
Wielemaker, Jan, Michiel Hildebrand, & Jacco van Ossenbruggen. (2007). Using Prolog as the Fundament for Applications on the Semantic Web. UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam). 63(5). 84–98.13 indexed citations
14.
Ossenbruggen, Jacco van, Alia Amin, Michiel Hildebrand, et al.. (2007). Searching and Annotating Virtual Heritage Collections with Semantic-Web Techniques. VU Research Portal.17 indexed citations
15.
Schrijvers, Tom, Jan Wielemaker, & Bart Demoen. (2005). Constraint handling rules for SWI-Prolog.1 indexed citations
16.
Wielemaker, Jan, A.T. Schreiber, & Bob Wielinga. (2003). Prolog-based infrastructure for RDF: performance and scalability. Digital Academic REpository of VU University Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam). 644–658.18 indexed citations
Breuker, Joost, et al.. (1988). StatCons: knowledge acquisition in a complex domain. European Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 100–105.2 indexed citations
Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive
bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global
research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include
incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and
delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in
Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.