Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Conclusion and Future Work
An Experimental Comparison Between the Notions C ⊥
References
All Topics
Philosophy
Metaphysics

Logical Relevance in Ontologies

Profile image of Uli SattlerUli Sattler

Abstract

Most ontology development environments (ODEs) are term oriented and take a frame-based view of the information in an ontology about a given term. Even tools, such as Protégé 4, designed for axiom oriented development preserve the frame-based view as the central mode of interaction with the ontology. The frame-based approach has a number of advantages—most prominently that it is comfortable to people familiar with object oriented programming languages. However, in expressive languages the frame-based views suffer ...

Related papers

Textual and logical definitions in ontologies
Selja Seppälä

2014

We discuss the structure and functions of definitions and axioms in ontologies from the perspective of a terminologist and logician respectively. By working through a few examples of the correspondence between parts of the textual definitions and the axioms, we show how to compare and contrast each and how each perspective reveals areas for improvement. Having established a correspondence between the textual and logical parts of ontology term definitions, we discuss the possibility of developing tools that help developers improve their ontologies. Such tools could be used to check both the textual definitions against the asserted axioms and vice versa. In addition, we propose a few other ways of checking the contents of textual definitions.

View PDFchevron_right
A logical framework for modularity of ontologies
Y. Kazakov

2007

This work is supported by the EU Project TONES (Thinking ONtologiES) ref: IST-007603 and by the EPSRC Project REOL (Reasoning in Expressive Ontology Languages) ref: EP/C537211/1.

View PDFchevron_right
Supporting Ontology Development with ODEd
Ricardo Falbo

Journal of The Brazilian Computer Society, 2004

Ontologies are becoming an important mechanism to build information systems. However, ontology construction is not a simple task. So, it is necessary to provide tools that support ontology development. This paper presents ODEd, an ontology editor that supports the definition of concepts, relations and properties, using graphic representations, besides promoting automatic inclusion of some classes of axioms and derivation of object infrastructures from ontologies. ODEd was built to support ontology development in ODE, a software engineering environment (SEE), so that ODE can be used as a domain-oriented SEE. Thus, ODEd aims to partially support an ontology-based domain engineering process.

View PDFchevron_right
The role of Foundational Ontologies for Domain Ontology Engineering: a case study in the Software Process Domain
Giancarlo Guizzardi

IEEE Latin America Transactions, 2008

Ontologies are commonly used in computer science either as a reference model to support semantic interoperability, or as an artifact that should be efficiently represented to support tractable automated reasoning. This duality poses a tradeoff between expressivity and computational tractability that should be addressed in different phases of an ontology engineering process. The inadequate choice of a modeling language, disregarding the goal of each ontology engineering phase, can lead to serious problems in the deployment of the resulting model. This article discusses these issues by making use of an industrial case study in the domain of Oil and Gas. We make the differences between two different representations in this domain explicit, and highlight a number of concepts and ideas that were implicit in an original OWL-DL model and that became explicit by applying the methodological directives underlying an ontologically well-founded modeling language. Gas domain.

View PDFchevron_right
The OWL in the CASL: Designing Ontologies Across Logics
Oliver Kutz

2008

In this paper, we show how the web ontology language OWL can be accommodated within the larger framework of the heterogeneous common algebraic specification language HETCASL. Through this change in perspective, OWL can benefit from various useful HETCASL features concerning structuring, modularity, and heterogeneity. This tackles a major problem area in ontology engineering: re-use of ontologies and re-combination of ontological modules. We discuss in particular:

View PDFchevron_right
Ontology representation & reasoning
Antonella Poggi

Universit di Roma La Sapienza, Roma, Italy, Tech. Rep. NoE InterOp (IST-508011), 2004

It is widely accepted to consider an ontology as a conceptualization of a domain of interest, that can be used in several ways to model, analyze and reason upon the domain. Obviously, any conceptualization of a certain domain has to be represented in terms of a well-defined language, and, once such a representation is available, there ought to be well-founded methods for reasoning upon it, ie, for analyzing the representation, and drawing interesting conclusions about it. This paper surveys both the languages proposed for representing ...

View PDFchevron_right
Ontology-oriented design and programming
Mark Musen

2000

In the construction of both conventional software and intelligent systems, developers continue to seek higher level abstractions that both can aid in conceptual modeling and can assist in implementation and maintenance. In recent years, the artificial intelligence community has placed considerable attention on the notion of explicit ontologiesshared conceptualizations of application areas that define the salient concepts and relationships among concepts. Such ontologies, when joined with well defined problem-solving methods, provide convenient formalisms for modeling and for implementing solutions to application tasks. This chapter reviews the motivation for seeking such high-level abstractions, and summarizes recent successes in building systems from reusable domain ontologies and problem-solving methods. As the environment for software execution moves from individual workstations to the Internet at large, casting new software applications in terms of these high-level abstractions may make complex systems both easier to build and easier to maintain.

View PDFchevron_right
Ontological Logic Programming
Geeth De Mel

2011

View PDFchevron_right
Description logics in ontology applications
Ian Horrocks

2005

Description Logics (DLs) are a family of logic based knowledge representation formalisms. Although they have a range of applications (eg, configuration and information integration), they are perhaps best known as the basis for widely used ontology languages such as OWL (now a W3C recommendation). This decision was motivated by a requirement that key inference problems be decidable, and that it should be possible to provide reasoning services to support ontology design and deployment.

View PDFchevron_right
Ontology Overview Motorola Labs
patricia charlton
View PDFchevron_right

References (15)

  1. Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P. F. (eds.) The de- scription logic handbook: Theory, implementation, and applications. Cambridge University Press. (2003)
  2. Baader, F., Bienvenu, M., Lutz, C., and Wolter, F.: Query answering over DL ABoxes: How to pick the relevant symbols. In Cuenca Grau, B., Horrocks, I., Motik, B., and Sattler, U. (eds.): Proc. of DL-09. ceur-ws.org, vol. 477. (2009)
  3. Cuenca Grau, B., Horrocks, I., Kazakov, Y., and Sattler, U.: Modular reuse of ontologies: Theory and practice. In: J. of Artif. Intell. Research, vol. 31, pp. 273-318. (2008)
  4. Del Vescovo, C.: The modular structure of an ontology: Atomic decomposition towards applications. In Rosati, R., Rudolph, S., and Zakharyaschev, M. (eds.): Proc. of DL-11. ceur-ws.org, vol. 745. (2011)
  5. Del Vescovo, C., Gessler, D., Klinov, P., Parsia, B., Sattler, U., Schneider, T., and Winget, A.: Decomposition and modular structure of BioPortal ontologies. In Aroyo, L., Welty, C., Alani, H., Taylor, J., Bernstein, A. , Kagal, L. , Noy, N., and Blomqvist, E. (eds.): Proc. of ISWC-11. (2011)
  6. Del Vescovo, C., Parsia, B., Sattler, U., and Schneider, T.: The modular structure of an on- tology: Atomic decomposition. Walsh, T. (eds.): Proc. of IJCAI-11. (2011)
  7. Del Vescovo, C., Parsia, B., and Sattler, U.: Topicality in logic-based ontologies. Andrews, S., Polovina, S., Hill, R., and Akhgar, B. (eds.): Proc. of ICCS-11. (2011)
  8. S. Ghilardi, Lutz, C., and Wolter, F.: Did I damage my ontology? A case for conservative extensions in description logics. In Doherty, P., Mylopoulos, J., and Welty, C. (eds.): Proc. of KR-06 pp. 187-197. AAAI Press. (2006)
  9. Jiménez-Ruiz, E., Cuenca Grau, B., Sattler, U., Schneider, T., and Berlanga Llavori, R.: Safe and economic re-use of ontologies: A logic-based methodology and tool support. In: Proc. of ESWC-08. LNCS, vol. 5021, pp. 185-199. (2008)
  10. Jimeno, A., Jiménez-Ruiz, E., Berlanga Llavori, R., and Rebholz-Schuhmann, D.: Use of shared lexical resources for efficient ontological engineering. In: SWAT4LS-08. ceur-ws. org. (2008)
  11. Konev, B., Lutz, C., Ponomaryov, D., and Wolter, F.: Decomposing description logic ontolo- gies. In: Proc. of KR-10. pp. 236-246. (2010)
  12. Konev, B., Lutz, C., Walther, D., and Wolter, F.: Formal properties of modularization. In: Modular Ontologies, LNCS, vol. 5445, pp. 25-66. Springer-Verlag. (2009)
  13. Kontchakov, R., Pulina, L., Sattler, U., Schneider, T., Selmer, P., Wolter, F., and Za- kharyaschev, M.: Minimal module extraction from DL-Lite ontologies using QBF solvers. In: Proc. of IJCAI-09. pp. 836-841. (2009)
  14. Parsia, B., and Schneider, T.: The modular structure of an ontology: An empirical study. In: Proc. of KR-10. pp. 584-586. AAAI Press (2010)
  15. Sattler, U., Schneider, T., and Zakharyaschev, M.: Which kind of module should I extract? In Cuenca Grau, B., Horrocks, I., Motik, B., and Sattler, U. (eds.): Proc. of DL-09. ceur-ws. org, vol. 477. (2009)

Related papers

Declarative Representation of Programming Access to Ontologies
Steffen Staab

Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2012

Using ontologies in software applications is a challenging task due to the chasm between the logics-based world of ontologies and the object-oriented world of software applications. The logics-based representation emphasizes the meaning of concepts and properties, i.e., their semantics. The modeler in the object-oriented paradigm also takes into account the pragmatics, i.e., how the classes are used, by whom, and why. To enable a comprehensive use of logics-based representations in objectoriented software systems, a seamless integration of the two paradigms is needed. However, the pragmatic issues of using logic-based knowledge in object-oriented software applications has yet not been considered sufficiently. Rather, the pragmatic issues that arise in using an ontology, e.g., which classes to instantiate in which order, remains a task to be carefully considered by the application developer. In this paper, we present a declarative representation for designing and applying programming access to ontologies. Based on this declarative representation, we have build OntoMDE, a model-driven engineering toolkit that we have applied to several example ontologies with different Characteristics.

View PDFchevron_right
OWL: A description logic based ontology language
Deborah L. McGuinness

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 2005

Description Logics (DLs) are a family of class (concept) based knowledge representation formalisms. They are characterised by the use of various constructors to build complex concepts from simpler ones, an emphasis on the decidability of key reasoning tasks, and by the provision of sound, complete and (empirically) tractable reasoning services. Although they have a range of applications (e.g., reasoning with database schemas and queries [1, 2]), DLs are perhaps best known as the basis for ontology languages such as OIL, DAML+OIL and OWL [3]. The decision to base these languages on DLs was motivated by a requirement not only that key inference problems (such as class satisfiability and subsumption) be decidable, but that "practical" decision procedures and "efficient" implemented systems also be available. That DLs were able to meet the above requirements was the result of extensive research within the DL community over the course of the preceding 20 years or more. This research mapped out a complex landscape of languages, exploring a range of different language constructors, studying the effects of various combinations of these constructors on decidability and worst case complexity, and devising decision procedures, the latter often being tableaux based algorithms. At the same time, work on implementation and optimisation techniques demonstrated that, in spite of the high worst case complexity of key inference problems (usually at least ExpTime), highly optimised DL systems were capable of providing practical reasoning support in the typical cases encountered in realistic applications [4]. With the added impetus provided by the OWL standardisation effort, DL systems are now being used to provide computational services for a rapidly expanding range of ontology tools and applications [5-9]. The increasing use of DL based ontologies in areas such as e-Science and the Semantic Web is, however, already stretching the capabilities of existing DL systems, and brings with it a range of research challenges.

View PDFchevron_right
Workshop on comparing description and frame logics
Dieter Fensel

Data & Knowledge Engineering, 1998

The specification of reusable terminological knowledge is one of the key issues in today's knowledge engineering. Providing formal languages with precise semantics and inference support can significantly support this activity. The aim of the workshop was to understand and to compare existing approaches developed in other research communities.

View PDFchevron_right
The Ontological Square and its Logic
Luc Schneider

Proceedings of the 2008 Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference, 2008

View PDFchevron_right
Automated reasoning support for first-order ontologies
Peter Baumgartner

2006

Formal ontologies play an increasingly important role in demanding knowledge representation applications like the Semantic Web. Regarding automated reasoning support, the mainstream of research focusses on ontology languages that are also Description Logics, such as OWL-DL. However, many existing ontologies go beyond Description Logics and use full first-order logic. We propose a novel transformation technique that allows to apply existing model computation systems in such situations. We describe the transformation and some variants, its properties and intended applications to ontological reasoning.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Computer Science
  • Ontology
  • Theoretical Computer Science
  • Logical Framework Analysis
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved