Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Figures
Introduction
Background
Reasoning at Design Time
Future Directions
Conclusions
References

Semantic Web

Profile image of Ian HorrocksIan Horrocks

2008

Abstract

The Semantic Web aims to explicate the meaning of Web content by adding semantic annotations that describe the content and function of resources. Providing shareable annotations requires the use of ontologies that describe a common model of a domain. The Web Ontology Language OWL has been defined in order to support representation of ontologies, and their manipulation through the use of reasoning.

Figures (3)
Fig. 1. Tree of Porphyry.
Fig. 1. Tree of Porphyry.
Fig. 2. Example pizza ontology.
Fig. 2. Example pizza ontology.
SHOTN also provides for transitive roles, allowing us to state, e.g., that if x ha: an ancestor y and y had an ancestor z, then z is also an ancestor of x, and fo inverse roles, allowing us to state, e.g., that if z is an ancestor of x, then z is also a1 descendent of z. The constructors provided by OWL, and the equivalent DL syntax are summarised in Figure 3. Fig. 3. OWL constructors
SHOTN also provides for transitive roles, allowing us to state, e.g., that if x ha: an ancestor y and y had an ancestor z, then z is also an ancestor of x, and fo inverse roles, allowing us to state, e.g., that if z is an ancestor of x, then z is also a1 descendent of z. The constructors provided by OWL, and the equivalent DL syntax are summarised in Figure 3. Fig. 3. OWL constructors

Related papers

Semantic Web and Ontologies
Maciej Dabrowski

Semantic Digital Libraries

View PDFchevron_right
Knowledge Representation and Reasoning on the Semantic Web: OWL
Ian Horrocks

Abstract. OWL is the ontology language recommended by the W3C. OWL is heavily based on the knowledge representation languages called Description Logic, which provide the basic representation features of OWL. OWL also includes facilities that integrate it into the mainstream of the Web, including use of IRIs as names, XML Schema datatypes, and ontologies as Web documents, which can then import other OWL ontologies over the Web.

View PDFchevron_right
From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: The making of a web ontology language
Ian Horrocks

2003

The OWL Web Ontology Language is a new formal language for representing ontologies in the Semantic Web. OWL has features from several families of representation languages, including primarily Description Logics and frames. OWL also shares many characteristics with RDF, the W3C base of the Semantic Web. In this paper, we discuss how the philosophy and features of OWL can be traced back to these older formalisms, with modifications driven by several other constraints on OWL.

View PDFchevron_right
Semantic Web Technology and Ontology
Nilesh Patil

The web was designed as an information storage space, with the goal that it should be useful not only for human-human communication, but also that machine would be able to participate and help. The major obstacle to this has been the fact that most information on the web is designed for human consumption, and even if it was derived from a database, the structure of the data is not evident to a robot browsing the web. Leaving aside the problem of artificial intelligence of training machine to behave like people, the Semantic Web approach instead develops languages for expressing information in a machine readable form. This paper gives a road map of technology from the Web of today to a Web in which machine reasoning will be ubiquitous and powerful.

View PDFchevron_right
using Web Ontology K.Vanitha, K.Yasudha
sri venkatesh

2013

Abstract-----Present vision for the web is the semantic web in which information is given explicit meaning, making it easier for machines to automatically process and integrate information available on the web. It provides the information exactly. Now days, ontology is playing a major role in knowledge representation for the semantic web [1]. Ontology is a conceptualization of domain into a human understandable and machine readable or machine process able format consisting of entities, attributes, relationships and axioms. Ontology web language is designed for use by applications that need to process the content of information [22]. In this context many e-learning systems were proposed in the literature. Semantic Web technology may support more advanced Artificial intelligence problems for knowledge retrieval [20]. This paper aims at presenting an intelligent e-learning system from the literature. Keywords-Semantic web; e-learning; Ontology Web Language (OWL); Ontology; OWL-S Servic...

View PDFchevron_right
OWL: a Description-Logic-Based Ontology Language for the Semantic Web
Deborah L. McGuinness

Cambridge University Press eBooks, 2007

View PDFchevron_right
Semantic Web: A state of the art survey
Dimitris Kanellopoulos

… Review on Computers and Software (I …, 2007

The semantic web is an extension of the current web in which information is given well-defined meaning. It is a concept that enables better machine processing of information on the web, by structuring documents written for the web in such a way that they become understandable by computers. This can be used for creating complex applications such as intelligent browsers, intelligent software agents, global databases with data from the web, reuse of information, etc. Central to the vision of the semantic web are ontologies. Ontologies provide a shared understanding of a domain of interest to support communication among human and software agents, typically being represented in a machine-processable representation language. Web ontology languages like OWL provide a technological basis to enable the semantic web. This paper considers the basic principles of the semantic web, and reviews important tools for creating and maintaining ontologies in various frameworks.

View PDFchevron_right
Web Semantic and Ontology
Scirp Math-Physics

Ontologies have become a popular research topic in many communities. In fact, ontology is a main component of this research; therefore, the definition, structure and the main operations and applications of ontology are provided. Web content consists mainly of distributed hypertext and hypermedia, and is accessed via a combination of keyword based search and link navigation. Hence, the ontology can provide a common vocabulary, and a grammar for publishing data, and can supply a semantic description of data which can be used to preserve the ontologies and keep them ready for inference. This paper provides basic concepts of semantic web, and defines the structure and the main applications of ontology.

View PDFchevron_right
OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: New Features and Rationale
Evan Wallace

2009

The OWL 2 Web Ontology Language, informally OWL 2, is an ontology language for the Semantic Web with formally defined meaning. OWL 2 ontologies provide classes, properties, individuals, and data values and are stored as Semantic Web documents. OWL 2 ontologies can be used along with information written in RDF, and OWL 2 ontologies themselves are primarily exchanged as RDF documents. The OWL 2 Document Overview describes the overall state of OWL 2, and should be read before other OWL 2 documents. This document is a simple introduction to the new features of the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language, including an explanation of the differences between the initial version of OWL and OWL 2. The document also presents the requirements that have motivated the design of the main new features, and their rationale from a theoretical and implementation perspective. OWL 2 Web Ontology LanguageNew Features and Rationale W3C Editor's Draft

View PDFchevron_right
Semantic Web and Ontology
Elodie Gontier

Ontologies have become a popular research topic in many communities. In fact, ontology is a main component of this research; therefore, the definition, structure and the main operations and applications of ontology are provided. Web content consists mainly of distributed hypertext and hypermedia, and is accessed via a combination of keyword based search and link navigation. Hence, the ontology can provide a common vocabulary, and a grammar for publishing data, and can supply a semantic description of data which can be used to preserve the ontologies and keep them ready for inference. This paper provides basic concepts of semantic web, and defines the structure and the main applications of ontology.

View PDFchevron_right

References (47)

  1. Shadi Abou-Zahra. Semanticweb enabled web accessibility evaluation tools. In W4A '05: Proceedings of the 2005 International Cross-Disciplinary Workshop on Web Accessibility (W4A), pages 99-101, New York, NY, USA, 2005. ACM Press. ISBN 1-59593-219-4. doi: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1061811.1061830.
  2. Chieko Asakawa and Hironobu Takagi. Annotation-based transcoding for nonvi- sual web access. In Proceedings of the Fourth International ACM Conference on Assistive Technologies, pages 172-179. ACM Press, 2000.
  3. Franz Baader, Diego Calvanese, Deborah McGuinness, Daniele Nardi, and Peter F. Patel-Schneider, editors. The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementa- tion and Applications. Cambridge University Press, 2003.
  4. Sean Bechhofer, Ian Horrocks, and Daniele Turi. The OWL instance store: System description. In Proc. of the 20th Int. Conf. on Automated Deduction (CADE-20), Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 177-181. Springer, 2005.
  5. Sean Bechhofer, Simon Harper, and Darren Lunn. SADIe: Semantic Annotation for Accessibility. In I. Cruz, S. Decker, D. Allemang, C. Preist, D. Schwabe, P. Mika, M. Uschold, and L. Aroyo, editors, Proceedings of ISWC2006, the Fifth Inter- national Semantic Web Conference, volume 4273 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 101-115. Springer, November 2006.
  6. Tim Berners-Lee. Semantic web road map, September 1998. Available at http: //www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Semantic.html.
  7. R. J. Brachman and J. G. Schmolze. An overview of the Kl-One knowledge repre- sentation system. Cognitive Science, 9(2):171-216, April 1985.
  8. Leslie Carr, Sean Bechhofer, Carole Goble, and Wendy Hall. Conceptual Linking: Ontology-based Open Hypermedia. In WWW10, Tenth World Wide Web Con- ference, May 2001.
  9. Bernardo Cuenca Grau, Ian Horrocks, Yevgeny Kazakov, and Ulrike Sattler. Just the right amount: Extracting modules from ontologies. In Proc. of the Six- teenth International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2007), 2007a. URL download/2007/CHKS07a.pdf.
  10. Bernardo Cuenca Grau, Yevgeny Kazakov, Ian Horrocks, and Ulrike Sattler. A logical framework for modular integration of ontologies. In Proc. of the 20th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2007), 2007b. URL download/2007/ CKHS07a.pdf.
  11. S. Derriere, A. Richard, and A. Preite-Martinez. An ontology of astronomical object types for the virtual observatory. Proc. of Special Session 3 of the 26th meeting of the IAU: Virtual Observatory in Action: New Science, New Technology, and Next Generation Facilities, 2006.
  12. Martin Dzbor, John Domingue, and Enrico Motta. Magpie -Towards a Semantic Web Browser. In Dieter Fensel, Katia Sycara, and John Mylopoulos, editors, 2nd International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC, volume 2870 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, October 2003.
  13. D. Fensel, F. van Harmelen, I. Horrocks, D. McGuinness, and P. F. Patel-Schneider. OIL: An ontology infrastructure for the semantic web. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 16(2):38-45, 2001. URL download/2001/IEEE-IS01.pdf.
  14. Christine Golbreich, Songmao Zhang, and Olivier Bodenreider. The foundational model of anatomy in OWL: Experience and perspectives. J. of Web Semantics, 4(3), 2006.
  15. John Goodwin. Experiences of using OWL at the ordnance survey. In Proc. of the First OWL Experiences and Directions Workshop, volume 188 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings. CEUR (http://ceur-ws.org/), 2005.
  16. Volker Haarslev and Ralf Möller. RACER system description. In Proc. of the Int. Joint Conf. on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR 2001), volume 2083 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 701-705. Springer, 2001.
  17. Siegfried Handschuh and Steffen Staab, editors. Annotation for the Semantic Web, volume 96 of Frontiers in Artifical Intelligence and Applications. IOS Press, 2003.
  18. Simon Harper and Sean Bechhofer. Semantic Triage for Accessibility. IBM Systems Journal, 44(3):637-648, 2005.
  19. Frank W. Hartel, Sherri de Coronado, Robert Dionne, Gilberto Fragoso, and Jennifer Golbeck. Modeling a description logic vocabulary for cancer research. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 38(2):114-129, 2005.
  20. Ian Horrocks and Ulrike Sattler. Decidability of SHIQ with complex role inclusion axioms. Artificial Intelligence, 160(1-2):79-104, December 2004.
  21. Ian Horrocks and Ulrike Sattler. A tableaux decision procedure for SHOIQ. In Proc. of the 19th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2005), pages 448-453, 2005. URL download/2005/HoSa05a.pdf.
  22. Ian Horrocks, Peter F. Patel-Schneider, and Frank van Harmelen. Reviewing the design of DAML+OIL: An ontology language for the semantic web. In Proc. of the 18th Nat. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2002), pages 792-797. AAAI Press, 2002. ISBN 0-26251-129-0. URL download/2002/AAAI02IHorrocks.pdf.
  23. Ian Horrocks, Peter F. Patel-Schneider, and Frank van Harmelen. From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: The making of a web ontology language. J. of Web Semantics, 1 (1):7-26, 2003. ISSN 1570-8268. URL download/2003/HoPH03a.pdf.
  24. Ian Horrocks, Oliver Kutz, and Ulrike Sattler. The even more irresistible SROIQ. In Proc. of the 10th Int. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2006), pages 57-67. AAAI Press, 2006.
  25. Ullrich Hustadt, Boris Motik, and Ulrike Sattler. Reducing SHIQ-description logic to disjunctive datalog programs. In Proc. of the 9th Int. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2004), pages 152-162, 2004.
  26. A. Kalyanpur, Bijan Parsia, Evren Sirin, Bernardo Cuenca-Grau, and James Hendler. SWOOP: a web ontology editing browser. J. of Web Semantics, 4 (2), 2005a.
  27. Aditya Kalyanpur, Bijan Parsia, Evren Sirin, and James Hendler. Debugging un- satisfiable classes in owl ontologies. J. of Web Semantics, 3(4):243-366, 2005b. URL http://www.mindswap.org/papers/debugging-jws.pdf.
  28. Aaron Kershenbaum, Achille Fokoue, Chintan Patel, Christopher Welty, Edith Schonberg, James Cimino, Li Ma, Kavitha Srinivas, Robert Schloss, and J William Murdock. A view of OWL from the field: Use cases and experiences. In Proc. of the Second OWL Experiences and Directions Workshop, volume 216 of CEUR (http: // ceur-ws. org/ ), 2006.
  29. Holger Knublauch, Ray Fergerson, Natalya Noy, and Mark Musen. The Protégé OWL Plugin: An open development environment for semantic web applications. In Sheila A. McIlraith, Dimitris Plexousakis, and Frank van Harmelen, editors, Proc. of the 2004 International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2004), number 3298 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 229-243. Springer, 2004. ISBN 3-540-23798-4.
  30. Christos Kouroupetroglou, Michail Salampasis, and Athanasios Manitsaris. A semantic-web based framework for developing applications to improve accessibil- ity in the www. In W4A: Proceedings of the 2006 international cross-disciplinary workshop on Web accessibility (W4A), pages 98-108, New York, NY, USA, 2006. ACM Press. ISBN 1-59593-281-X. doi: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1133219. 1133238.
  31. Lee Lacy, Gabriel Aviles, Karen Fraser, William Gerber, Alice Mulvehill, and Robert Gaskill. Experiences using OWL in military applications. In Proc. of the First OWL Experiences and Directions Workshop, volume 188 of CEUR Workshop Pro- ceedings. CEUR (http://ceur-ws.org/), 2005.
  32. S. McIlraith, T. C. Son, and H. Zeng. Semantic web services. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 16:46-53, 2001.
  33. Peter F. Patel-Schneider, Patrick Hayes, and Ian Horrocks. OWL Web Ontology Language semantics and abstract syntax. W3C Recommendation, 10 February 2004. Available at http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/.
  34. Alan Rector and Jeremy Rogers. Ontological and practical issues in using a descrip- tion logic to represent medical concept systems: Experience from GALEN. In Reasoning Web, Second International Summer School, Tutorial Lectures, volume 4126 of LNCS, pages 197-231. SV, 2006.
  35. Alan Ruttenberg, Jonathan Rees, and Joanne Luciano. Experience using OWL DL for the exchange of biological pathway information. In Proc. of the First OWL Ex- periences and Directions Workshop, volume 188 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings. CEUR (http://ceur-ws.org/), 2005.
  36. Lisa Seeman. The semantic web, web accessibility, and device independence. In W4A '04: Proceedings of the 2004 international cross-disciplinary workshop on Web accessibility (W4A), pages 67-73, New York, NY, USA, 2004. ACM Press. ISBN 1-58113-903-9. doi: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/990657.990669.
  37. Amandeep Sidhu, Tharam Dillon, Elisabeth Chang, and Baldev Singh Sidhu. Pro- tein ontology development using OWL. In Proc. of the First OWL Experiences and Directions Workshop, volume 188 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings. CEUR (http://ceur-ws.org/), 2005.
  38. E. Sirin, B. Parsia, B. Cuenca Grau, A. Kalyanpur, and Y. Katz. Pellet: A practical owl-dl reasoner. URL http://www.mindswap.org/papers/PelletJWS.pdf. To appear, 2005.
  39. Dagobert Soergel, Boris Lauser, Anita Liang, Frehiwot Fisseha, Johannes Keizer, and Stephen Katz. Reengineering thesauri for new applications: The AGROVOC example. J. of Digital Information, 4(4), 2004.
  40. K. Spackman. Managing clinical terminology hierarchies using algorithmic calcu- lation of subsumption: Experience with SNOMED-RT. J. of the Amer. Med. Informatics Ass., 2000. Fall Symposium Special Issue.
  41. SWEET. Semantic web for earth and environmental terminology (SWEET). Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, 2006. http://sweet. jpl.nasa.gov/.
  42. Hironobu Takagi and Chieko Asakawa. Transcoding proxy for nonvisual web ac- cess. In Proceedings of the Fourth International ACM Conference on Assistive Technologies, pages 164-171. ACM Press, 2000.
  43. Dmitry Tsarkov and Ian Horrocks. FaCT++ description logic reasoner: System de- scription. In Proc. of the Int. Joint Conf. on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR 2006), volume 4130 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 292-297. Springer, 2006. URL download/2006/TsHo06a.pdf.
  44. R. Volz, S. Handschuh, S. Staab, L. Stojanovic, and N. Stojanovic. Unveiling the hidden bride: Deep Annotation for Mapping and Migrating Legacy Data to the Semantic Web. Journal of Web Semantics, 2004.
  45. W. A. Woods. What's in a link: Foundations for semantic networks. In Ronald J. Brachman and Hector J. Levesque, editors, Readings in Knowledge Representa- tion, pages 217-241. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA, 1985. ISBN 093461301X. Previously published in D. G. Bobrow and A. M. Collins, editors, Representation and Understanding: Studies in Cognitive Science, pages 35-82. New York Academic Press, 1975.
  46. Yeliz Yesilada, Simon Harper, Carole Goble, and Robert Stevens. Dante annotation and transformation of web pages for visually impaired users. In The Thirteenth International World Wide Web Conference, 2004.
  47. Yeliz Yesilada, Sean Bechhofer, and Bernard Horan. Personalised Dynamic Links on the Web. In SMAP2006: 1st International Workshop on Semantic Media Adaptation and Personalization, 2006.

Related papers

The Web Ontology Language (OWL) and Its Applications
Alexandre Miguel Pinto

Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, Third Edition, 2015

View PDFchevron_right
Web ontology language (OWL) and semantic web
Goutam Kumar Saha

Ubiquity, 2007

View PDFchevron_right
Ontology Description using OWL to Support Semantic Web Applications
Rajiv Pandey

International Journal of Computer Applications, 2011

In The World Wide Web (WWW) serves the human with vast amount of data and information.The usage pattern or user base has multiplied many folds since its origin. Despite the increasing importance gained by the WWW, to serve the human, it lacks the feature to serve meaningful information to machine this means that limited support for utilization of data and information is achieved. Thus the web needs to be made Semantic wherein different applications, agents, Web services and the web sites can exchange information to their full potential. This calls for representing the knowledge residing on WWW in a uniform manner understandable by both man and machine. Thus some taxonomy is needed to make representations of the web contents which can be machine readable and usable .This paper proposes to relate the need for Ontology and relate it to Web ontology language (OWL) and identify its position in making the Semantic Web. It is also felt that ontological support is needed for the semantic web in order to make the information ready for machine consumption. The ontological structure using the Web Ontology Language (OWL) which is used for modeling ontologies of context and for supporting Context reasoning is explored in this paper.The Web Ontology Language is designed for use by applications that need to process the content of information instead of just presenting information to humans. OWL facilitates greater machine interpretability of Web content

View PDFchevron_right
Web Ontology Language: OWL
Mark Musen

Handbook on Ontologies, 2004

With the deep research of semantic Web, people are more and more concerned with the problem of representing and retrieving information content on the Web. The ontology language layer building on top of RDF schema is used to formally describe the meaning of ...

View PDFchevron_right
SEMANTIC WEB TECHNOLOGIES: AN OVERVIEW
IJESRT Journal

The term " Semantic Web " is often used more specifically to refer to the formats and technologies that enable it. These technologies include the Resource Description Framework (RDF), a variety of data substitution formats, and notations such as RDF Schema and the Web Ontology Language, all of which are intended to provide a formal description of concepts, terms, and relationships within a given knowledge domain. In the last decade the increasing popularity of the World Wide Web has lead to an exponential growth in the number of pages available on the Web. This huge number of Web pages makes it increasingly difficult for users to send required information. To enable machines to support the user in solving information problems, the Semantic Web proposes an extension to the existing Web that makes the semantics of the Web pages machine process able. The Semantic Web is well recognized as an effective infrastructure to enhance visibility of knowledge on the Web. The foundation of the Semantic Web is ontology , which is used to unambiguously represent our conceptualizations. Ontology engineering in the Semantic Web is primarily supported by languages such as RDF, RDFS and OWL. This article discusses the requirements of ontology's in the context of the Web, compares the above three languages with existing knowledge representation formalisms, and surveys tools for managing and applying ontology's.

View PDFchevron_right
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved