Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Figures
Introduction
Owl Api Design
Data Structure Storage
References

The OWL API: a Java API for working with OWL 2 ontologies

Profile image of Sean BechhoferSean Bechhofer

2009

Abstract

Abstract. This paper presents the OWL API a high level Application Programming Interface (API) for working with OWL 2 ontologies. The API is closely aligned with the OWL 2 structural specification. It supports parsing and rendering in the syntaxes defined in the W3C specification, namely, the Functional Syntax, RDF/XML, OWL/XML and the Manchester OWL Syntax. Finally, the reference implementation of the API, which is written in Java, includes validators for the various OWL 2 profiles-OWL 2 QL, OWL 2 EL and OWL 2 RL.

Figures (2)
Fig. 1. A UML diagram showing the management of ontologies in the OWL API. The OWLOntology interface provides accessors for efficiently obtaining the axioms contained within an ontology. The method of storing axioms is provided by different implemen- tations of the OWLOntology interface. The design of the API makes it possible to mix and match implementations, for example, an in-memory ontology could be used to- gether with one that is stored in a database and one that is stored in some kind of triple store. The OWL API reference implementation provides an efficient in-memory storage solution. of the complexity associated with choosing the appropriate parsers and renderers for loading and saving ontologies and therefore obviates clients from worrying about these issues.
Fig. 1. A UML diagram showing the management of ontologies in the OWL API. The OWLOntology interface provides accessors for efficiently obtaining the axioms contained within an ontology. The method of storing axioms is provided by different implemen- tations of the OWLOntology interface. The design of the API makes it possible to mix and match implementations, for example, an in-memory ontology could be used to- gether with one that is stored in a database and one that is stored in some kind of triple store. The OWL API reference implementation provides an efficient in-memory storage solution. of the complexity associated with choosing the appropriate parsers and renderers for loading and saving ontologies and therefore obviates clients from worrying about these issues.
Fig. 2. A Screenshot of the OWL 2 Profile Validator. The validator is written using the Profiles API which is part of the OWL API
Fig. 2. A Screenshot of the OWL 2 Profile Validator. The validator is written using the Profiles API which is part of the OWL API

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
OWL web ontology language overview
Deborah L. McGuinness

2004

Abstract The OWL 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 than that supported by XML, RDF, and RDF Schema (RDF-S) by providing additional vocabulary along with a formal semantics. OWL has three increasingly-expressive sublanguages: OWL Lite, OWL DL, and OWL Full.

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
OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: Profiles
Alan Ruttenberg

2008

Abstract 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

View PDFchevron_right
Cooking the Semantic Web with the OWL API
Sean Bechhofer

2003

This paper discusses issues that surround the provision of application support using OWL ontologies. It presents the OWL API, a high-level programmatic interface for accessing and manipulating OWL ontologies. We discuss the underlying design issues and illustrate possible solutions to technical issues occurring in systems that intend to support the OWL standard.

View PDFchevron_right
OWL 2 web ontology language: Structural specification and functional-style syntax
Bijan Parsia

W3C …, 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,

View PDFchevron_right
OWLET: An Object-Oriented Environment for OWL Ontology Management
Agostino Poggi

2007

In this paper, an object-oriented model and a software environment for the management of OWL ontologies is presented. The object-oriented model allows a simple and complete representation of ontologies defined by using OWL DL profile. The software environment, called OWLET, implements this object-oriented model and provides a complete set of reasoning functions together with a graphical editor for the creation and modification of ontologies. OWLET can be very useful for realizing heterogeneous and distributed semantic systems where nodes differ for their capabilities (i.e., CPU power, memory size, …); in fact, it offers a layered reasoning API that allows to deploy a system where high power nodes take advantages of all the OWLET reasoning capabilities, medium power nodes take advantages of a limited set of OWLET reasoning capabilities (e.g., reasoning about individuals) and low power nodes delegate reasoning tasks to the other nodes of the system.

View PDFchevron_right
Automatic Mapping of OWL Ontologies into Java
Daniel Jiménez Pastor

2004

We present an approach for mapping an OWL ontology into Java. The basic idea is to create a set of Java interfaces and classes from an OWL ontology such that an instance of a Java class represents an instance of a single class of the ontology with most of its properties, classrelationships and restriction-definitions maintained. We note that there exist some fundamental semantic differences between Description Logic (DL) and Object Oriented (OO) systems, primarily related to completeness and satisfiability. We present various ways in which we aim to minimize the impact of such differences, and show how to map a large part of the much richer OWL semantics into Java. Finally, we sketch the HarmonIA framework, which is used for the automatic generation of agent systems from institution specifications, and whose OWL Ontology Creation module was the basis for the tool presented in this paper.

View PDFchevron_right
OWL web ontology language reference
Ian Horrocks

2004

Abstract The Web Ontology Language OWL is a semantic markup language for publishing and sharing ontologies on the World Wide Web. OWL is developed as a vocabulary extension of RDF (the Resource Description Framework) and is derived from the DAML+ OIL Web Ontology Language. This document contains a structured informal description of the full set of OWL language constructs and is meant to serve as a reference for OWL users who want to construct OWL ontologies.

View PDFchevron_right
Igniting the OWL 1.1 touch paper: The OWL API
Sean Bechhofer

2007

Abstract. This paper describes the design and implementation of an OWL 1.1 API, herein referred to as the OWL API. The API is designed to facilitate the manipulation of OWL 1.1 ontologies at a high level of abstraction for use by editors, reasoners and other tools. The API is based on the OWL 1.1 specification and influenced by the experience of designing and using the WonderWeb API and OWL-based applications. An overview of the basis for the design of the API is discussed along with major API functionality.

View PDFchevron_right

References (17)

  1. F. Baader, C. Lutz, and B. Suntisrivaraporn. CEL-a polynomial-time reasoner for life science ontologies. In U. Furbach and N. Shankar, editors, Proceedings of the 3rd International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR'06), volume 4130 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 287-291. Springer-Verlag, 2006.
  2. Sean Bechhofer, Raphael Volz, and Philip Lord. Cooking the semantic web with the OWL API. In Dieter Fensel, Katia Sycara, and John Mylopoulos, editors, The Semantic Web -ISWC 2003. The Second International Semantic Web Conference, Sanibel Island, Florida, USA, volume 2870/2003 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 659-675, Sanibel Island, Florida, USA, October 2003. Springer.
  3. Jeremy J. Carroll, Ian Dickinson, Chris Dollin, Dave Reynolds, Andy Seaborne, and Kevin Wilkinson. Jena: implementing the semantic web recommendations. In Stuart Feldman, Mike Uretsky, Mark Najork, and Craig Wills, editors, Proceedings of the 13th international World Wide Web conference on Alternate track papers & posters, pages 74-83, New York, NY, USA, May 2004. ACM.
  4. Erich Gamma, Richard Helm, Ralph Johnson, and John Vlissides. Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Addison-Wesley Professional Com- puting Series. Addison-Wesley, 21st edition, October 1994.
  5. Volker Haarslev and Ralf Möller. RACER system description. In International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR 2001), volume 2083 of Lecture Notes In Computer Science, pages 701-705, 2001.
  6. Peter Haase, Holger Lewen, Rudi Studer, Duc Thanh Tran, Michael Erdmann, Mathieu d'Aquin, and Enrico Motta. The neon ontology engineering toolkit. In Jeff Korn, editor, WWW 2008 Developers Track, April 2008.
  7. Matthew Horridge, Dmitry Tsarkov, and Timothy Redmond. Supporting early adoption of OWL 1.1 with Protégé-OWL and FaCT++. In Bernardo Cuenca Grau, Pascal Hitzler, Conor Shankey, and Evan Wallace, editors, OWL: Expe- riences and Directions (OWLED), volume 216 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings. CEUR-WS.org, November 2006.
  8. Ernesto Jiménez-Ruiz, Bernardo Cuenca Grau, Ulrike Sattler, Thomas Schneider, and Raphael Berlanga Llavori. Safe and economic re-use of ontologies: A logic- based methodology and tool support. In Sean Bechhofer, Manfred Hauswirth, Joerg Hoffmann, and Manolis Koubarakis, editors, The Semantic Web: Research and Applications, 5th European Semantic Web Conference, ESWC 2008, Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain, volume 5021 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 185-199. Springer, June 2008.
  9. Joachim Kleb Jörg Henss and Stephan Grimm. A database backend for OWL. In Rinke Hoeksta and Peter F. Patel-Schneider, editors, OWL: Experiences and Di- rections (OWLED 2009), CEUR Workshop Proceedings. CEUR-WS.org, October 2009.
  10. Aditya Kalyanpur, Bijan Parsia, and James Hendler. A tool for working with web ontologies. In International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems, volume 1, Jan -Mar 2005.
  11. Thorsten Liebig and Olaf Noppens. OntoTrack: Combining browsing and editing with reasoning and explaining for OWL Lite ontologies. In Sheila McIlraith, Dim- itris Plexousakis, and Frank van Harmelen, editors, The Semantic Web -ISWC 2004. Third International Semantic Web Conference 2004, Hiroshima, Japan, vol- ume 3298 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 244-258. Springer, Novem- ber 2004.
  12. Boris Motik, Bijan Parsia, and Peter F. Patel-Schneider. OWL 2 Web Ontology Language XML serialization. W3C Recommendation, W3C -World Wide Web Consortium, October 2009.
  13. Boris Motik, Peter F. Patel-Schneider, and Bijan Parsia. OWL 2 Web Ontology Language structural specification and functional style syntax. W3C Recommen- dation, W3C -World Wide Web Consortium, October 2009.
  14. Boris Motik, Rob Shearer, and Ian Horrocks. Optimized reasoning in description logics using hypertableaux. In Proc. of the 21st Int. Conf. on Automated Deduction (CADE-21), volume 4603 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 67-83. Springer, 2007.
  15. Peter F. Patel-Schneider, Patrick Hayes, and Ian Horrocks. OWL Web Ontology Language semantics and abstract syntax. W3C Recommendation, 10 February 2004.
  16. Evren Sirin, Bijan Parsia, Bernardo Cuenca Grau, Aditya Kalyanpur, and Yarden Katz. Pellet: A practical OWL-DL reasoner. Journal of Web Semantics, 5(2), 2007.
  17. 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.

Related papers

OWL 2: The next step for OWL
Bijan Parsia

Web Semantics: Science …, 2008

Since achieving W3C recommendation status in 2004, the Web Ontology Language (OWL) has been successfully applied to many problems in computer science. Practical experience with OWL has been quite positive in general; however, it has also revealed room for improvement in several areas. We systematically analyze the identified shortcomings of OWL, such as expressivity issues, problems with its syntaxes, and deficiencies in the definition of OWL species. Furthermore, we present an overview of OWL 2-an extension to and revision of OWL that is currently being developed within the W3C OWL Working Group. Many aspects of OWL have been thoroughly reengineered in OWL 2, thus producing a robust platform for future development of the language.

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
TEX-OWL: a Latex-Style Syntax for authoring OWL 2 ontologies
Matteo Matassoni

OWL to be less verbose than the other OWL syntaxes, and easy-to-use especially for quickly developing small-size ontologies with just a text editor. The important features of the syntax are discussed in this paper, and a reference implementation of a Java-based parser and writer is described.

View PDFchevron_right
Authoring OWL 2 ontologies with the TEX-OWL syntax
Matteo Matassoni

OWL to be less verbose than the other OWL syntaxes, and easy-to-use especially for quickly developing small-size ontologies with just a text editor. The important features of the syntax are discussed in this paper, and a reference implementation of a Java-based parser and writer is described.

View PDFchevron_right
OWL 2 web ontology language primer
Bijan Parsia

W3C …, 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.

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