COMMON LANUGAGES FOR SEMANTIC WWW - Beyond RDF and OWL

Seiji Koide, Hideaki Takeda

Abstract

OWL has established itself as a standard of ontology description language not only in Semantic Web but also in diverse disciplines and engineering fields. However, endeavors to describe ontology in OWL are revealing the extent of ability on the OWL current specification in practical views. In this paper, we see an overview of basic assumptions of knowledge representation languages for Semantic Web, and point out several basic and problematic issues of OWL, which are captured by our own experience of developing a language processor called SWCLOS, the first OWL Full processor developed on top of Common Lisp Object System (CLOS), and we address our approach to solve them. It includes explicit descriptions of role concepts, auto-epistemic local closed world assumption, ternary truth values, and unique name assumption for atomic objects. These settings are implemented into SWCLOS. Finally, we envision the direction of languages for semantic WWW.

References

  1. Carroll, J., Herman, I., and Patel-Schneider, P. F. (2009). Owl 2 web ontology language rdfbased semantics. W3C Candidate Recommendation. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-rdf-based-semantics/.
  2. Guarino, N. (1998). Some ontological principles for designing upper level lexical resources. In Rubio, A., Gallardo, N., Castro, R., and Tejada, A., editors, the First International Conference on Lexical Resources and Evaluation, pages 527-534, Granada, Spain. ELRA - European Language Resources Association.
  3. Guha, R. V. and Hayes, P. (2003). Lbase: Semantics for languages of the semantic web. Note, W3C.
  4. Hayes, P. and McBride, B. (2004). RDF Semantics. W3C Recommendation. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/.
  5. Hayes, P. and Menzel, C. (2001). A semantics for the knowledge interchange format. In In IJCAI 2001 Workshop on the IEEE Standard Upper Ontology.
  6. Koide, S. and Takeda, H. (2006). OWL-Full reasoning from an object oriented perspective. In Asian Semantic Web Conf., ASWC2006, pages 263-277. Springer.
  7. Koide, S. and Takeda, H. (2009). Meta-circularity and mop in common lisp for owl full. In ELW 7809: Proceedings of the 6th European Lisp Workshop, pages 28-34, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
  8. Kozaki, K., Sunagawa, E., Kitamura, Y., and Mizoguchi, R. (2007). Role representation model using owl and swrl. In Proc. of 2nd Workshop on Roles and Relationships in Object Oriented Programming, Multiagent Systems, and Ontologies, Berlin.
  9. McDermott, D. (1978). Tarskian semantics, or no notation without denotation! Cognitive Science, 2:277-282.
  10. McGuinness, D. L. and van Harmelen, F. (2004). OWL Web Ontology Language Overview. W3C Recommendation. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/.
  11. Mizoguchi, R., Sunagawa, E., Kozaki, K., and Kitamura, Y. (2007). The model of roles within an ontology development tool: Hozo. Appl. Ontol., 2(2):159-179.
  12. Neuhaus, F. (2010). The semantics of modules in common logic. In Smith, B., Mizoguchi, R., and Nakagawa, S., editors, Interdisciplinary Ontology, volume 3, pages 107-117. Open Research Centre for Logic and Formal Ontology, Keio University.
  13. Patel-Schneider, P. F., Hayes, P., and Horrocks, I. (2004a). Owl web ontology language semantics and abstract syntax. W3C Recommendation.
  14. Patel-Schneider, P. F., Hayes, P., and Horrocks, I. (2004b). OWL Web Ontology Language Semantics and Abstract Syntax section 5. rdf-compatible model-theoretic semantics. W3C Recommendation, http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/rdfs.html.
  15. Russell, S. and Norvig, P. (2003). Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach Second Edition. Prentice Hall.
  16. Smith, B. C. (1984). Reflection and semantics in Lisp. In POPL 7884: Proceedings of the 11th ACM SIGACTSIGPLAN symposium on Principles of programming languages, pages 23-35, New York, NY, USA. ACM Press.
  17. Smith, M. K., Welty, C., and McGuinness, D. L. (2004). OWL Web Ontology Language Guide. W3C Recommendation. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/.
  18. Sowa, J. F. (1995). Top-level ontological categories. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud., 43(5-6):669-685.
  19. Sowa, J. F. (1999). Knowledge Representation: Logical, Philosophical, and Computational Foundations. Brooks Cole Publishing Co., Pacific Grove, CA.
  20. Takeda, H., Iino, K., and Nishida, T. (1995). Agent organization and communication with multiple ontologies. Int. J. Cooperative Inf. Syst., 4(4):321-338.
  21. Tarski, A. (1946/1995). Introduction to Logic. Dover. First publishing in 1936 in Polish.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Koide S. and Takeda H. (2010). COMMON LANUGAGES FOR SEMANTIC WWW - Beyond RDF and OWL . In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering - Volume 1: ENASE, ISBN 978-989-8425-21-8, pages 86-95. DOI: 10.5220/0002999000860095


in Bibtex Style

@conference{enase10,
author={Seiji Koide and Hideaki Takeda},
title={COMMON LANUGAGES FOR SEMANTIC WWW - Beyond RDF and OWL},
booktitle={Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering - Volume 1: ENASE,},
year={2010},
pages={86-95},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0002999000860095},
isbn={978-989-8425-21-8},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering - Volume 1: ENASE,
TI - COMMON LANUGAGES FOR SEMANTIC WWW - Beyond RDF and OWL
SN - 978-989-8425-21-8
AU - Koide S.
AU - Takeda H.
PY - 2010
SP - 86
EP - 95
DO - 10.5220/0002999000860095