![](bgc.png)
A second contribution is the design of a KRL
model ontology by representing, aligning and
extending various KRL models, and defining their
elements via the above cited few links, as illustrated
by Tables 3 and 5-7. Thus, the merged models are
also easier to re-use.
A third one is the design of a KRL notation
ontology - to our knowledge, the first one - based on
the above two cited contributions, as illustrated by
Tables 8-10.
These three contributions permit to solve or reduce
the problems listed in the introduction: KRL syntactic
translations, KRL parser implementation, dynamic
extension of notations, etc. Thus, they provide an
ontology-based concise alternative to the use of XML
as a meta-language for easily creating KRLs following
KRL ontologies. Therefore, this also complements
GRDDL and can be seen as a new research avenue.
This avenue is important given the frequent need for
applications to i) integrate or easily import and export
from/to an ever growing number of models and
syntaxes (XML-based or not), and ii) let the users
parameter these processes.
Previous attempts (by the first author of this
article) based on directly extending EBNF - or directly
representing or generating concrete terms in a KRL or
transformation language - required much lengthier
specifications that were also more difficult to re-use.
Besides its translation server, the Logicells/GTH
company will use this work in its applications for
them to i) collect and aggregate KRs from the
knowledge bases they exploit, and ii) enable end-
users to adapt the input and output formats they wish
to use or see. The goal behind these two points is to
make these applications - and the ones they relate -
more (re-)usable, flexible, robust and inter-operable.
One theme of our future work on this approach will
be the generation of parsing actions in parsing rules,
given an implementation "data model". A second
theme will be the representation and integration of
more models and notations for KRLs as well as query
languages and programming languages. A third
theme will be the extension of our notation ontology
into a presentation ontology with concepts from style-
sheets and, more generally, user interfaces.
REFERENCES
Brophy, M., Heflin, J., 2009. OWL-PL: A Presentation
Language for Displaying Semantic Data on the Web.
Technical report, Department of Computer Science
and Engineering, Lehigh University.
Common Logic, 2007. Information technology - Common
Logic (CL): a framework for a family of logic-based
languages. ISO/IEC 24707:2007(E), JTC1/SC32.
Corby, O., Faron-Zucker, C, Gandon, F., 2014. SPARQL
Template: A Transformation Language for RDF. In
IC 2014, 25th Journées francophones d'Ingénierie des
Connaissances, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Farquhar, A., Fikes, R., Rice, J., 1997. The Ontolingua
Server: a tool for collaborative ontology construction.
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies,
Volume 46, Issue 6, Academic Press, Inc., MN, USA.
Genesereth, M., Fikes R., 1992. Knowledge Interchange
Format, Version 3.0, Reference Manual. Technical
Report, Logic-92-1, Computer Science Dept., Stanford
University. http://www.cs.umbc.edu/kse/
GRDDL, 2007. Gleaning Resource Descriptions from
Dialects of Languages (GRDDL). W3C Recom-
mendation 11 September 2007. Editor: Connolly, D.
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-grddl-20070911/
Horrocks I., 1997. Optimising Tableaux Decision
Procedures for Description Logics. PhD thesis,
University of Manchester.
Martin Ph. and Eklund P., 1999. Embedding Knowledge in
Web Documents. Computer Networks: The International
Journal of Computer and Telecommunications
Networking, Vol. 31, Issue 11-16, pp. 1403-1419.
Martin Ph., 2002. Knowledge representation in CGLF,
CGIF, KIF, Frame-CG and Formalized-English.
Proceedings of ICCS 2002, LNAI 2393, pp. 77-91
Martin Ph., 2011. Collaborative knowledge sharing and
editing. International Journal on Computer Science and
Information Systems, Vol. 6, Issue 1, pp. 14-29.
OWL 2, 2009. OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Document
Overview (Second Edition). W3C Recommendation.
w3.org/TR/2012/REC-owl2-overview-20121211/
Pietriga, E., Bizer, C., Karger, D., Lee, R., 2006. Fresnel:
A Browser-Independent Presentation Vocabulary for
RDF. In ISWC 2006, 5th International Semantic Web
Conference, LNCS 4273.
Quan, D. 2005. Xenon: An RDF Stylesheet Ontology. In
WWW 2005, 14th World Wide Web Conference, Japan.
RIF-FLD, 2013. RIF Framework for Logic Dialects
(Second Edition). W3C Recommendation. Editors:
Boley, H., Kifer, M., http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-
rif-fld-20130205/
RIF-FLD-OWL, 2013. RIF RDF and OWL Compatibility
(Second Edition). W3C Recommendation Feb. 5th 2013.
www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-rif-rdf-owl-20130205/
SBVR, 2008. Semantics of Business Vocabulary and
Business Rules (SBVR), Version 1.0. OMG document
formal/08-01-02. http://www.omg.org/spec/SBVR/1.0/
Šváb-Zamazal, O., Dudás, M., Svátek, V., 2012. User-
Friendly Pattern-Based Transformation of OWL
Ontologies. In EKAW 2012, LNCS 7603.
AnOntologyforSpecifyingandParsingKnowledgeRepresentationsStructuresandNotations
107