Formalizing Object-Ontological Mapping Using F-logic

  • Martin LedvinkaEmail author
  • Petr Křemen
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11784)


Ontologies can represent a significant asset of domain-specific information systems, written predominantly using the object-oriented paradigm. However, to be able to work with ontological data in this paradigm, a mapping must ensure transformation between the ontology and the object world. While many software libraries provide such a mapping, they lack standardization or formal guarantees of its semantics. In this paper, we provide a formalism for mapping ontologies between description logics and F-logic, a formal language for representing structural aspects of object-oriented programming languages. This formalism allows to precisely specify the semantics of the object-ontological mapping and thus ensure a predictable shape and behavior of the object model.


Object-ontological mapping \(\mathcal {SROIQ}\) F-logic 



This work was supported by grant No. SGS19/110/OHK3/2T/13 Efficient Vocabularies Management Using Ontologies of the Czech Technical University in Prague.


  1. 1.
    Angele, J., Kifer, M., Lausen, G.: Ontologies in F-logic. In: Staab, S., Studer, R. (eds.) Handbook on Ontologies, pp. 45–70. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D.L., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications. Cambridge University Press, New York (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Balaban, M.: The F-logic approach for description languages. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 15(1), 19–60 (1995). Scholar
  4. 4.
    Booch, G.: Object-oriented Analysis and Design with Applications, 2nd edn. Benjamin-Cummings Publishing Co. Inc., Redwood City (1994)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Broekstra, J., Kampman, A., van Harmelen, F.: Sesame: a generic architecture for storing and querying RDF and RDF schema. In: Horrocks, I., Hendler, J. (eds.) ISWC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2342, pp. 54–68. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). Scholar
  6. 6.
    de Bruijn, J., Heymans, S.: Translating ontologies from predicate-based to frame-based languages. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Rules and Rule Markup Languages for the Semantic Web (RuleML2006) (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    de Bruijn, J., Lara, R., Polleres, A., Fensel, D.: OWL DL vs. OWL flight: conceptual modeling and reasoning for the semantic web. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW 2005. ACM (2005).
  8. 8.
    Carroll, J.J., Dickinson, I., Dollin, C., Reynolds, D., Seaborne, A., Wilkinson, K.: Jena: implementing the semantic web recommendations. In: Proceedings of the 13th International World Wide Web Conference (Alternate Track Papers & Posters), pp. 74–83 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Damásio, C.V., Analyti, A., Antoniou, G., Wagner, G.: Supporting open and closed world reasoning on the web. In: Alferes, J.J., Bailey, J., May, W., Schwertel, U. (eds.) PPSWR 2006. LNCS, vol. 4187, pp. 149–163. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). Scholar
  10. 10.
    Donini, F.M., Nardi, D., Rosati, R.: Description Logics of Minimal Knowledge and Negation as Failure. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic 3(2), 177–225 (2002). Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Lukasiewicz, T., Schindlauer, R., Tompits, H.: Combining answer set programming with description logics for the Semantic Web. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 22(11), 1577–1592 (2010). Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grosof, B.N., Horrocks, I., Volz, R., Decker, S.: Description logic programs: combining logic programs with description logic. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW 2003, pp. 48–57. ACM, New York (2003).
  13. 13.
    Grove, M.: Empire: RDF & SPARQL Meet JPA., April 2010.
  14. 14.
    Horridge, M., Bechhofer, S.: The OWL API: A Java API for OWL ontologies. Semantic Web - Interoperability, Usability, Applicability (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Horrocks, I., Kutz, O., Sattler, U.: The even more irresistible \(\cal{SROIQ}\). In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2006), pp. 57–67 (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kattenstroth, H., May, W., Schenk, F.: Combining OWL with F-logic rules and defaults. In: Proceedings of the ICLP’07 Workshop on Applications of Logic Programming to the Web, Semantic Web and Semantic Web Services, ALPSWS 2007 (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kifer, M.: Rules and ontologies in F-logic. In: Eisinger, N., Małuszyński, J. (eds.) Reasoning Web. LNCS, vol. 3564, pp. 22–34. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kifer, M., Lausen, G., Wu, J.: Logical foundations of object-oriented and frame-based languages. J. ACM 42(4), 741–843 (1995). Scholar
  19. 19.
    Knorr, M., Alferes, J.J., Hitzler, P.: Local closed world reasoning with description logics under the well-founded semantics. Artif. Intell. 175(9–10), 1528–1554 (2011). Scholar
  20. 20.
    Křemen, P.: Building Ontology-Based Information Systems. Ph.D. thesis, Czech Technical University, Prague (2012)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Křemen, P., Kouba, Z.: Ontology-driven information system design. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part C 42(3), 334–344 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ledvinka, M., Křemen, P.: A comparison of object-triple mapping libraries. In: Semantic Web, p. 43, February 2019.
  23. 23.
    Ledvinka, M., Křemen, P.: Formalizing object-ontological mapping using F-logic. Technical report SGS19/110/OHK3/2T/13-1, Department of Computer Science, CTU in Prague (2019). Accessed 30 May 2019
  24. 24.
    Lloyd, J.W.: Foundations of Logic Programming. Springer, Heidelberg (1984). Scholar
  25. 25.
    Motik, B., Horrocks, I., Sattler, U.: Bridging the gap between OWL and relational databases. Web Semant. Sci. Serv. Agents World Wide Web 7(2), 74–89 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Oren, E., Heitmann, B., Decker, S.: ActiveRDF: Embedding Semantic Web data into object-oriented languages. Web Semant. Sci. Serv. Agents World Wide Web 6(3), 191–202 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Patel-Schneider, P.F., Franconi, E.: Ontology constraints in incomplete and complete data. In: Cudré-Mauroux, P., et al. (eds.) ISWC 2012. LNCS, vol. 7649, pp. 444–459. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sengupta, K., Krisnadhi, A.A., Hitzler, P.: Local closed world semantics: grounded circumscription for OWL. In: Aroyo, L., Welty, C., Alani, H., Taylor, J., Bernstein, A., Kagal, L., Noy, N., Blomqvist, E. (eds.) ISWC 2011. LNCS, vol. 7031, pp. 617–632. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tao, J., Sirin, E., Bao, J., McGuinness, D.L.: Integrity constraints in OWL. In: Fox, M., Poole, D. (eds.) AAAI. AAAI Press (2010)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wenzel, K.: KOMMA: an application framework for ontology-based software systems. In: Semantic Web - Interoperability, Usability, Applicability (2010)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yang, G., Kifer, M.: Reasoning about anonymous resources and meta statements on the semantic web. In: Spaccapietra, S., March, S., Aberer, K. (eds.) Journal on Data Semantics I. LNCS, vol. 2800, pp. 69–97. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science, Faculty of Electrical EngineeringCzech Technical University in PraguePrague 6, DejviceCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations