Advertisement

OWL-Eu: Adding Customised Datatypes into OWL

  • Jeff Z. Pan
  • Ian Horrocks
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3532)

Abstract

Although OWL is rather expressive, it has a very serious limitation on datatypes; i.e., it does not support customised datatypes. It has been pointed out that many potential users will not adopt OWL unless this limitation is overcome. Accordingly, the Semantic Web Best Practices and Development Working Group sets up a task force to address this issue. This paper makes the following two contributions: (i) it provides a brief summary of OWL-related datatype formalisms, and (ii) it provides a decidable extension of OWL DL, called OWL-Eu, that supports customised datatypes.

Keywords

Description Logic Simple Type Concrete Domain Lexical Form Primitive Base 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Alvestrand, H.: Rfc 3066 - tags for the identification of languages. Technical report, IETF (January 2001), http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc3066.txt
  2. 2.
    Baader, F., Hanschke, P.: A Schema for Integrating Concrete Domains into Concept Languages. In: Proc. of the 12th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 1991), pp. 452–457 (1991)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bechhofer, S., van Harmelen, F., Hendler, J., Horrocks, I., McGuinness, D.L., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Stein, L.A. (eds.): OWL Web Ontology Language Reference (February 2004), http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/
  4. 4.
    Biron, P.V., Malhotra, A.: Extensible Markup Language (XML) Schema Part 2: Datatypes – W3C Recommendation 02 May 2001. Technical report, World Wide Web Consortium (2001), http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/
  5. 5.
    Carroll, J.J., Pan, J.Z.: XML Schema Datatypes in RDF and OWL. Technical report, W3C Semantic Web Best Practices and Development Group, Editors’ Draft (November 2004), http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/XSCH/xsch-sw/
  6. 6.
    Unicode Consortium. The Unicode Standard. Addison-Wesley (2000) ISBN 0-201-61633-5, version 3Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    DIG. SourceForge DIG Interface Project (2004), http://sourceforge.net/projects/dig/
  8. 8.
    Hayes, P.: RDF Semantics. Technical report, W3C, W3C recommendation (February 2004), http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/
  9. 9.
    Horrocks, I.: Using an Expressive Description Logic: FaCT or Fiction. In: Proc. of KR 1998, pp. 636–647 (1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Horrocks, I., Sattler, U., Tobies, S.: Practical Reasoning for Expressive Description Logics. In: Ganzinger, H., McAllester, D., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 1999. LNCS, vol. 1705, pp. 161–180. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F., van Harmelen, F.: From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: The making of a web ontology language. Journal of Web Semantics 1(1), 7–26 (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Horrocks, I., Sattler, U.: Ontology reasoning in the SHOQ(D) description logic. In: Proc. of the 17th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2001), pp. 199–204 (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Knublauch, H., Fergerson, R.W., Noy, N.F., Musen, M.A.: The Protégé OWL Plugin: An Open Development Environment for Semantic Web Applications. In: McIlraith, S.A., Plexousakis, D., van Harmelen, F. (eds.) ISWC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3298, pp. 229–243. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lutz, C.: The Complexity of Reasoning with Concrete Domains. PhD thesis, Teaching and Research Area for Theoretical Computer Science, RWTH Aachen (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pan, J.Z.: Description Logics: Reasoning Support for the Semantic Web. PhD thesis, School of Computer Science, The University of Manchester, Oxford Rd, Manchester M13 9PL, UK (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pan, J.Z., Horrocks, I.: Extending Datatype Support inWeb Ontology Reasoning. In: Proc. of the 2002 Int. Conference on Ontologies, Databases and Applications of SEmantics, ODBASE 2002 (October 2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pan, J.Z., Horrocks, I.: Web Ontology Reasoning with Datatype Groups. In: Fensel, D., Sycara, K., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) ISWC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2870, pp. 47–63. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    RDF-LogicMailing List. W3C Mailing List, starts from (2001), http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/www-rdf-logic/
  19. 19.
    Rector, A.: Re: [UNITS, OEP] FAQ: Constraints on data values range. Discussion in [20] (April 2004), http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004Apr/0216.html
  20. 20.
    Semantic Web Best Practice and Development Working Group Mailing List. W3C Mailing List, starts from (2004), http://lists.w3.org/archives/public/public-swbp-wg/

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeff Z. Pan
    • 1
  • Ian Horrocks
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceUniversity of ManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations