Incorporating Complex Mathematical Relations in Web-Portable Domain Ontologies

  • Muthukkaruppan Annamalai
  • Leon Sterling
Conference paper
Part of the Whitestein Series in Software Agent Technologies book series (WSSAT)


The growing use of agent systems and the widespread penetration of the Internet have opened up new avenues for scientific collaboration. We have been investigating the possibility for agent systems to aid with collaboration among Experimental High-Energy Physics (EHEP) physicists. An apparent necessary component is an agreed scientific domain ontology, which must include concepts that rely on mathematical formulae involving other domain concepts such as the energy and momentum, for their meaning. We claim that the current web ontology specification languages are not sufficiently equipped to be useful for explicit representation of mathematical expressions. We adapt some previous work on representing mathematical expressions to produce a set of representational primitives and supporting definitions to incorporate complex mathematical relations among existing domain concepts in web ontologies, illustrated with examples arising from our interactions with the EHEP physicists.


Event Variable Domain Ontology Scalar Quantity Mathematical Relation Domain Concept 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    M. Annamalai, L. Sterling, and G. Moloney. A collaborative framework for distributed scientific groups. In S. Cranefield, S. Willmott, and T. Finin, editors, Proceedings of AAMAS’02 Workshop on Ontologies in Agent Systems, volume 66 of CEUR-WS, Bologna, Italy, 2002.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    F. Baadar and W. Nutt. Basic description logics. In F. Baadar, D. McGuiness, D. Nardi, and P. Patel-Schneider, editors, Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications. Cambridge University Press, 2002.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    The Babar Physics Collaboration. Scholar
  4. [4]
    The Belle Physics Collaboration. Scholar
  5. [5]
    B. Chandrasekaran and J. Josephson. What are ontologies, and why do we need them? IEEE Intelligent Systems, pages 20–26, January/February 1999.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    J. Cleaveland. An Introduction to Data Types. Addison-Wesley, 1986.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    The Cleo Physics Collaboration. Scholar
  8. [8]
    L. Cruz, M. Annamalai, and L. Sterling. Analysing high-energy physics experiments. In B. Burg, J. Dale, T. Finin, H. Nakashima, L. Padgham, C. Sierra, and S. Willmott, editors, Proceedings of AAMAS’02 Workshop on AgentCities, LNCS, Bologna, Italy, 2002. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    CYCorp. Scholar
  10. [10]
    D. Fensel, I. Horrocks, F. van Harmelen, D. McGuiness, and P. Patel-Schneider. OIL: Ontology infrastructure to enable the Semantic Web. IEEE Intelligent Systems, pages 38–45, March/April 2001.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    G. Fox and S. Wolfram. Observables for the analysis of event shapes in e + e-anni-hilation and other processes. Physical Review Letters, 41(23):1581–1585, December 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    M. Genesereth and R. Fikes. Knowledge Interchange Format. Technical Report Logic-92-1, Computer Science Department, Stanford University, 1992.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    W. Grosso, H. Eriksson, R. Fergerson, J. Gennari, S. Tu, and M. Musen. Knowledge modeling at the millennium (the design and evolution of Protege-2000). In Proceedings of KAW’99 Workshop on Knowledge Acquisition, Modelling and Management, Banff, Alberta, 1999.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    T. Gruber. A translation approach to portable ontologies. Knowledge Acquisition, 5(2):199–220, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    T. Gruber and G. Olsen. An ontology for engineering mathematics. In J. Doyle, P. Torasso, and E. Sandewall, editors, Proceedings of KR’94 Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann, 1994.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    M. Gruninger and M. Fox. Methodology for the design and evaluation of ontologies. In Proceedings of IJCAI’95 Workshop on Basic Ontological Issues in Knowledge Sharing. Montreal, Canada, 1995.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    N. Guarino. Ontologies and knowledge base: Towards a terminological clarification. In N. Mars, editor, Towards Very Large Knowledge: Knowledge Building and Knowledge Sharing, pages 25–32. IOS Press, Amsterdam, 1995.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    J. Hendler and D. McGuiness. The Darpa Agent MarkUp Language. IEEE Intelligent Systems, pages 67–73, November/December 2000.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Mathematics MarkUp Language. Scholar
  20. [20]
    Mathworld Mathematical Encyclopedia. Scholar
  21. [21]
    N. Noy, R. Fergerson, and M. Musen. The knowledge model of Protege-2000: Combining interoperability and flexibility. In Proceedings of EKAW’2000 Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management, Juan-Les-Pins, France, 2000.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Openmath MarkUp Language. Scholar
  23. [23]
    The OWL Web Ontology Language. Scholar
  24. [24]
    Suggested Upper Merged Ontology. Scholar
  25. [25]
    Victorian Partnership for Advanced Computing. Scholar
  26. [26]
    EXtensible MarkUp Language. Scholar

Copyright information

© Birkhäuser Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Muthukkaruppan Annamalai
    • 1
  • Leon Sterling
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science & Software EngineeringThe University of MelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations