Rule-Based OWL Modeling with ROWLTab Protégé Plugin

  • Md. Kamruzzaman SarkerEmail author
  • Adila Krisnadhi
  • David Carral
  • Pascal Hitzler
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10249)


It has been argued that it is much easier to convey logical statements using rules rather than OWL (or description logic (DL)) axioms. Based on recent theoretical developments on transformations between rules and DLs, we have developed ROWLTab, a Protégé plugin that allows users to enter OWL axioms by way of rules; the plugin then automatically converts these rules into OWL 2 DL axioms if possible, and prompts the user in case such a conversion is not possible without weakening the semantics of the rule. In this paper, we present ROWLTab, together with a user evaluation of its effectiveness compared to entering axioms using the standard Protégé interface. Our evaluation shows that modeling with ROWLTab is much quicker than the standard interface, while at the same time, also less prone to errors for hard modeling tasks.



This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under award 1017225 III: Small: TROn – Tractable Reasoning with Ontologies and the German Research Foundation (DFG) within the Cluster of Excellence “Center for Advancing Electronics Dresden” (cfaed). We would also like to thank Tanvi Banerjee and Derek Doran for some advise on statistics.


  1. 1.
    Baader, F., et al. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carral Martínez, D., Hitzler, P.: Extending description logic rules. In: Simperl, E., Cimiano, P., Polleres, A., Corcho, O., Presutti, V. (eds.) ESWC 2012. LNCS, vol. 7295, pp. 345–359. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-30284-8_30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carral, D., Krisnadhi, A., Rudolph, S., Hitzler, P.: All but not nothing: left-hand side universals for tractable OWL profiles. In: Keet, C.M., Tamma, V.A.M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on OWL: Experiences and Directions (OWLED 2014). CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1265, Riva del Garda, Italy, 17–18 October 2014, pp. 97–108. (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cuenca Grau, B., Motik, B., Wu, Z., Fokoue, A., Lutz, C.: OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Profiles, 2nd edn. W3C Recommendation, 11 December 2012.
  5. 5.
    Hitzler, P., Krötzsch, M., Rudolph, S.: Foundations of Semantic Web Technologies. CRC Press, Chapman & Hall (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hitzler, P., et al. (eds.): OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Primer, 2nd edn. W3C Recommendation, 11 December 2012.
  7. 7.
    Horrocks, I., Parsia, B., Patel-Schneider, P., Hendler, J.: Semantic web architecture: stack or two towers? In: Fages, F., Soliman, S. (eds.) PPSWR 2005. LNCS, vol. 3703, pp. 37–41. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). doi: 10.1007/11552222_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Horrocks, I., et al.: SWRL: A Semantic Web Rule Language Combining OWL and RuleML. W3C Member Submission, 21 May 2004.
  9. 9.
    Kifer, M., Boley, H. (eds.): RIF Overview, 2nd Edn. W3C Working Group Note, 5 February 2013.
  10. 10.
    Knorr, M., Hitzler, P., Maier, F.: Reconciling OWL and non-monotonic rules for the semantic web. In: Raedt, L.D., et al. (eds.) 20th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Montpellier, ECAI 2012, France, 27–31 August 2012, pp. 474–479. IOS Press (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Krisnadhi, A., Maier, F., Hitzler, P.: OWL and rules. In: Polleres, A., d’Amato, C., Arenas, M., Handschuh, S., Kroner, P., Ossowski, S., Patel-Schneider, P. (eds.) Reasoning Web 2011. LNCS, vol. 6848, pp. 382–415. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-23032-5_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Krötzsch, M.: Description Logic Rules, Studies on the Semantic Web, vol. 8. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2010)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Krötzsch, M., Hitzler, P., Vrandecic, D., Sintek, M.: How to reason with OWL in a logic programming system. In: Eiter, T., et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Rules and Rule Markup Languages for the Semantic Web, RuleML 2006, pp. 17–26. IEEE Computer Society, Athens, Georgia (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Krötzsch, M., Maier, F., Krisnadhi, A., Hitzler, P.: A better uncle for OWL: nominal schemas for integrating rules and ontologies. In: Srinivasan, S., et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW 2011, Hyderabad, India, 28 March–1 April, pp. 645–654. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Krötzsch, M., Rudolph, S., Hitzler, P.: Description logic rules. In: Ghallab, M., et al. (eds.) Proceeding of the 18th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Patras, Greece, 21–25 July, vol. 178, pp. 80–84. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Krötzsch, M., Rudolph, S., Hitzler, P.: ELP: tractable rules for OWL 2. In: Sheth, A., Staab, S., Dean, M., Paolucci, M., Maynard, D., Finin, T., Thirunarayan, K. (eds.) ISWC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5318, pp. 649–664. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-88564-1_41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Motik, B., Shearer, R., Horrocks, I.: Hypertableau reasoning for description logics. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 36, 165–228 (2009)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Musen, M.A.: The protégé project: a look back and a look forward. AI Matters 1(4), 4–12 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Patel-Schneider, P.F., Horrocks, I.: A comparison of two modelling paradigms in the semantic web. In: Proceedings of the Fifteenth International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2006), pp. 3–12. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rudolph, S., Krötzsch, M., Hitzler, P., Sintek, M., Vrandecic, D.: Efficient OWL reasoning with logic programs – evaluations. In: Marchiori, M., Pan, J.Z., Marie, C.S. (eds.) RR 2007. LNCS, vol. 4524, pp. 370–373. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-72982-2_34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sarker, M.K., Carral, D., Krisnadhi, A.A., Hitzler, P.: Modeling OWL with rules: the ROWL protege plugin. In: Kawamura, T., Paulheim, H. (eds.) Proceedings of the ISWC 2016 Posters & Demonstrations Track. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1690, Kobe, Japan, 19 October, (2016)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Steigmiller, A., Glimm, B., Liebig, T.: Reasoning with nominal schemas through absorption. J. Autom. Reasoning 53(4), 351–405 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    W3C Workshop on Rule Languages for Interoperability, 27–28 April 2005, Washington, DC, USA. W3C (2005).

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Md. Kamruzzaman Sarker
    • 1
    Email author
  • Adila Krisnadhi
    • 1
    • 2
  • David Carral
    • 3
  • Pascal Hitzler
    • 1
  1. 1.Data Semantics (DaSe) LaboratoryWright State UniversityDaytonUSA
  2. 2.Faculty of Computer ScienceUniversitas IndonesiaDepokIndonesia
  3. 3.Center for Advancing Electronics Dresden (cfaed)TU DresdenDresdenGermany

Personalised recommendations