Rule Definition for Managing Ontology Development

  • David A. Ostrowski
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4824)


This paper presents an approach to ontology development through the application of declarative logic programming. Our method employs rules for the purpose of prototyping new ontology versions by decoupling the process of concept definition from the application of descriptive logics (DL) and advanced class representations. By generating new ontology versions on-the-fly we can test updates to the ontology design. This employment of rules expands on current efforts of translation and merging of ontologies. By employing this technique, we can support a pragmatic approach to the management and integration of instance data thus realizing a rapid-prototyping approach to the testing of potential updates to ontologies. Examples of this technique are presented utilizing a subset of the OWL-DL specification through the implementation of the Jena API. Advantages include the rapid testing of updated ontology representations (including the efficient remapping of instance data) and an efficient means of Ontology querying. Eventual benefits include Ontology versioning support and tool development to support the automatic engineering of instance data.


OWL-DL Description Logics Declarative Logic Programming Rules Ontology development 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Lehmann, T.: A Framework for Ontology based Integration of Structured IT-Systems, Workshop on Ontology-based Software Engineering. In: European Semantic Web Conference, Innsbruck, AU (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Obitko, M.: Translation between Ontologies, Gerstner Laboratorory, Department of Cybernetics, Czech Technical University,
  3. 3.
    Dou, D., McDermott, D., Qi, P.: Ontology Translation on the Semantic Web,
  4. 4.
    Noy, N.F., McGiunness, D.L.: Ontology Development 101: Guide to Creating Your First Ontology,
  5. 5.
    Powers, S.: Practical RDF, Oreilly pub. (July 2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Knublauch, H.: Semantic Web Rules – Tools and Languages, tutorial. In: RuleML 2006 (2006),
  7. 7.
    Reynolds, D.: JUC-Jena Rules, HP Laboratories,
  8. 8.
    Guo, Y.-k., Darlington, J.: The Unification of Functional and Logic Languages-Towards Constraint Functional Programming, IEEE (1989)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bechhofer, S., van Harmelen, F., Hendler, J., McGuinness, D., Patel S., Peter F., Stein, L.A.: OWL Web Ontology Language Reference, W3C (February 2004),
  10. 10.
    Smith, M.K., Welty, C., McGiunness, D.: W3C OWL Web Ontology Language,
  11. 11.
    Alexander, B.: Description Logics in Data Management. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 7(5) (October 1995)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Alsac, G., Baral, C.: Reasoning in description logics in declarative logic programming, AAAI (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Motik, B., Rosati, R., Sattler, U.: Can OWL and Logic Programming Live Together Happily Ever After? In: ISWC 2006,
  14. 14.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Bechhofer, S., Tsarkov, D.: OWL Rules: A Proposal and Prototype ImplementationGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Grosof, B.N., Raphael, V., Horrocks, I., Decker, S.: Description Logic Programs: Combining Logic Programs with Description Logic. In: WWW 2003, Budapest, Hungary (May20-24, 2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jena: A Semantic Web Framework For Java,
  17. 17.
  18. 18.
  19. 19.
    Pedroni, S., Rappin, N.: Jython Essentials. O’Reilly pub. (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • David A. Ostrowski
    • 1
  1. 1.System Analytics and Environmental Sciences, Research and Advanced Engineering, Ford Motor Company 

Personalised recommendations