Common Languages for Web Semantics

  • Seiji Koide
  • Hideaki Takeda
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 230)


RDF is a language to express propositions on the WWW and OWL is a language for defining Web ontologies. It seems that RDF and OWL have established themselves as a standard in Semantic Webs. However, endeavors to describe ontology in OWL are revealing the extent of the language capability in practical views. In this paper, firstly we give an overview of basic assumptions as knowledge representation languages for Semantic Webs, and then point out several basic and problematic issues of OWL mainly arose from the difference of the foundation among languages. They are captured by our own experience of developing an object oriented language for Semantic Webs and its applications. They are solved in our language by means of i) explicit descriptions of role concepts, ii) auto-epistemic local closed world assumption, iii) ternary truth values, and iv) unique name assumption for atomic objects. Finally, we envision the direction of language development for web semantics with reviewing Common Logic.


Semantic Web RDF OWL KIF Common logic Common lisp SWCLOS 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Hayes, McBride, P.B.: RDF Semantics. W3C Recommendation (2004),
  2. 2.
    Smith, M.K., Welty, C., McGuinness, D.L.: OWL Web Ontology Language Guide. W3C Recommendation (2004),
  3. 3.
    Koide, S., Takeda, H.: OWL-Full reasoning from an object oriented perspective. In: Mizoguchi, R., Shi, Z.-Z., Giunchiglia, F. (eds.) ASWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4185, pp. 263–277. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tarski, A.: Introduction to Logic. Dover, New York (1946/1995); This book is an extended edition of the book of title “On Mathematical Logic and Deductive Method,” which appeared at 1936 in PolishGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McDermott, D.: Tarskian semantics, or no notation without denotation! Cognitive Science 2, 277–282 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Russell, S., Norvig, P.: Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McGuinness, D.L., van Harmelen. F.: OWL Web Ontology Language Overview, W3C Recommendation (2004),
  8. 8.
    Patel-Schneider, P.F., Hayes, P., Horrocks, I.: OWL Web Ontology Language Semantics and Abstract Syntax, W3C Recommendation (2004),
  9. 9.
    Patel-Schneider, P.F., Hayes, P., Horrocks, I.: OWL Web Ontology Language Semantics and Abstract Syntax section 5 rdf-compatible model-theoretic semantics, W3C Recommendation (2004),
  10. 10.
    Kiczales, G., des Rivières, J., Bobrow, D.G.: The Art of the Metaobject Protocol. MIT Press, Cambridge (1991)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Koide, S., Takeda, H.: Meta-circularity and mop in common lisp for owl full. In: The 6th European Lisp Workshop ELW 2009, pp. 28–34. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Smith, B.C.: Reflection and Semantics in Lisp. In: 11th ACM SIGACT-SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 1984, pp. 23–35. ACM, New York (1984)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hayes, P., Menzel, C.: A Semantics for the Knowledge Interchange Format. In: IJCAI 2001 Workshop on the IEEE Standard Upper Ontology (2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Neuhaus, F.: The Semantics of Modules in Common Logic. In: Smith, B., Mizoguchi, R., Nakagawa, S. (eds.) Interdisciplinary Ontology, Open Research Centre for Logic and Formal Ontology, Keio University, vol. 3, pp. 107–117 (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Guha, R.V., Hayes, P.: Lbase: Semantics for Languages of the Semantic Web, Note, W3C (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Motik, B., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Grau, B.C.: OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Direct Semantics, W3C Recommendation (2009),
  17. 17.
    Carroll, J., Herman, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: OWL 2 Web Ontology Language RDF-based Semantics, W3C Recommendation (2009),
  18. 18.
    Sowa, J.F.: Top-level Ontological Categories. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 43(5-6), 669–685 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sowa, J.F.: Knowledge Representation: Logical, Philosophical, and Computational Foundations. Brooks Cole Publishing, Monterey (1999)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Guarino, N.: Some Ontological Principles for Designing Upper Level Lexical Resources. In: Rubio, N., Castro, T. (eds.) 1st Int. Conf. Lexical Resources and Evaluation, pp. 527–534 (1998)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mizoguchi, R., Sunagawa, E., Kozaki, K., Kitamura, Y.: The Model of Roles within an Ontology Development Tool: Hozo. Appl. Ontol. 2(2), 159–179 (2007)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kozaki, K., Sunagawa, E., Kitamura, Y., Mizoguchi, R.: Role Representation Model Using OWL and SWRL. In: 2nd Workshop on Roles and Relationships in Object Oriented Programming, Multiagent Systems, and Ontologies (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Takeda, H., Iino, K., Nishida, T.: Agent Organization and Communication with Multiple Ontologies. Int. J. Cooperative Inf. Syst. 4(4), 321–338 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Seiji Koide
    • 1
  • Hideaki Takeda
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Information TechnologyThe Graduate University for Advanced Studies (SOKENDAI)Japan
  2. 2.National Institute of InformaticsChiyoda-kuJapan

Personalised recommendations