Ian Horrocks
ABSTRACT
The goal of Semantic Web research is to transform the Web from a linked document repository into a distributed knowledge base and application platform, thus allowing the vast range of available information and services to be more effectively exploited. As a first step in this transformation, languages such as OWL have been developed; these languages are designed to capture the knowledge that will enable applications to better understand Web accessible resources, and to use them more intelligently. Although fully realising the Semantic Web still seems some way off, OWL has already been very successful, and has rapidly become a de facto standard for ontology development in fields as diverse as geography, geology, astronomy, agriculture, defence and the life sciences. An important factor in this success has been the availability of sophisticated tools with built in reasoning support. The use of OWL in large scale applications has brought with it new challenges, both with respect to expressive power and scalability, but recent research has also shown how the OWL language and OWL tools can be extended and adapted to meet these challenges.
- F. Baader, D. Calvanese, D. McGuinness, D. Nardi, and P. F. Patel-Schneider, editors. The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications. Cambridge University Press, 2003. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- S. Bechhofer, I. Horrocks, and D. Turi. The OWL instance store: System description. In Proc. of the 20th Int. Conf. on Automated Deduction (CADE-20), Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 177--181. Springer, 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. Berners-Lee. Semantic web road map, Sept. 1998. Available at http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Semantic.html.Google Scholar
- R. J. Brachman and J. G. Schmolze. An overview of the KL-ONE knowledge representation system. Cognitive Science, 9(2): 171--216, Apr. 1985.Google ScholarCross Ref
- B. Cuenca Grau, I. Horrocks, Y. Kazakov, and U. Sattler. Just the right amount: Extracting modules from ontologies. In Proc. of the Sixteenth International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2007), 2007.Google ScholarCross Ref
- B. Cuenca Grau, Y. Kazakov, I. Horrocks, and U. Sattler. A logical framework for modular integration of ontologies. In Proc. of the 20th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2007), 2007. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Derriere, A. Richard, and A. Preite-Martinez. An ontology of astronomical object types for the virtual observatory. Proc. of Special Session 3 of the 26th meeting of the IAU: Virtual Observatory in Action: New Science, New Technology, and Next Generation Facilities, 2006.Google Scholar
- D. Fensel, F. van Harmelen, I. Horrocks, D. McGuinness, and P. F. Patel-Schneider. OIL: An ontology infrastructure for the semantic web. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 16(2):38--45, 2001. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Golbreich, S. Zhang, and O. Bodenreider. The foundational model of anatomy in OWL: Experience and perspectives. J. of Web Semantics, 4(3), 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Goodwin. Experiences of using OWL at the ordnance survey. In Proc. of the First OWL Experiences and Directions Workshop, volume 188 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings. CEUR (http://ceur-ws.org/), 2005.Google Scholar
- V. Haarslev and R. Möller. RACER system description. In Proc. of the Int. Joint Conf. on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR 2001), volume 2083 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 701--705. Springer, 2001. Google ScholarDigital Library
- F. W. Hartel, S. de Coronado, R. Dionne, G. Fragoso, and J. Golbeck. Modeling a description logic vocabulary for cancer research. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 38(2):114--129, 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- I. Horrocks, O. Kutz, and U. Sattler. The even more irresistible SROIQ. In Proc. of the 10th Int. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2006), pages 57--67. AAAI Press, 2006.Google Scholar
- I. Horrocks, P. F. Patel-Schneider, and F. van Harmelen. Reviewing the design of DAML+OIL: An ontology language for the semantic web. In Proc. of the 18th Nat. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2002), pages 792--797. AAAI Press, 2002. Google ScholarDigital Library
- I. Horrocks, P. F. Patel-Schneider, and F. van Harmelen. From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: The making of a web ontology language. J. of Web Semantics, 1(1):7--26, 2003.Google ScholarCross Ref
- I. Horrocks and U. Sattler. Decidability of SHIQ with complex role inclusion axioms. Artificial Intelligence, 160(1--2):79--104, Dec. 2004. Google ScholarDigital Library
- I. Horrocks and U. Sattler. A tableaux decision procedure for SHOIQ. In Proc. of the 19th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2005), pages 448--453, 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- U. Hustadt, B. Motik, and U. Sattler. Reducing SHIQ-description logic to disjunctive datalog programs. In Proc. of the 9th Int. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2004), pages 152--162, 2004.Google Scholar
- A. Kalyanpur, B. Parsia, E. Sirin, B. Cuenca-Grau, and J. Hendler. SWOOP: a web ontology editing browser. J. of Web Semantics, 4(2), 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Kalyanpur, B. Parsia, E. Sirin, and J. Hendler. Debugging unsatisfiable classes in owl ontologies. J. of Web Semantics, 3(4):243--366, 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Kershenbaum, A. Fokoue, C. Patel, C. Welty, E. Schonberg, J. Cimino, L. Ma, K. Srinivas, R. Schloss, and J. W. Murdock. A view of OWL from the field: Use cases and experiences. In Proc. of the Second OWL Experiences and Directions Workshop, volume 216 of CEUR (http://ceur-ws.org/), 2006.Google Scholar
- H. Knublauch, R. Fergerson, N. Noy, and M. Musen. The Protégé OWL Plugin: An open development environment for semantic web applications. In S. A. McIlraith, D. Plexousakis, and F. van Harmelen, editors, Proc. of the 2004 International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2004), number 3298 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 229--243. Springer, 2004.Google Scholar
- L. Lacy, G. Aviles, K. Fraser, W. Gerber, A. Mulvehill, and R. Gaskill. Experiences using OWL in military applications. In Proc. of the First OWL Experiences and Directions Workshop, volume 188 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings. CEUR (http://ceur-ws.org/), 2005.Google Scholar
- S. McIlraith, T. C. Son, and H. Zeng. Semantic web services. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 16:46--53, 2001. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. F. Patel-Schneider, P. Hayes, and I. Horrocks. OWL Web Ontology Language semantics and abstract syntax. W3C Recommendation, 10 February 2004. Available at http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/.Google Scholar
- A. Rector and J. Rogers. Ontological and practical issues in using a description logic to represent medical concept systems: Experience from GALEN. In Reasoning Web, Second International Summer School, Tutorial Lectures, volume 4126 of LNCS, pages 197--231. SV, 2006.Google Scholar
- A. Ruttenberg, J. Rees, and J. Luciano. Experience using OWL DL for the exchange of biological pathway information. In Proc. of the First OWL Experiences and Directions Workshop, volume 188 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings. CEUR (http://ceur-ws.org/), 2005.Google Scholar
- A. Sidhu, T. Dillon, E. Chang, and B. S. Sidhu. Protein ontology development using OWL. In Proc. of the First OWL Experiences and Directions Workshop, volume 188 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings. CEUR (http://ceur-ws.org/), 2005.Google Scholar
- E. Sirin, B. Parsia, B. Cuenca Grau, A. Kalyanpur, and Y. Katz. Pellet: A practical owl-dl reasoner. To appear, 2005.Google Scholar
- D. Soergel, B. Lauser, A. Liang, F. Fisseha, J. Keizer, and S. Katz. Reengineering thesauri for new applications: The AGROVOC example. J. of Digital Information, 4(4), 2004.Google Scholar
- K. Spackman. Managing clinical terminology hierarchies using algorithmic calculation of subsumption: Experience with SNOMED-RT. J. of the Amer. Med. Informatics Ass., 2000. Fall Symposium Special Issue.Google Scholar
- Semantic web for earth and environmental terminology (SWEET). Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, 2006. http://sweet.jpl.nasa.gov/.Google Scholar
- D. Tsarkov and I. Horrocks. FaCT++ description logic reasoner: System description. In Proc. of the Int. Joint Conf. on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR 2006), volume 4130 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 292--297. Springer, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Volz, S. Handschuh, S. Staab, L. Stojanovic, and N. Stojanovic. Unveiling the hidden bride: Deep Annotation for Mapping and Migrating Legacy Data to the Semantic Web. Journal of Web Semantics, 2004.Google Scholar
- W. A. Woods. What's in a link: Foundations for semantic networks. In R. J. Brachman and H. J. Levesque, editors, Readings in Knowledge Representation, pages 217--241. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco, California, 1985.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Semantic web: the story so far
Recommendations
Semantic web reasoners and languages
Semantic web reasoners and languages enable the semantic web to function. Some of the latest reasoning models developed in the last few years are: DLP, FaCT, RACER, Pellet, MSPASS, CEL, Cerebra Engine, QuOnto, KAON2, HermiT and others. Some software ...
RDF, Jena, SparQL and the 'Semantic Web'
SIGUCCS '09: Proceedings of the 37th annual ACM SIGUCCS fall conference: communication and collaborationThe Resource Description Format (RDF) is used to represent information modeled as a "graph": a set of individual objects, along with a set of connections among those objects. In that role, RDF is one of the pillars of the so-called Semantic Web. This ...
Description logic reasoning for semantic web ontologies
WIMS '11: Proceedings of the International Conference on Web Intelligence, Mining and SemanticsThe ontology language for the semantic web OWL provides means to describe entities of an application domain in an ontology in a well-structured way. The underlying formalism for OWL are Description Logics (DLs) [6], which are a family of knowledge ...
Comments