Semantic Web Languages – Towards an Institutional Perspective

  • Dorel Lucanu
  • Yuan Fang Li
  • Jin Song Dong
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4060)


The Semantic Web (SW) is viewed as the next generation of the Web that enables intelligent software agents to process and aggregate data autonomously. Ontology languages provide basic vocabularies to semantically markup data on the SW. We have witnessed an increase of numbers of SW languages in the last years. These languages, such as RDF, RDF Schema (RDFS), the OWL suite of languages, the OWL− − suite, SWRL, are based on different semantics, such as the RDFS-based, description logic-based, Datalog-based semantics. The relationship among the various semantics poses a challenge for the SW community for making the languages interoperable. Institutions provide a means of reasoning about software specifications regardless of the logical system. This makes it an ideal candidate to represent and reason about the various languages in the Semantic Web. In this paper, we construct institutions for the SW languages and use institution morphisms to relate them. We show that RDF framework together with the RDF serializations of SW languages form an indexed institution. This allows the use of Grothendieck institutions to combine Web ontologies described in various languages.


Resource Description Framework Description Logic Model Constraint Institutional Perspective Ontology Language 
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.
    Angele, J., Boley, H., de Brujin, J., Fensel, D., Hitzler, P., Kifer, M., Krummenacher, R., Lausen, H., Polleres, A., Studer, R.: Web Rule Language (WRL). Version 1.0 (2005),
  2. 2.
    Barr, M., Wells, C.: Category Theory for Computing Science, 3rd edn. Les Publications CRM, Montreal (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., Lassila, O.: The Semantic Web. Scientific American (May 2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brickley, D., Guha, R.V. (eds.): Resource Description Framework (RDF) Schema Specification 1.0 (February 2004),
  5. 5.
    de Brujin, J., Lausen, H., Fensel, D.: OWL. Deliverable D20.1v0.2, WSML (2004),
  6. 6.
    Diaconescu, R.: Institution-independent Model Theory. (to appear)
  7. 7.
    Diaconescu, R.: Grothendieck institutions. Applied Categorical Structures 10, 383–402 (2002)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dong, J.S., Lee, C.H., Li, Y.F., Wang, H.: Verifying DAML+OIL and beyond in Z/EVES. In: Proceedings of 26th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2004), Edinburgh, Scotland, May 2004, pp. 201–210 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goguen, J.: Information Integration in Institutions. To appear in avolume dedicated to Jon Barwise, edited by Larry Moss (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goguen, J., Burstall, R.: Institutions: Abstract Model Theory for Specification and Programming. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery 39(1), 95–146 (1992)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goguen, J., Roşu, G.: Institution Morphisms. Formal Aspects of Computing 13, 274–307 (2002)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grosof, B.N., Horrocks, I., Volz, R., Decker, S.: Description Logic Programs: Combining Logic Programs with Description Logic. In: Proc. of the Twelfth International World Wide Web Conference, pp. 48–57. ACM Press, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hayes, P.: RDF Semantics (February 2004),
  14. 14.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.: A proposal for an OWL rules language. In: Proc. of the Thirteenth International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2004), ACM, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P., Boley, H., Tabet, S., Grosof, B., Dean, M.: SWRL: A semantic web rule language combining OWL and RuleML (November 2004)
  16. 16.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P., van Harmelen, F.: From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: The making of a web ontology language. J. of Web Semantics 1(1), 7–26 (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Klyne, G., Carroll, J. (eds.): Resource Description Framework (RDF): Concepts and Abstract Syntax. W3C Recommendation (2004),
  18. 18.
    Lucanu, D., Li, Y.F., Dong, J.S.: Web Ontology Verification and Analysis in the Z Framework. Technical Report TR 05-01, University “Alexandru Ioan Cuza” of Iaşi, Romania (January 2005),
  19. 19.
    McBride, B.: Jena: Implementing the RDF Model and Syntax Specification. In: 2nd Int’l Semantic Web Workshop (2001),
  20. 20.
    Patel-Schneider, P., Hayes, P., Horrocks, I. (eds.): OWL Web Ontology Semantics and Abstract Syntax (2004),
  21. 21.
    Patel-Schneider, P.: A proposal for a SWRL extension to forst-order logic (November 2004),
  22. 22.
    Patel-Schneider, P.F., Fensel, D.: Layering the semantic web: Problems and directions. In: Horrocks, I., Hendler, J. (eds.) ISWC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2342, p. 16. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pierce, B.C.: Basic Category Theory for Computer Science. MIT, Cambridge (1991)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dorel Lucanu
    • 1
  • Yuan Fang Li
    • 2
  • Jin Song Dong
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Computer Science“A.I.Cuza” UniversityIaşiRomania
  2. 2.School of ComputingNational University of SingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations