Towards Competency Question-Driven Ontology Authoring

  • Yuan Ren
  • Artemis Parvizi
  • Chris Mellish
  • Jeff Z. Pan
  • Kees van Deemter
  • Robert Stevens
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8465)


Ontology authoring is a non-trivial task for authors who are not proficient in logic. It is difficult to either specify the requirements for an ontology, or test their satisfaction. In this paper, we propose a novel approach to address this problem by leveraging the ideas of competency questions and test-before software development. We first analyse real-world competency questions collected from two different domains. Analysis shows that many of them can be categorised into patterns that differ along a set of features. Then we employ the linguistic notion of presupposition to describe the ontology requirements implied by competency questions, and show that these requirements can be tested automatically.




  1. 1.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D.L., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications. Cambridge University Press (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beaver, D.: Presupposition. In: van Benthem, J., ter Meulen, A. (eds.) The Handbook of Logic and Language, pp. 939–1008. Elsevier (1997)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bezerra, C., Freitas, F., Santana, F.: Evaluating ontologies with competency questions. In: 2013 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Joint Conferences on Web Intelligence (WI) and Intelligent Agent Technologies (IAT), vol. 3, pp. 284–285. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Borgo, S., Masolo, C.: Foundational choices in dolce. In: Handbook on ontologies, pp. 361–381. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Denaux, R., Dimitrova, V., Cohn, A.G., Dolbear, C., Hart, G.: Rabbit to OWL: Ontology authoring with a CNL-based tool. In: Fuchs, N.E. (ed.) CNL 2009. LNCS, vol. 5972, pp. 246–264. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Denaux, R., Thakker, D., Dimitrova, V., Cohn, A.G.: Interactive semantic feedback for intuitive ontology authoring. In: FOIS, pp. 160–173 (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dzbor, M., Motta, E., Gomez, J.M., Buil, C., Dellschaft, K., Görlitz, O., Lewen, H.: D4.1.1 analysis of user needs, behaviours & requirements wrt user interfaces for ontology engineering. Technical report (August. 2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fernandes, P.C.B., Guizzardi, R.S., Guizzardi, G.: Using goal modeling to capture competency questions in ontology-based systems. Journal of Information and Data Management 2(3), 527 (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gaasterland, T., Godfrey, P., Minker, J.: An Overview of Cooperative Answering. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems 1(2), 123–157 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kaplan, S.J.: Cooperative Responses from a Portable Natural Language Query System. Artificial Intelligence 19(2), 165–187 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liebig, T., Noppens, O.: Ontotrack: A semantic approach for ontology authoring. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 3(2), 116–131 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lord, P.: The semantic web takes wing: Programming ontologies with tawny-owl. In: OWLED 2013 (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Malheiros, Y., Freitas, F.: A method to develop description logic ontologies iteratively based on competency questions: an implementation. In: ONTOBRAS, pp. 142–153 (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Palmer, S.R., Felsing, M.: A practical guide to feature-driven development. Pearson Education (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pan, J.Z., Thomas, E., Ren, Y., Taylor, S.: Tractable Fuzzy and Crisp Reasoning in Ontology Applications. In: IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Power, R.: OWL simplified english: A finite-state language for ontology editing. In: Kuhn, T., Fuchs, N.E. (eds.) CNL 2012. LNCS, vol. 7427, pp. 44–60. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Presutti, V., Blomqvist, E., Daga, E., Gangemi, A.: Pattern-based ontology design. In: Ontology Engineering in a Networked World, pp. 35–64. Springer (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rector, A., Drummond, N., Horridge, M., Rogers, J., Knublauch, H., Stevens, R., Wang, H., Wroe, C.: Owl pizzas: Practical experience of teaching owl-dl: Common errors & common patterns. In: Engineering Knowledge in the Age of the Semantic Web, Springer (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stearns, M.Q., Price, C., Spackman, K.A., Wang, A.Y.: SNOMED Clinical Terms: Overview of the Development Process and project Status. In: Proceedings of the AMIA Symposium, p. 662. American Medical Informatics Association (2001)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Suárez-Figueroa, M.C., Gómez-Pérez, A., Motta, E., Gangemi, A.: Ontology engineering in a networked world. Springer (2012)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Suárez-Figueroa, M.C., Pradel, C., Hernandez, N.: Verifying ontology requirements with SWIP. In: EKAW 2012 (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Thomas, E., Pan, J.Z., Ren, Y.: TrOWL: Tractable OWL 2 Reasoning Infrastructure. In: Aroyo, L., Antoniou, G., Hyvönen, E., ten Teije, A., Stuckenschmidt, H., Cabral, L., Tudorache, T. (eds.) ESWC 2010, Part II. LNCS, vol. 6089, pp. 431–435. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Uschold, M., Gruninger, M.: et al. Ontologies: Principles, methods and applications. Knowledge Engineering Review 11(2), 93–136 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zemmouchi-Ghomari, L., Ghomari, A.R.: Translating natural language competency questions into SPARQL queries: A case study. In: WEB 2013, pp. 81–86 (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yuan Ren
    • 1
  • Artemis Parvizi
    • 1
  • Chris Mellish
    • 1
  • Jeff Z. Pan
    • 1
  • Kees van Deemter
    • 1
  • Robert Stevens
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computing ScienceUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK
  2. 2.School of Computer ScienceUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations