Advertisement

OntoJIT: Parsing Native OWL DL into Executable Ontologies in an Object Oriented Paradigm

  • Sohaila Baset
  • Kilian Stoffel
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10161)

Abstract

Despite meriting the growing consensus between researchers and practitioners of ontology modeling, the Web Ontology Language OWL still has a modest presence in the communities of “traditional” web developers and software engineers. This resulted in hoarding the semantic web field in a rather small circle of people with a certain profile of expertise. In this paper we present OntoJIT, our novel approach toward a democratized semantic web where we bring OWL ontologies into the comfort-zone of end-application developers. We focus particularly on parsing OWL source files into executable ontologies in an object oriented programming paradigm. We finally demonstrate the dynamic code-base created as the result of parsing some reference OWL DL ontologies.

Keywords

Ontologies OWL Semantic web Meta programming Dynamic compilation 

References

  1. 1.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F., van Harmelen, F.: From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: the making of a web ontology language. Web Semant. Sci. Serv. Agents World Wide Web 1(1), 7–26 (2003). ISSN 1570–8268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baader, F., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.: The Description Logic: Handbook Theory, Implementation and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2002)MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McGuinness, D.L., Van Harmelen, F.: OWL web ontology language overview. W3C Recommendation 10(10), 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    OWL 2 Profiles, OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Profiles, W3C Recommendation (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Delugach, H.: ISO/IEC WD 24707 Information technology Common Logic (CL) A Framework for a Family of Logic-Based Languages. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Chantilly, VA 7 (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Horrocks, I., Kutz, O., Sattler, U.: The even more irresistible SROIQ. Kr 6, 57–67 (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lenat, D.B., Guha, R.V.: The evolution of CycL, the Cyc representation language. ACM SIGART Bull. 2(3), 84–87 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Genesereth, M.R., Fikes, R.E.: Knowledge interchange format-version 3.0: reference manual (1992)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brachman, R.J., Schmolze, J.G.: An overview of the KL-ONE knowledge representation system. Cognit. Sci. 9(2), 171–216 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Horrocks, I.: DAML+OIL: a description logic for the semantic web. IEEE Data Eng. Bull. 25(1), 4–9 (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Niles, I., Pease, A.: Towards a standard upper ontology. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems, vol. 2001. ACM (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kifer, M., Lausen, G., James, W.: Logical foundations of object-oriented and frame-based languages. J. ACM 42, 741–843 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chaudhri, V.K., Farquhar, A., Fikes, R., Karp, P.D., Rice, J.P.: OKBC: a Programmatic foundation for knowledge base interoperability. In: AAAI 1998 Proceedings (1998)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Clark, P., Porter, B., Works, B.P.: KM-the knowledge machine 2.0: users manual, vol. 2, p. 5. Department of Computer Science, University of Texas at Austin (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Carroll, J.J., et al.: Jena: implementing the semantic web recommendations. In: Proceedings of the 13th International World Wide Web Conference on Alternate Track Papers & Posters. ACM (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kalyanpur, A., et al.: Automatic mapping of OWL ontologies into Java. In: SEKE, vol. 4 (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Babik, M., Hluchy, L.: Deep integration of python with web ontology language. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Scripting for the Semantic Web (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bechhofer, S., Carroll, J.J.: OWL DL: trees or triples? In: Proceedings of the Thirteenth International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2004) (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bechhofer, S., Volz, R., Lord, P.: Cooking the semantic web with the OWL API. In: Fensel, D., Sycara, K., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) ISWC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2870, pp. 659–675. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-39718-2_42 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sheard, T.: Accomplishments and research challenges in meta-programming. In: Taha, W. (ed.) SAIG 2001. LNCS, vol. 2196, pp. 2–44. Springer, Heidelberg (2001). doi: 10.1007/3-540-44806-3_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Abramson, H., Rogers, M.H.: Meta-Programming in Logic Programming. MIT Press, Cambridge (1989)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Burmako, E.: Scala macros: let our powers combine!: on how rich syntax and static types work with metaprogramming. In: Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Scala. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hoyte, D.: Let Over Lambda. Lulu.com (2008)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pottier, F.: An overview of CML. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 148(2), 27–52 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Oren, E., Delbru, R., Gerke, S., Haller, A., Decker, S.: Object-oriented semantic web programming. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW 2007), pp. 817–824. ACM, New York (2007). doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1242572.1242682
  26. 26.
    Puleston, C., Parsia, B., Cunningham, J., Rector, A.: Integrating object-oriented and ontological representations: a case study in Java and OWL. In: Sheth, A., Staab, S., Dean, M., Paolucci, M., Maynard, D., Finin, T., Thirunarayan, K. (eds.) ISWC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5318, pp. 130–145. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-88564-1_9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Brockmans, S., Volz, R., Eberhart, A., Löffler, P.: Visual modeling of OWL DL ontologies using UML. In: McIlraith, S.A., Plexousakis, D., Harmelen, F. (eds.) ISWC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3298, pp. 198–213. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-30475-3_15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Knublauch, H.: Ontology-driven software development in the context of the semantic web: an example scenario with Protege/OWL. In: 1st International Workshop on the Model-Driven Semantic Web (MDSW2004), Monterey, California, USA [WWW document] (2004). http://www.knublauch.com/publications/MDSW2004.pdf
  29. 29.
    Athanasiadis, I.N., Villa, F., Rizzoli, A.-E.: Ontologies, JavaBeans and relational databases for enabling semantic programming. In: 31st Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC 2007), vol. 2. IEEE (2007)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Czarnecki, K., Eisenecker, U.W.: Generative Programming: Methods, Tools and Applications. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2000). Edited by Goos, G., Hartmanis, J., van Leeuwen, JGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Abrahams, D., Gurtovoy, A.: C++ Template Metaprogramming: Concepts, Tools, and Techniques from Boost and Beyond. Pearson Education, Stoughton (2004)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schult, W., Polze, A.: Aspect-oriented programming with C# and .net. In: Proceedings of the Fifth IEEE International Symposium on Object-Oriented Real-Time Distributed Computing (ISORC 2002). IEEE (2002)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ganz, Carl., Jr.: Runtime code compilation. In: Pro Dynamic. NET 4.0 Applications, pp. 59–75. Apress (2010)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Atkinson, C., Gutheil, M., Kiko, K.: On the relationship of ontologies and models. WoMM 96, 47–60 (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Information Management InstituteUniversity of NeuchatelNeuchatelSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations