Advertisement

Representation of Tensed Relations in OWL

A Survey of Philosophically-Motivated Patterns
  • Paweł Garbacz
  • Robert Trypuz
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 755)

Abstract

The topic of this paper are the so-called tensed relations, i.e., those relations that hold between objects with respect to time. As tensed relations are not, almost by definition, binary relations, they need a special treatment in the case of such formal languages as OWL where only binary relations are explicitly expressible. We study in this paper a number of ways in which this expressivity constraint can be worked around focusing only on the solutions that seek their rationale in a philosophical argument of some sort. Besides fleshing out the details of those patterns we compare them to one another to show their strengths and limitations in various usage scenarios.

References

  1. 1.
    Andronikos, T., Stefanidakis, M., Papadakis, I.: Adding temporal dimension to ontologies via owl reification. In: 2009 13th Panhellenic Conference on Informatics, pp. 19–22 (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arp, R., Smith, B., Spear, A.D.: Building Ontologies with Basic Formal Ontology. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Batsakis, S., Petrakis, E., Tachmazidis, I., Antoniou, G.: Temporal representation and reasoning in OWL 2. Semant. Web J. 8, 981–1000 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brogaard, B.: Tensed relations. Analysis 66, 194–202 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fine, K.: Things and their parts. Midwest Stud. Philos. 23(1), 61–74 (1999)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gangemi, A., Presutti, V.: A multi-dimensional comparison of ontology design patterns for representing n-ary relations. In: van Emde Boas, P., Groen, F.C.A., Italiano, G.F., Nawrocki, J., Sack, H. (eds.) SOFSEM 2013. LNCS, vol. 7741, pp. 86–105. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35843-2_8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Giménez-García, J.M., Zimmermann, A., Maret, P.: NdFluents: an ontology for annotated statements with inference preservation. In: Blomqvist, E., Maynard, D., Gangemi, A., Hoekstra, R., Hitzler, P., Hartig, O. (eds.) ESWC 2017. LNCS, vol. 10249, pp. 638–654. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58068-5_39 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grewe, N., Jansen, L., Smith, B.: Permanent generic relatedness and silent change. In: Kutz, et al. [11]. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1660
  9. 9.
    Hayes, P.: Formal Unifying Standards for the Representation of Spatiotemporal Knowledge. Technical report, Advanced Decision Architectures Alliance (2004). https://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/arlada2004final.pdf
  10. 10.
    Krieger, H.-U.: Where temporal description logics fail: representing temporally-changing relationships. In: Dengel, A.R., Berns, K., Breuel, T.M., Bomarius, F., Roth-Berghofer, T.R. (eds.) KI 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5243, pp. 249–257. Springer, Heidelberg (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85845-4_31 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grewe, N., Jansen, L., Smith, B.: Permanent generic relatedness and silent change. In: Kutz, O., et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the Joint Ontology Workshops 2016, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1660. CEUR-WS.org (2016). http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1660
  12. 12.
    Masolo, C., Borgo, S., Gangemi, A., Guarino, N., Oltramari, A.: WonderWeb Deliverable D18. The WonderWeb Library of Foundational Ontologies and the DOLCE ontology (2003). http://wonderweb.semanticweb.org/deliverables/documents/D18.pdf
  13. 13.
    Moltmann, F.: Variable objects and truth-making. In: Dumitru, M. (ed.) Metaphysics, Meaning, and Modality. Themes from Kit Fine, vol. (forthcoming). Oxford Univerity Press (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Noy, N., Rector, A.: Defining N-ary Relations on the Semantic Web. W3C Working Group Note, World Wide Web Consortium, April 2006. http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-n-aryRelations/
  15. 15.
    O’Connor, M.J., Das, A.K.: A method for representing and querying temporal information in OWL. In: Fred, A., Filipe, J., Gamboa, H. (eds.) BIOSTEC 2010. CCIS, vol. 127, pp. 97–110. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-18472-7_8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Trypuz, R., Kuzinski, D., Sopek, M.: General legal entity identifier ontology. In: Kutz, et al. [11]. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1660
  17. 17.
    Welty, C.A., Fikes, R.: A reusable ontology for fluents in OWL. In: Bennett, B., Fellbaum, C. (eds.) FOIS. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 150, pp. 226–236. IOS Press (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zamborlini, V., Guizzardi, G.: On the representation of temporally changing information in OWL. In: EDOCW, pp. 283–292. IEEE Computer Society (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zamborlini, V.C., Guizzardi, G.: An ontologically-founded reification approach for representing temporally changing information in OWL. In: 11th International Symposium on Logical Formalizations of Commonsense Reasoning (COMMONSENSE 2013) (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tadeusz Manteuffel Institute of HistoryPolish Academy of SciencesWarsawPoland
  2. 2.Faculty of Philosophy PolandJohn Paul II Catholic University of LublinLublinPoland

Personalised recommendations