Relation Elements for the Semantic Web

  • Cartik R. Kothari
  • David J. Russomanno
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3127)


The investigation into the intrinsic nature of relations has led to the development of the Relation Element theory. At present, there is no significant initiative to comprehensively describe the intrinsic nature of relations in ontological representations for the Semantic Web. The use of relation elements can describe the nature of relations in knowledge domains beyond the capabilities of currently popular knowledge representation paradigms for the Semantic Web such as OWL and DAML. With this in mind, this paper presents an implementation of the relation element theory for the Semantic Web using the reification feature of RDF/RDFS. The reasons for the inability to use DAML or OWL for defining relation elements are discussed with possible solutions. Finally, some of the possible benefits of using relation elements to define the intrinsic nature of relations for Semantic Web applications are also proposed and demonstrated in this paper.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., Lassila, O.: The Semantic Web: A new form of Web content that is meaningful to computers will unleash a revolution of new possibilities. Scientific American (May 2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lassila O., Swick R.: Resource Description Framework (RDF) Model and Syntax Specification: W3C Recommendation (February 1999), Available online: (current February 2003)
  3. 3.
    Brickley, D., Guha, R.V.: RDF Vocabulary Description Language 1.0: RDF Schema. W3C Working Draft (January 2003), Available online: (current February 2003)
  4. 4.
    Pan, J.Z., Horrocks, I.: RDFS (FA) and RDF MT: Two Semantics for RDFS. In: Fensel, D., Sycara, K., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) ISWC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2870, pp. 30–46. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    DAML Joint Committee: DAML+OIL (2001) Online Resource: (current November 2002)
  6. 6.
    Fensel, D., et al.: OIL in a Nutshell. In: Dieng, R., et al. (eds.) Knowledge Acquisition, Modeling and Managemen, Proceedings of the European Knowledge Acquisition Conference (EKAW-2000), October 2000. LNCS (LNAI), Springer Verlag, Heidelberg (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Smith, M., et al.: OWL Web Ontology Language Guide: W3C Proposed Recommendation (December 15, 2003), Online Resource: (December 2003)
  8. 8.
    Bechhofer, S., et al.: OWL Web Ontology Reference: W3C Proposed Recommendation (December 15, 2003), Online Resource: (December 2003)
  9. 9.
    Baader, F., et al.: The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (March 2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kothari, C.R., Russomanno, D.J.: Modeling Logic-Based Constraints in OWL. In: Proceedings of IASTED International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Applications (AIA 2004), Innsbruck, Austria, pp. 600–608 (February 2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Huhns, M., Stephens, L.: Plausible Inferencing Using Extended Composition. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Detroit, MI, pp. 1420–1425 (August 1989)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Russomanno, D.J., Kothari, C.R.: An Implementation of Plausible Inference for the Semantic Web. In: Proceedings of the 2003 International Conference on Information and Knowledge Engineering (IKE 2003), Las Vegas, NV, pp. 246–251 (June 2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chaffin, R., Hermann, D.: Relation Element Theory: A New Account of the Representation and Processing of Semantic Relations. In: Gorfein, D., Hoffman, R. (eds.) Memory and Learning: The Ebbinghaus Centennial Conference, Lawrence- Erlbaum, Hillsdale (1987)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Winston, M.E., Chaffin, R., Hermann, D.: A taxonomy of part-whole relations. Cognitive Science 11(4), 417–444 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cohen, P., Loiselle, C.: Beyond ISA: Structures for Plausible Inference in Semantic Networks. In: Proceedings of the Seventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. St. Paul, MN, pp. 415–420 (August 1988)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Allen, J.: Towards a General Theory of Action and Time. Artificial Intelligence 23, 123–154 (1984)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sowa, J.: Knowledge Representation: Logical, Philosophical and Computational Foundations. Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove, CA (2000)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lenat, D.B.: Cyc: A Large-Scale Investment in Knowledge Infrastructure. Communications of the ACM 38(1) (November 1995)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Niles, I., Pease, A.: Origins of the Standard Upper Merged Ontology: A Proposal for the IEEE Standard Upper Ontology. In: Working Notes of the IJCAI-2001 Workshop on the IEEE Standard Upper Ontology, Seattle, WA (August 6, 2001)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Niles, I., Pease, A.: Towards a Standard Upper Ontology. In: Welty, C., Smith, B. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS-2001), Ogunquit, ME (October 2001)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kashyap, V., Borgida, A.: Representing the UMLS® Semantic Network Using OWL. In: Fensel, D., Sycara, K., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) ISWC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2870, pp. 1–16. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Reed, S.L., Lenat, D.B.: Mapping Ontologies into Cyc. In: AAAI 2002 Conference Workshop on Ontologies for the Semantic Web. Edmonton, Canada (July 2002), Available online at:
  23. 23.
    Priss, U.: Classification of Meronymy by Methods of Relational Concept Analysis. In: Proceedings of the Midwest Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science Conference (MAICS 1996), Bloomington, IN (1996). Available online at:
  24. 24.
    Storey, V.C.: Understanding Semantic Relationships. Very Large Databases Journal 2(4), 455–488 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Klein, M.: Combining and relating ontologies: An analysis of problems and solutions. In: Gomez-Perez, A., et al. (eds.) Workshop on Ontologies and Information Sharing IJCAI 2001, Seattle, WA (2001)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Doan, A., et al.: Learning to Map between Ontologies on the Semantic Web. In: Proceedings of the 11th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2002), Hawaii, USA (2002)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bouquet, P., Giunchiglia, F., van Harmelen, F., Serafini, L., Stuckenschmidt, H.: C-OWL: Contextualizing ontologies. In: Fensel, D., Sycara, K., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) ISWC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2870, pp. 164–179. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Guha, R.V.: Contexts: A formalization and some applications. Ph.D. Dissertation. Stanford University (1991)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cartik R. Kothari
    • 1
  • David J. Russomanno
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringThe University of MemphisMemphisUSA

Personalised recommendations