OWL Pizzas: Practical Experience of Teaching OWL-DL: Common Errors & Common Patterns

  • Alan Rector
  • Nick Drummond
  • Matthew Horridge
  • Jeremy Rogers
  • Holger Knublauch
  • Robert Stevens
  • Hai Wang
  • Chris Wroe
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3257)

Abstract

Understanding the logical meaning of any description logic or similar formalism is difficult for most people, and OWL-DL is no exception. This paper presents the most common difficulties encountered by newcomers to the language, that have been observed during the course of more than a dozen workshops, tutorials and modules about OWL-DL and it’s predecessor languages. It emphasises understanding the exact meaning of OWL expressions – proving that understanding by paraphrasing them in pedantic but explicit language. It addresses, specifically, the confusion which OWL’s open world assumption presents to users accustomed to closed world systems such as databases, logic programming and frame languages. Our experience has had a major influence in formulating the requirements for a new set of user interfaces for OWL the first of which are now available as prototypes. A summary of the guidelines and paraphrases and examples of the new interface are provided. The example ontologies are available online.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bechhofer, S., Horrocks, I., Goble, C.A., Stevens, R.: OilEd: A reason-able ontology editor for the semantic web. In: Baader, F., Brewka, G., Eiter, T. (eds.) KI 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2174, pp. 396–408. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brachman, R.J., McGuinness, D.L., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Resnick, L.A., Borgida, A.: Living with classic: When and how to use a kl-one-like language. In: Sowa, J. (ed.) Principles of Semantic Networks: Explorations in the representation of knowledge, pp. 401–456. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo (1991); Good overview. Particularly good straw man section on the arbitrariness of class-instance divisionCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Guarino, N.: Understanding, building and using ontologies. International Journal of Human Computer Studies 46, 293–310 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Guarino, N., Welty, C.: Towards a methodology for ontology-based model engineering. In: ECOOP 2000 Workshop on Model Engineering, Cannes, France (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Knublauch, H., Dameron, O., Musen, M.A.: Weaving the biomedical semanticweb with the protégé owl plugin. In: Proceedings of KR MED2004: InternationalWorkshop on Formal Biomedical Knowledge Representation (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    McGuinness, D.L., Borgida, A.: Explaining subsumption in description logics. In: International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 1995), pp. 816–821 (1995)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Noy, N.F., McGuinness, D.L.: Ontology development 101: A guide to creating your first ontology. Technical Report SMI-2001-0880, Stanford Medical Informatics (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Patel-Schneider, P., Hayes, P., Horrocks, I. (ed.): Owl web ontology language semantics and abstract syntax (February 2004), http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-semantics-20040210/
  9. 9.
    Putnam, H.: The meaning of meaning. In: Gunderson, K. (ed.) Language, Mind and Knowledge, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. VII, pp. 131–193. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis (1975)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rector, A.: Modularisation of domain ontologies implemented in description logics and related formalisms including owl. In: Genari, J. (ed.) Knowledge Capture 2003, Sanibel Island, FL, pp. 121–128. ACM, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rector, A., Solomon, W., Nowlan, W., Rush, T.: A terminology server for medical language and medical information systems (1994)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rector, A.L.: Normalisation of ontology implementations: Towards modularity, re-use, and maintainability. In: Proceedings Workshop on Ontologies for Multiagent Systems (OMAS) in conjunction with European Knowledge Acquisition Workshop (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Alan, L.: Rector. Modularisation of domain ontologies implemented in description logics and related formalisms including owl. In: Proceedings of the international conference on Knowledge capture, pp. 121–128. ACM Press, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Staab, S., Maedche, A.: Ontology engineering beyond the modeling of concepts and relations. In: Benjamins, R.V., Gomez-Perez, A., Guarino, N., Uschold, M. (eds.) 14th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Workshop on Applications of Ontologies and Problem-Solving Methods, ECAI 2000 (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Uschold, M., Gruninger, M.: Ontologies: principles, methods and applications. Knowledge Engineering Review 11(2) (1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Welty, C., Guarino, N.: Supporting ontological analysis of taxonomic relationships. Data and Knowledge Engineering 39(1), 51–74 (2001)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alan Rector
    • 1
  • Nick Drummond
    • 1
  • Matthew Horridge
    • 1
  • Jeremy Rogers
    • 1
  • Holger Knublauch
    • 2
  • Robert Stevens
    • 1
  • Hai Wang
    • 1
  • Chris Wroe
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK
  2. 2.Stanford Medical InformaticsStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations