Constructing RuleML-Based Domain Theories on Top of OWL Ontologies

  • Christopher J. Matheus
  • Mitch M. Kokar
  • Kenneth Baclawski
  • Jerzy Letkowski
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2876)

Abstract

Situation Awareness involves the comprehension of the state of a collection of objects in an evolving environment. This not only includes an understanding of the objects’ characteristics but also an awareness of the significant relations that hold among the objects at any point in time. Systems for establishing situation awareness require a knowledge representation for these objects and relations. Traditional ontologies, as defined with a language like DAML/OWL, are commonly used for such purposes. Unfortunately, these languages are insufficient for describing the conditions under which specific relations might hold true, which requires the explicit representation of implications, as is provided by RuleML. This paper describes an approach to knowledge representation for situation awareness employing RuleML-based domain theories constructed over OWL ontologies, presented in the context of its implementation in a Situation Awareness Assistant under development by the authors. Suggestions are also made for additions to the RuleML specification.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Endsley, M., Garland, D.: Situation Awareness, Analysis and Measurement. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahway (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barwise, J.: Scenes and other situations. J. Philosophy 77, 369–397 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barwise, J.: The Situation In Logic. CSLI Lecture Notes, 17 (1989)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    : Revisions to the JDL data fusion model. In: Proceedings of SPIE Conf. Sensor Fusion: Architectures, Algorithms and Applications III, April 1999, vol. 3719, pp. 430–441 (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Matheus, M.K., Baclawski, K.: Phase I Final Report: A Formal Framework for Situation Awareness (January 2003) AFRL Funding Number: F30602-02-C-0039Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baclawski, K., Kokar, M., Letkowski, J., Matheus, C., Malczewski, M.: Formalization of Situation Awareness. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh OOPSLA Workshop on Behavioral Semantics, November 2002, pp. 1–15 (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Matheus, C., Kokar, M., Baclawski, K.: A Core Ontology for Situation Awareness. In: Proceedings of FUSION 2003, Cairns, Queensland, Australia (July 2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Matheus, C.J., Baclawski, K., Kokar, M.M.: Derivation of ontological relations using formal methods in a situation awareness scenario. In: Proceedings of SPIE Conference on Mulitsensor, Multisource Information Fusion, April 2003, pp. 298–309 (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Specware: Language manual. version 2.0.3. Technical report, Kestrel Institute (1998) Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    SNARK: SRI’s new automated reasoning kit (2002), http://www.ai.sri.com/stickel/snark.html
  11. 11.
    Matheus, C., Kokar, M., Baclawski, K.: Phase II Proposal: A Formal Framework for s Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    OWL Web Ontology Language XML Presentation Syntax, http://www.w3.org/TR/owlxmlsyntax/
  13. 13.
    The RuleML Initiative, http://www.ruleml.org/
  14. 14.
    Resource Description Framework (RDF), http://www.w3.org/RDF/
  15. 15.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: Reducing OWL entailment to description logic satisfiability. In: Fensel, D., Sycara, K., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) ISWC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2870, pp. 17–29. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    OntoWeb Consortium, OntoWeb Deliverable 1.3: A survey on ontology tools (May 2002), http://www.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/WBS/ysu/publications/OntoWeb_Del_1-3.pdf
  17. 17.
    Kogut, P.A., Cranefield, S., Hart, L., Dutra, M., Baclawski, K., Kokar, M.M., Smith, J.E.: UML for Ontology Development. The Knowledge Engineering Review 17(1), 61–64 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Horn: On sentences which are true of direct unions of algebras. Journal of Symbolic Logic 16, 14–21 (1951)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher J. Matheus
    • 1
  • Mitch M. Kokar
    • 2
  • Kenneth Baclawski
    • 2
  • Jerzy Letkowski
    • 3
  1. 1.Versatile Information Systems, Inc.FraminghamUSA
  2. 2.Northeastern UniversityBostonUSA
  3. 3.Western New England CollegeSpringfieldUSA

Personalised recommendations