Advertisement

An Interface-Based Ontology Modularization Framework for Knowledge Encapsulation

  • Faezeh Ensan
  • Weichang Du
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5318)

Abstract

In this paper, we present a framework for developing ontologies in a modular manner, which is based on the notions of interfaces and knowledge encapsulation. Within the context of this framework, an ontology can be defined and developed as a set of ontology modules that can access the knowledge bases of the others through their well-defined interfaces. An important implication of the proposed framework is that ontology modules can be developed completely independent of each others’ signature and language. Such modules are free to only utilize the required knowledge segments of the others. We describe the interface-based modular ontology formalism, which theoretically supports this framework and present its distinctive features compared to the exiting modular ontology formalisms. We also describe the real-world design and implementation of the framework for creating modular ontologies by extending OWL-DL and modifying the Swoop interfaces and reasoners.

Keywords

Description Logic Realizer Module Epistemic Model Ontology Module Interface Concept 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Bao, J., Caragea, D., Honavar, V.: On the semantics of linking and importing in modular ontologies. In: International Semantic Web Conference, pp. 72–86 (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bao, J., Slutzki, G., Honavar, V.: A semantic importing approach to knowledge reuse from multiple ontologies. In: AAAI, pp. 1304–1309 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Borgida, A., Serafini, L.: Distributed description logics: Assimilating information from peer sources. J. Data Semantics 1, 153–184 (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bouquet, P., Giunchiglia, F., Harmelen, F., Serafini, L., Stuckenschmidt, H.: C-OWL: Contextualizing ontologies. In: Fensel, D., Sycara, K.P., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) ISWC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2870. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Calvanese, D., Giacomo, G.D., Lembo, D., Lenzerini, M., Rosati, R.: Eql-lite: Effective first-order query processing in description logics. In: IJCAI, pp. 274–279 (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cuenca Grau, B., Parsia, B., Sirin, E., Kalyanpur, A.: Modularity and web ontologies. In: Proceedings of KR 2006, pp. 198–209. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Donini, F.M., Lenzerini, M., Nardi, D., Nutt, W., Schaerf, A.: An epistemic operator for description logics. Artif. Intell. 100(1-2), 225–274 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grau, B.C., Horrocks, I., Kazakov, Y., Sattler, U.: Just the right amount: extracting modules from ontologies. In: WWW 2007, pp. 717–726. ACM, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grau, B.C., Kutz, O.: Modular ontology languages revisited. In: Proceedings of the IJCAI 2007 Workshop on Semantic Web for Collaborative Knowledge Acquisition (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grau, B.C., Parsia, B., Sirin, E.: Combining owl ontologies using e-connections. Journal of Web Semantics 4(1) (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Horrocks, I., Sattler, U.: Ontology reasoning in the shoq(d) description logic. In: IJCAI, pp. 199–204 (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Horrocks, I., Sattler, U., Tobies, S.: Practical reasoning for expressive description logics. In: Ganzinger, H., McAllester, D., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 1999. LNCS, vol. 1705, pp. 161–180. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kalyanpur, A., Parsia, B., Sirin, E., Grau, B.C., Hendler, J.A.: Swoop: A web ontology editing browser. J. Web Sem. 4(2), 144–153 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kutz, O., Lutz, C., Wolter, F., Zakharyaschev, M.: E-connections of abstract description systems. Artif. Intell. 156(1), 1–73 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Haase, P., Rudolph, S.: J. E. A. Z. M. D. M. I. Y. J. C. C. C. B. A. J. M. G. Deliverable d1.1.3 neon formalisms for modularization: Syntax, semantics, algebra, NEON EU-IST-2005-027595 (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Seidenberg, J., Rector, A.: Web ontology segmentation: analysis, classification and use. In: WWW 2006, pp. 13–22. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sirin, E., Parsia, B., Grau, B.C., Kalyanpur, A., Katz, Y.: Pellet: A practical owl-dl reasoner. Web Semant. 5(2), 51–53 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Snyder, A.: Encapsulation and inheritance in object-oriented programming languages. In: OOPLSA 1986, pp. 38–45. ACM, New York (1986)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stuckenschmidt, H., Klein, M.C.A.: Integrity and change in modular ontologies. In: IJCAI, pp. 900–908 (2003)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stuckenschmidt, H., Klein, M.C.A.: Structure-based partitioning of large concept hierarchies. In: International Semantic Web Conference, pp. 289–303 (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Faezeh Ensan
    • 1
  • Weichang Du
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Computer ScienceUniversity of New BrunswickFrederictonCanada

Personalised recommendations