Advertisement

Tempus Fugit

Towards an Ontology Update Language
  • Uta Lösch
  • Sebastian Rudolph
  • Denny Vrandečić
  • Rudi Studer
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5554)

Abstract

Ontologies are used to formally describe domains of interest. As domains change over time, the ontologies have to be updated accordingly. We advocate the introduction of an Ontology Update Language that captures frequent domain changes and hence facilitates regular updates to be made in ontologies. We thoroughly discuss the general design choices for defining such a language and a corresponding update framework. Moreover, we propose a concrete language proposal based on SPARQL Update and provide a reference implementation of the framework.

Keywords

Description Logic Belief Revision Knowledge Worker Knowledge Engineer SPARQL Query 
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.
    Baader, F., et al. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bray, T., et al.: Extensible markup language (xml) 1.0, 5th edn. W3C Recommendation, November 26 (2008), http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/
  3. 3.
    Carle, E.: The Very Hungry Caterpillar. Philomel Books (1969)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Date, C.J., Darwen, H.: ISO/IEC 9075-2:2008 (SQL - Part 2: Foundations), The SQL Standard, 3rd edn. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading (1993)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Katsuno, H., Mendelzon, A.O.: On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it. In: Gärdenfors, P. (ed.) Belief Revision, pp. 183–203. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Konstantinidis, G., et al.: A formal approach for RDF/S ontology evolution. In: Ghallab, M., et al. (eds.) Proc. ECAI 2008, pp. 70–74. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Manola, F., Milner, E.: RDF Primer. W3C Recommendation (February 10, 2004), http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/
  8. 8.
    McGuinness, D., Harmelen, F.v.: OWL Web Ontology Language Overview. W3C Recommendation (February 10, 2004), http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/
  9. 9.
    Prud’hommeaux, E., Seaborne, A.: SPARQL query language for RDF. W3C Recommendation (January 15, 2008), http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/
  10. 10.
    Qi, G., Yang, F.: A survey of revision approaches in description logics. In: Calvanese, D., Lausen, G. (eds.) Proc. RR 2008. LNCS, vol. 5341, pp. 74–88. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Seaborne, A., et al.: SPARQL Update. W3C Member Submission (July 15, 2008), http://www.w3.org/Submission/2008/SUBM-SPARQL-Update-20080715/
  12. 12.
    Staab, S., Studer, R. (eds.): Handbook on Ontologies. International Handbooks on Information Systems. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stojanovic, L.: Methods and Tools for Ontology Evolution. PhD thesis, Universität Karlsruhe, TH (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tempich, C., et al.: Argumentation-based ontology engineering. IEEE Intelligent Systems 22(6), 52–59 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tudorache, T., et al.: Supporting collaborative ontology development in protégé. In: International Semantic Web Conference, pp. 17–32 (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Uta Lösch
    • 1
  • Sebastian Rudolph
    • 1
  • Denny Vrandečić
    • 1
  • Rudi Studer
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut AIFBUniversität Karlsruhe (TH)KarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations