OWL Simplified English: A Finite-State Language for Ontology Editing

  • Richard Power
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7427)


We describe a controlled fragment of English for editing ontologies in OWL. Although this language substantially overlaps other CNLs that have been proposed for this purpose, it has a number of special features designed to simplify its learning and use. First, the language allows users to start typing in sentences with little or no preliminary effort in building a controlled vocabulary or lexicon. Second, it disallows sentences that people interpret as structurally ambiguous. Third, it employs a finite-state grammar, so facilitating fast and reliable implementation of an editing tool. These advantages are gained at the cost of severe restrictions in coverage, which mean that the majority of potential OWL axioms cannot be expressed. However, analysis of axiom patterns from several ontology repositories suggests that these constraints are almost invariably respected by ontology developers, so that in practice the loss of expressivity is rarely noticeable.


semantic web ontology editing controlled natural language 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Altmann, G.: Ambiguity in sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2(4), 146–152 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cognitum. Fluent Editor for OWL (2012), (last accessed: March 5, 2012)
  3. 3.
    Davis, B., Iqbal, A.A., Funk, A., Tablan, V., Bontcheva, K., Cunningham, H., Handschuh, S.: RoundTrip Ontology Authoring. In: Sheth, A.P., Staab, S., Dean, M., Paolucci, M., Maynard, D., Finin, T., Thirunarayan, K. (eds.) ISWC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5318, pp. 50–65. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Denaux, R., Holt, I., Corda, I., Dimitrova, V., Dolbear, C., Cohn, A.G.: ROO: A Tool to Assist Domain Experts with Ontology Construction. In: Bechhofer, S., Hauswirth, M., Hoffmann, J., Koubarakis, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 5th European Semantic Web Conference (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ding, L., Finin, T., Joshi, A., Pan, R., Scott Cost, R., Peng, Y., Reddivari, P., Doshi, V., Sachs, J.: Swoogle: a search and metadata engine for the semantic web. In: Proceedings of the 13th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pp. 652–659. ACM, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hart, G., Johnson, M., Dolbear, C.: Rabbit: Developing a Control Natural Language for Authoring Ontologies. In: Bechhofer, S., Hauswirth, M., Hoffmann, J., Koubarakis, M. (eds.) ESWC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5021, pp. 348–360. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kaljurand, K., Fuchs, N.: Verbalizing OWL in Attempto Controlled English. In: Proceedings of OWL: Experiences and Directions, Innsbruck, Austria (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kuhn, T.: How Controlled English can Improve Semantic Wikis. In: Lange, C., Schaffert, S., Skaf-Molli, H., Völkel, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Semantic Wikis, European Semantic Web Conference 2009. CEUR Workshop Proceedings. CEUR-WS, vol. 464 (June 2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kuhn, T.: Controlled English for Knowledge Representation. PhD thesis, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Information Technology of the University of Zurich (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mellish, C., Sun, X.: The semantic web as a linguistic resource: Opportunities for natural language generation. Knowledge-Based Systems 19(5), 298–303 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ontology Design Patterns. Repository of ontologies (NEON Project) (2010), (last accessed: April 21, 2010)
  12. 12.
    Power, R., Scott, D.: Multilingual authoring using feedback texts. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics and 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Montreal, Canada, pp. 1053–1059 (1998)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Power, R.: Complexity assumptions in ontology verbalisation. In: 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Power, R., Third, A.: Expressing OWL axioms by English sentences: dubious in theory, feasible in practice. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pulman, S.: Controlled language for knowledge representation. In: Proceedings of the first International Workshop on Controlled Language Applications. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium (1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rector, A., Drummond, N., Horridge, M., Rogers, J., Knublauch, H., Stevens, R., Wang, H., Wroe, C.: OWL Pizzas: Practical Experience of Teaching OWL-DL: Common Errors and Common Patterns. In: 14th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management, pp. 63–81 (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schwitter, R.: Controlled natural languages for knowledge representation. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pp. 1113–1121 (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schwitter, R.: Processing Coordinated Structures in PENG Light. In: Australasian Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 658–667 (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schwitter, R., Kaljurand, K., Cregan, A., Dolbear, C., Hart, G.: A Comparison of three Controlled Natural Languages for OWL 1.1. In: 4th OWL Experiences and Directions Workshop (OWLED 2008), Washington, DC, April 1–2 (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schwitter, R., Meyer, T.: Sydney OWL Syntax - towards a Controlled Natural Language Syntax for OWL 1.1. In: OWLED: OWL Experiences and Directions (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stevens, R., Malone, J., Williams, S., Power, R., Third, A.: Automating generation of textual class definitions from OWL to English. Journal of Biomedical Semantics 2 (suppl. 2), S5 (2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    TONES. Repository of ontologies at the University of Manchester (2010), (last accessed: April 21, 2010)
  23. 23.
    Williams, S., Third, A., Power, R.: Levels of organisation in ontology verbalisation. In: Proceedings of the 13th European Workshop on Natural Language Generation, pp. 158–163 (2011)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yang, H., De Roeck, A.N., Willis, A., Nuseibeh, B.: A methodology for automatic identification of nocuous ambiguity. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pp. 1218–1226 (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard Power
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ComputingOpen UniversityMilton KeynesUK

Personalised recommendations