Constructs Replacing and Complexity Downgrading via a Generic OWL Ontology Transformation Framework

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7741)


Many of the tools supporting the OWL ontological language face complexity problems when handling certain constructs of the language. This leads to the requirement of automatically changing the ontology, either by removing a specific type of construct or by adhering (downgrading) the ontology to a predefined OWL2 profile such as OWL2 EL. We present an approach to construct replacing and complexity downgrading that relies on transformation patterns processed by a generic ontology transformation framework. Transformation patterns allow to declaratively formulate and transparently execute axiom replacement operations. This potentially preserves derivations that would otherwise be lost due to simple removal of problematic axioms.


Description Logic Minimum Cardinality Replacement Transformation Ontology Match Transformation Pattern 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Brandt, S., Kuesters, R., Turhan, A.-Y.: Approximation and Difference in Description Logics. In: 8th Conf. Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Toulouse (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Egaña, M., Stevens, R., Antezana, E.: Transforming the Axiomisation of Ontologies: The Ontology Pre-Processor Language. In: W’shop OWL Experiences and Directions, Washington, DC (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Iannone, L., Palmisano, I., Rector, A., Stevens, R.: Assessing the Safety of Knowledge Patterns in OWL Ontologies. In: Aroyo, L., Antoniou, G., Hyvönen, E., ten Teije, A., Stuckenschmidt, H., Cabral, L., Tudorache, T. (eds.) ESWC 2010, Part I. LNCS, vol. 6088, pp. 137–151. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lin, H., Sirin, E.: Pellint - A Performance Lint Tool for Pellet. In: W’shop OWL Experiences and Directions, Karlsruhe (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lösch, U., Rudolph, S., Vrandečić, D., Studer, R.: Tempus Fugit - Towards an Ontology Update Language. In: Aroyo, L., Traverso, P., Ciravegna, F., Cimiano, P., Heath, T., Hyvönen, E., Mizoguchi, R., Oren, E., Sabou, M., Simperl, E. (eds.) ESWC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5554, pp. 278–292. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Motik, B.: Reasoning in Description Logics using Resolution and Deductive Databases. PhD thesis, Univ. Karlsruhe (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Motik, B., Grau, B.C., Horrocks, I., Wu, Z., Fokoue, A., Lutz, C.: OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Profiles. W3C Recommendation (2009),
  8. 8.
    Noessner, J., Niepert, M.: ELOG: A Probabilistic Reasoner for OWL EL. In: Rudolph, S., Gutierrez, C. (eds.) RR 2011. LNCS, vol. 6902, pp. 281–286. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Silva Parreiras, F., Staab, S., Schenk, S., Winter, A.: Model Driven Specification of Ontology Translations. In: Li, Q., Spaccapietra, S., Yu, E., Olivé, A. (eds.) ER 2008. LNCS, vol. 5231, pp. 484–497. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ren, Y., Pan, J.Z., Zhao, Y.: Soundness Preserving Approximation for TBox Reasoning. In: AAAI (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Svátek, V., Šváb-Zamazal, O., Vacura, M.: Adapting Ontologies to Content Patterns using Transformation Patterns. In: WOP (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Šváb-Zamazal, O., Svátek, V., Iannone, L.: Pattern-Based Ontology Transformation Service Exploiting OPPL and OWL-API. In: Cimiano, P., Pinto, H.S. (eds.) EKAW 2010. LNCS, vol. 6317, pp. 105–119. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of EconomicsPragueCzech Republic
  2. 2.University of MannheimGermany

Personalised recommendations