Advertisement

A Metamodel and UML Profile for Rule-Extended OWL DL Ontologies

  • Saartje Brockmans
  • Peter Haase
  • Pascal Hitzler
  • Rudi Studer
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4011)

Abstract

In this paper we present a MOF compliant metamodel and UML profile for the Semantic Web Rule Language (SWRL) that integrates with our previous work on a metamodel and UML profile for OWL DL. Based on this metamodel and profile, UML tools can be used for visual modeling of rule-extended ontologies.

Keywords

Abstract Syntax Object Management Group Rule Language Meta Object Facility Visual Notation 
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.
    Angele, J., Boley, H., de Bruijn, J., Fensel, D., Hitzler, P., Kifer, M., Krummenacher, R., Lausen, H., Polleres, A., Studer, R.: Web Rule Language (WRL). World Wide Web Consortium, W3C Member Submission (September 2005), http://www.w3.org/Submission/WRL/
  2. 2.
    Brockmans, S., Haase, P.: A Metamodel and UML Profile for Rule-extended OWL DL Ontologies –A Complete Reference. Technical report, Universität Karlsruhe (March 2006), http://www.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/WBS/sbr/publications/owl-metamodeling.pdf
  3. 3.
    Brockmans, S., Volz, R., Eberhart, A., Loeffler, P.: Modeling of OWL DL Ontologies using UML. In: McIlraith, S.A., Plexousakis, D., van Harmelen, F. (eds.) ISWC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3298, pp. 198–213. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen, P.P.: The entity-relationship model – toward a unified view of data. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 1(1), 9–36 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fowler, M.: UML Distilled, 3rd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gaines, B.R.: An Interactive Visual Language for Term Subsumption Languages. In: Mylopoulos, J., Reiter, R. (eds.) Proc. of 12th Int. Joint Conf. on Art. Int., Sydney, Australia, August 1991, pp. 817–823. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1991)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grosof, B., Kifer, M., Martin, D.L.: Rules in the Semantic Web Services Language (SWSL): An overview for standardization directions. In: Proceedings of the W3C Workshop on Rule Languages for Interoperability, Washington, DC, USA, April 27-28 (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hart, L., Emery, P., Colomb, B., Raymond, K., Taraporewalla, S., Chang, D., Ye, Y., Elisa Kendall, M.D.: OWL full and UML 2.0 compared (March 2004), http://www.itee.uq.edu.au/~colomb/Papers/UML-OWLont04.03.01.pdf
  9. 9.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Boley, H., Tabet, S., Grosof, B., Dean, M.: SWRL: A Semantic Web Rule Language Combining OWL and RuleML. World Wide Web Consortium, W3C Member Submission (May 2004), http://www.w3.org/Submission/2004/SUBM-SWRL-20040521/
  10. 10.
    IBM, Sandpiper Software. Ontology Definition Metamodel, Fourth Revised Submission to OMG (November 2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    ISO/IEC. Topic Maps: Information Technology – Document Description and Markup Languages. ISO/IEC 13250 (December 1999), http://www.y12.doe.gov/sgml/sc34/document/0129.pdf
  12. 12.
    Kremer, R.: Visual Languages for Knowledge Representation. In: Proc. of 11th Workshop on Knowledge Acquisition, Modeling and Management (KAW 1998), Voyager Inn, Banff, Alberta, Canada. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1998)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Motik, B., Sattler, U., Studer, R.: Query answering for OWL-DL with rules. In: McIlraith, S.A., Plexousakis, D., van Harmelen, F. (eds.) ISWC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3298, pp. 549–563. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Object Management Group. Meta Object Facility (MOF) Specification. Technical report, Object Management Group (OMG) (April 2002), http://www.omg.org/docs/formal/02-04-03.pdf
  15. 15.
    Object Management Group. MOF 2.0 Query / Views / Transformations – Request for Proposal (2002), http://www.omg.org/docs/ad/02-04-10.pdf
  16. 16.
    Object Management Group. Ontology Definition Metamodel – Request For Proposal (March 2003), http://www.omg.org/docs/ontology/03-03-01.rtf
  17. 17.
    Patel-Schneider, P.F., Hayes, P., Horrocks, I.: OWL Web Ontology Language Semantics and Abstract Syntax. World Wide Web Consortium, Recommendation (February 10, 2004), http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-semantics-20040210/
  18. 18.
    Schnotz, W.: Wissenserwerb mit Texten, Bildern und Diagrammen. In: Issing, L.J., Klimsa, P. (eds.) Information und Lernen mit Multimedia und Internet, Belz, PVU, Weinheim (third, completely revised edition) pp. 65–81 (2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sowa, J.F.: Conceptual graphs summary. In: Eklund, P., Nagle, T., Nagle, J., Gerholz, L. (eds.) Conceptual Structures: Current Research and Practice, pp. 3–52. Ellis Horwood, New York (1992)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Accepted Papers of the W3C Workshop on Rule Languages for Interoperability, Washington, DC, USA, April 27-28 (2005), http://www.w3.org/2004/12/rules-ws/accepted
  21. 21.
    W3C. Rule interchange format working group charter (2005), http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/charter
  22. 22.
    Walker, A.: Understandability and semantic interoperability of diverse rules systems. In: Position Paper for the W3C Workshop on Rule Languages for Interoperability (April 2005), http://www.w3.org/2004/12/rules-ws/paper/19
  23. 23.
    Warmer, J., Kleppe, A.: Object Constraint Language 2.0. MITP Verlag (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Saartje Brockmans
    • 1
  • Peter Haase
    • 1
  • Pascal Hitzler
    • 1
  • Rudi Studer
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute AIFBUniversität KarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations