Composition of Rule Sets and Ontologies

  • Uwe Aßmann
  • Jendrik Johannes
  • Jakob Henriksson
  • Ilie Savga
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4126)


To master large rule sets in ontologies and other logic-based specifications, the ability to divide them into components plays an important role. While a naive approach treats the rule sets as black-box components and composes them via combinators, their relationships are usually so complicated that this approach fails to be useful in many scenarios. Instead, the components should be “opened” before composition. The paper presents several such “gray-box composition” techniques, namely fragment-based genericity and extension, inline template expansions, semantic macros, and mixin layers. All approaches help to structure large ontologies and rule-based specifications into fine-grained components, from which they can be built up flexibly.


Resource Description Framework Ontology Language Universal Genericity Large Ontology Legacy Ontology 
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.
    Analyti, A., Antoniou, G., Damásio, C.V., Wagner, G.: Stable model theory for extended rdf ontologies. In: Int. Semantic Web Conference, pp. 21–36 (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Antoniou, G.: Nonmonotonic rule systems using ontologies. In: Proc. Intl. Workshop on Rule Markup Languages for Business Rules on the Semantic Web (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aßmann, U.: Beyond generic component parameters. In: Bishop, J.M. (ed.) CD 2002. LNCS, vol. 2370, pp. 141–154. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aßmann, U.: Invasive Software Composition. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barry, S., Williams, J., Schulze-Kremer, S.: The ontology of the Gene Ontology. In: AMIA 2003 – Annual Symposium of the American Medical Informatics Association (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boag, S., Chamberlin, D., et al. (eds.): XQuery 1.0: An XML Query Language. W3C Candidate Recommendation (November 3, 2005), Available at:
  7. 7.
    Bracha, G.: The Programming Language Jigsaw: Mixins, Modularity and Multiple Inheritance. Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Utah (March 1992)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bracha, G., Cook, W.: Mixin-based inheritance. In: Meyrowitz, N. (ed.) Proceedings of OOPSLA ECOOP 1990. ACM SIGPLAN Notices, vol. 25(10), pp. 303–311. ACM Press, New York (1990)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bry, F., Schaffert, S.: The XML query language Xcerpt: Design principles, examples, and semantics. In: Chaudhri, A.B., Jeckle, M., Rahm, E., Unland, R. (eds.) NODe-WS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2593, pp. 295–310. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Castagna, G.: Covariance and contravariance: Conflict without a cause. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 17(3), 431–447 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chen, W., Kifer, M., Warren, D.S.: HiLog: A Foundation for Higher-Order Logic Programming. Journal of Logic Programming 15(3), 187–230 (1993)CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cole, M.: Algorithmic Skeletons: Structured Management of Parallel Computation. Monograms. MIT Press, Cambridge (1989)MATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brickley, D., Guha, R.V.: RDF Vocabulary Description Language 1.0: RDF Schema. W3C Recommendation (February 10, 2004), Available at:
  14. 14.
    Darlington, J., Guo, Y.-K., To, H.W., Yang, J.: Functional skeletons for parallel coordination. In: Haridi, S., Ali, K., Magnusson, P. (eds.) Euro-Par 1995. LNCS, vol. 966, p. 55. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    DeRemer, F., Kron, H.: Programming in the Large vs. Programming in the Small. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 2(2), 80–86 (1976)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    D’Souza, D.F., Wills, A.C.: Objects, Components and Frameworks with UML: The Catalysis Approach, 1st edn. Object Technology Series, ch. 6, p. 816. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1998)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Clark, J. (ed.): XSL Transformations (XSLT) Version 1.0. W3C Recommendation (November 16, 1999), Available at:
  18. 18.
    Eiter, T., Lukasiewicz, T., Schindlauer, R., Tompits, H.: Combining answer set programming with description logics for the semantic web. In: Proc. of the Int. Conference of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2004) (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., Vlissides, J.: Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1994)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Garlan, D.: Formal modeling and analysis of software architecture: Components, connectors, and events. In: Bernardo, M., Inverardi, P. (eds.) SFM 2003. LNCS, vol. 2804, pp. 1–24. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Garlan, D., Wang, Z.: Acme-based Software Architecture Interchange. In: Ciancarini, P., Wolf, A.L. (eds.) COORDINATION 1999. LNCS, vol. 1594, pp. 340–354. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Klyne, G., Carroll, J.J.: Resource Description Framework (RDF): Concepts and Abstract Syntax. W3C Recommendation (February 10, 2004), Available at:
  23. 23.
    Grosof, B., Horrocks, I., Volz, R., Decker, S.: Description logic programs: Combining logic programs with description logic. In: Proceedings of 12th Int. Conference on the World Wide Web (2003)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: A proposal for an OWL rules language. In: Proc. of the Thirteenth Int. World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2004), pp. 723–731. ACM, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Int. Organization for Standardization. Ada 95 Reference Manual. The Language. The Standard Libraries, ANSI/ISO/IEC-8652:1995 (January 1995)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Knudsen, J.L., Löfgren, M., Lehrmann Madsen, O., Magnusson, B.: Object-Oriented Environments—The Mjoelner Approach. Prentice Hall, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Maluszynski, J., et al.: Combining Rules and Ontologies. A survey. Technical report, REWERSE Deliverable (March 2005),
  28. 28.
    JavaSoft. Enterprise Java Beans (TM), Version 2.0 (April 2000)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kiczales, G., Lamping, J., Mendhekar, A., Maeda, C., Lopes, C., Loingtier, J.-M., Irwin, J.: Aspect-oriented programming. In: Aksit, M., Matsuoka, S. (eds.) ECOOP 1997. LNCS, vol. 1241, pp. 220–242. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kifer, M.: Rules and ontologies in F-logic. In: Eisinger, N., Małuszyński, J. (eds.) Reasoning Web. LNCS, vol. 3564, pp. 22–34. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Krishnamurthi, S., Felleisen, M., Duba, B.F.: From Macros to Reusable Generative Programming. In: Czarnecki, K., Eisenecker, U.W. (eds.) GCSE 1999. LNCS, vol. 1799, p. 105. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lämmel, R.: Functional Meta-Programs – Towards Reusability in the Declarative Paradigm. PhD thesis, Universität Rostock (1999)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lehrmann Madsen, O., Möller-Pedersen, B., Nygaard, K.: Object-Oriented Programming in the BETA Programming Language. Addison Wesley, Reading (1993)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mitra, P., Wiederhold, G.: An ontology-composition algebra. In: Staab, S., Studer, R. (eds.) Handbook on Ontologies, Int. Handbooks on Information Systems, pp. 93–116. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Moon, D.A.: Object-oriented programming with flavours. In: Proceedings of OOPSLA 1986. ACM SIGPLAN Notices, vol. 21(11), pp. 1–8. ACM Press, New York (1986)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Motik, B., Sattler, U., Studer, R.: Query Answering for OWL-DL with Rules. J. of Web Semantics 3, 41–60 (2005)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Parnas, D.L.: On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules. Communications of the ACM 15(12), 1053–1058 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Patel-Schneider, P.F., Hayes, P., Horrocks, I.: OWL web ontology language semantics and abstract syntax. W3C Recommendation (February 10, 2004), Available at:
  39. 39.
    Rector, A.L., Wroe, C., Rogers, J., Roberts, A.: Untangling taxonomies and relationships: personal and practical problems in loosely coupled development of large ontologies. In: K-CAP, pp. 139–146. ACM, New York (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rosati, R.: Semantic and computational advantages of the safe integration of ontologies and rules. In: Fages, F., Soliman, S. (eds.) PPSWR 2005. LNCS, vol. 3703, pp. 50–64. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sheard, T.: Using MetaML: A staged programming language. In: Swierstra, S.D., Oliveira, J.N. (eds.) AFP 1998. LNCS, vol. 1608, pp. 207–239. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Siegel, J.: OMG overview: CORBA and the OMA in enterprise computing. Communications of the ACM 41(10), 37–43 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Smaragdakis, Y., Batory, D.: Implementing layered designs with mixin layers. In: Jul, E. (ed.) ECOOP 1998. LNCS, vol. 1445, p. 550. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Smaragdakis, Y., Batory, D.: Mixin layers: an object-oriented implementation technique for refinements and collaboration-based designs. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 11(2), 215–255 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Smith, M.K., Welty, C., McGuinness, D.L.: OWL web ontology language guide. Technical report, W3C Recommendation (February 2004),
  46. 46.
    Szyperski, C.: Component Software: Beyond Object-Oriented Programming. Addison-Wesley, New York (1998)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Tarr, P., Ossher, H., Harrison, W., Sutton, S.: N degrees of separation: Multi-dimensional separation of concerns. In: Proceedings of ICSE 1999, Los Angeles CA, USA, pp. 107–119 (1999)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Tarr, P.L., Ossher, H.: Hyper/JTM: Multi-dimensional separation of concerns for javaTM. In: ICSE, pp. 729–730. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2001)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Tzitzikas, Y., Spyratos, N., Constantopoulos, P., Analyti, A.: Extended faceted ontologies. In: Pidduck, A.B., Mylopoulos, J., Woo, C.C., Ozsu, M.T. (eds.) CAiSE 2002. LNCS, vol. 2348, p. 778. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Uwe Aßmann
    • 1
  • Jendrik Johannes
    • 1
  • Jakob Henriksson
    • 1
  • Ilie Savga
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für Software- und MultimediatechologieTechnische Universität Dresden 

Personalised recommendations