Representing Transitive Propagation in OWL

  • Julian Seidenberg
  • Alan Rector
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4215)


Transitive propagation along properties can be modelled in various ways in the OWL description logic. Doing so allows existing description logic reasoners based on the tableaux algorithm to make inferences based on such transitive constructs. This is espectially useful for medical knowledge bases, where such constructs are common.

This paper compares, contrasts and evaluates a variety of different methods for simulating transitive propagation: property subsumption, classic SEP triples and adapted SEP triples. These modelling techniques remove the need to extending the OWL language with additional operators in order to express the transitive propagation. Other approaches require an extended tableaux reasoner or first-order logic prover, as well as a modification of the OWL standard.

The adapted SEP triples methodology is ultimately recommended as the most reliable modelling technique.


Description Logic Transitive Property Logic Prover Property Hierarchy International World Wide 
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. Transitivity definition (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Winston, M., Chaffin, R., Herrmann, D.: A taxonomy of part-whole relations. In: Cognitive Science, vol. 11, pp. 417–444 (1987)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Odell, J.J.: Six different kinds of composition. Journal of Object-Oriented Programming 5(8), 10–15 (1994)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Smith, M.K., Welty, C., McGuinness, D.L.: OWL web ontology language guide. In: W3C Recommendation (February 10, 2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: A proposal for an OWL rules language. In: Proc. of the Thirteenth International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2004), ASCM, pp. 723–731 (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Bechhofer, S., Tsarkov, D.: OWL rules: A proposal and prototype implementation. Journal of Web Semantics 3(1), 23–40 (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Spackman, K.: Managing clinical terminology hierarchies using algorithmic calculation of subsumption: Experience with SNOMED-RT. In: Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, Fall Symposium (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rector, A.L., Bechhofer, S., Goble, C., Horrocks, I., Nowlan, W.A., Solomon, W.D.: The GRAIL concept modelling language for medical terminology. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine 9(2), 139–171 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rector, A.: Analysis of propagation along transitive roles: Formalisation of the GALEN experience with medical ontologies. In: DL 2002 (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Patel-Schneider, P.: The OWL 1.1 Extension to the W3C OWL Web Ontology Language (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Horrocks, I., Kutz, O., Sattler, U.: The Even More Irresistible SROIQ. Technical report, University of Manchester (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Horrocks, I., Sattler, U.: Decidability of SHIQ with complex role inclusion axioms. Artificial Intelligence 160(1–2), 79–104 (2004)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rector, A.L.: Normalisation of ontology implementations: Towards modularity, re-use, and maintainability. In: EKAW Workshop on Ontologies for Multiagent Systems (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dameron, O.: JOT: a Scripting Environment for Creating and Managing Ontologies. In: 7th International Protégé Conference (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schulz, S., Hahn, U., Romacher, M.: Part-Whole Reasoning in Medical Ontologies Revisited: Introducing Triplets into Classification-Based Description Logics. In: AMIA Annual Fall Symposium, Hanley & Belfus, pp. 830–834 (1998)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F., van Harmelen, F.: From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: The making of a web ontology language. Journal of Web Semantics 1, 7–26 (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tsarkov, D., Horrocks, I.: Reasoner prototype: Implementing new reasoner with datatypes support. WonderWeb Project Deliverable (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Haarslev, V., Möller, R.: RACER System Description. In: Goré, R.P., Leitsch, A., Nipkow, T. (eds.) IJCAR 2001. LNCS, vol. 2083, p. 701. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Parsia, B., Sirin, E.: Pellet: An OWL DL reasoner. In: ISWC 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lutz, C., Sattler, U., Tendera, L.: The complexity of finite model reasoning in description logics. In: Baader, F. (ed.) CADE 2003. LNCS, vol. 2741, pp. 60–74. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Horrocks, I., Rector, A.L., Goble, C.A.: A Description Logic Based Schema for the Classification of Medical Data. In: KRDB (1996)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Seidenberg, J., Rector, A.: Web ontology segmentation: Analysis, classification and use. In: 15th International World Wide Web Conference (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Drummond, N., Horridge, M., Wang, H., Rogers, J., Knublauch, H., Stevens, R., Wroe, C., Rector, A.: Designing User Interfaces to Minimise Common Errors in Ontology Development: the CO-ODE and HyOntUse Projects. In: Cox, S.J. (ed.) Proceedings of the UK e-Science All Hands Meeting (2004)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rogers, J., Rector, A.: GALEN’s model of parts and wholes: Experience and comparisons. In: Proceedings of AMIA Symposium, pp. 714–718 (2000)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Horrocks, I.: Optimisation techniques for expressive description logics. Technical Report UMCS-97-2-1, University of Manchester, Department of Computer Science (1997)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julian Seidenberg
    • 1
  • Alan Rector
    • 1
  1. 1.Medical Informatics GroupUniversity of ManchesterUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations