In software engineering, the notion of unit testing was successfully introduced and applied. Unit tests are easy manageable tests for small parts of a program – single units. They proved especially useful to capture unwanted changes and side effects during the maintenance of a program, and they grow with the evolution of the program.

Ontologies behave quite differently than program units. As there is no information hiding in ontology engineering, and thus no black box components, at first the idea of unit testing for ontologies seems not applicable. In this paper we motivate the need for unit testing, describe the adaptation to the unit testing approach, and give use cases and examples.


Software Engineering Description Logic Unit Testing Integrity Constraint Ontology Evolution 
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.
    Beck, K.: Simple Smalltalk testing: With patterns, http://www.xprogramming.com/testfram.htm
  2. 2.
    Benjamins, V., Casanovas, P., Contreras, J., Cobo, J.L., Lemus, L.: Iuriservice: An intelligent frequently asked questions system to assist newly appointed judges. In: Benjamins, V.R., Casanovas, P., Breuker, J., Gangemi, A. (eds.) Law and the Semantic Web. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3369, pp. 201–217. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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
  4. 4.
    Casanovas, P., Casellas, N., Poblet, M., Vallbé, J., Sure, Y., Vrandečić, D.: Iuriservice ii ontology development. In: Casanovas, P. (ed.) Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Law at the XXIII. World Conference of Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy (May 2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Donini, F.M., Nardi, D., Rosati, R.: Description logics of minimal knowledge and negation as failure. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 3(2), 177–225 (2002)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fernández-López, M., Gómez-Pérez, A., Sierra, J.P., Sierra, A.P.: Building a chemical ontology using Methontology and the Ontology Design Environment. IEEE Intelligent Systems 14(1) (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grimm, S., Motik, B.: Closed world reasoning in the semantic web through epistemic operators. In: Grau, B.C., Horrocks, I., Parsia, B., Patel-Schneider, P. (eds.) OWL: Experiences and Directions, Galway, Ireland (November 2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grosof, B., Horrocks, I., Volz, R., Decker, S.: Description Logic Programs: Combining Logic Programs with Description Logic. In: Proceedings of the Twelfth International World Wide Web Conference, WWW2003, Budapest, Hungary, May 20-24, pp. 48–57. ACM, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haase, P., Stojanovic, L.: Consistent evolution of OWL ontologies. In: Gómez-Pérez, A., Euzenat, J. (eds.) ESWC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3532, pp. 182–197. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haase, P., van Harmelen, F., Huang, Z., Stuckenschmidt, H., Sure, Y.: A framework for handling inconsistency in changing ontologies. In: Gil, Y., Motta, E., Benjamins, V.R., Musen, M.A. (eds.) ISWC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3729, pp. 353–367. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P., Boley, H., Tabet, S., Grosof, B., Dean, M.: SWRL: a semantic web rule language combining OWL and RuleML (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lam, S.J., Sleeman, D., Vasconcelos, W.: Retax++: a tool for browsing and revising ontologies. In: Gil, Y., Motta, E., Benjamins, V.R., Musen, M.A. (eds.) ISWC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3729. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Motik, B.: On the properties of metamodeling in OWL. In: Gil, Y., Motta, E., Benjamins, V.R., Musen, M.A. (eds.) ISWC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3729, pp. 548–562. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Parsia, B., Sirin, E., Kalyanpur, A.: Debugging OWL ontologies. In: Proc. of the 14th World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2005), Chiba, Japan (May 2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Smith, M.K., Welty, C., McGuinness, D.: OWL Web Ontology Language Guide (2004), W3C Rec. (February 10, 2004), avail. at: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/
  16. 16.
    Stojanovic, L.: Methods and Tools for Ontology Evolution. PhD thesis, University of Karlsruhe (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sure, Y., Studer, R.: On-To-Knowledge methodology. In: Davies, J., Fensel, D., van Harmelen, F. (eds.) On-To-Knowledge: Semantic Web enabled Knowledge Management, ch. 3, pp. 33–46. J. Wiley and Sons, Chichester (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Denny Vrandečić
    • 1
  • Aldo Gangemi
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute AIFBUniversity of KarlsruheGermany
  2. 2.LOA Laboratory of Applied OntologyRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations